Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

"Banning Telegram won't stop paper leaks. Fixing the system will." Tehseen Poonawalla mocks Dharmendra Pradhan's NEET Leak Fix. Argues that India needs AI, biometrics, blockchain-based security and stronger regulatory powers - not symbolic bans on messaging apps. He also explains why Parliament, not street protests, is where lasting reforms... show more

The Times Of India

13,935,943 subscribers

19,171 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологии Образование Новости и политика

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Should Dharmendra Pradhan have resigned - or been sacked? In this explosive exchange, Anand Ranganathan argues that the NEET controversy is not just about morality but accountability. He questions why key recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Committee, headed by former ISRO chief K. Radhakrishnan, were allegedly left unimplemented despite repeated exam leak concerns. Anand Ranganathan Aditi Prasad Watch the full interaction here: #NEET #DharmendraPradhan #AnandRanganathan #Education #ExamLeaks #Scrutiny #Politics

Should Dharmendra Pradhan have resigned - or been sacked? In this explosive exchange, Anand Ranganathan argues that the NEET controversy is not just about morality but accountability. He questions why key recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Committee, headed by former ISRO chief K. Radhakrishnan, were allegedly left unimplemented despite repeated exam leak concerns. Anand Ranganathan Aditi Prasad Watch the full interaction here: #NEET #DharmendraPradhan #AnandRanganathan #Education #ExamLeaks #Scrutiny #Politics

The Times Of India

56,345 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

India's E20 Strategy Needs Rethinking': Why Is Anand Ranganathan Angry Over Ethanol Blended Fuel Push "3,000 litres of water for 1 litre of ethanol!" Anand Ranganathan decodes what's behind the E20 storm that has gripped the nation. He questions whether India's ethanol strategy is worth the environmental cost and explains why fixing roads and accelerating EV adoption may save more fuel than E20 blending. Watch the full episode of Scrutiny with Anand Ranganathan here #AnandRanganathan #Ethanol #India #WaterCrisis #EVs #EnergySecurity Anand Ranganathan Aditi Prasad

India's E20 Strategy Needs Rethinking': Why Is Anand Ranganathan Angry Over Ethanol Blended Fuel Push "3,000 litres of water for 1 litre of ethanol!" Anand Ranganathan decodes what's behind the E20 storm that has gripped the nation. He questions whether India's ethanol strategy is worth the environmental cost and explains why fixing roads and accelerating EV adoption may save more fuel than E20 blending. Watch the full episode of Scrutiny with Anand Ranganathan here #AnandRanganathan #Ethanol #India #WaterCrisis #EVs #EnergySecurity Anand Ranganathan Aditi Prasad

The Times Of India

81,199 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Rahul Gandhi’s ‘tapori’ politics won’t impress Gen Z, says Anand Ranganathan Lashing Rahul Gandhi's Modi-Meloni jibe, Anand Ranganathan takes aim at his street-style political rhetoric, arguing that Gen Z may not appreciate being spoken to in “tapori” language. He also questions whether this style of politics is helping the Congress - or inadvertently giving Narendra Modi and the BJP an advantage. Is India missing a more effective, responsible opposition? Watch the full conversation on Scrutiny here Aditi Prasad Anand Ranganathan #RahulGandhi #AnandRanganathan #GenZ #Congress #NarendraModi #Scrutiny #IndianPolitics

Rahul Gandhi’s ‘tapori’ politics won’t impress Gen Z, says Anand Ranganathan Lashing Rahul Gandhi's Modi-Meloni jibe, Anand Ranganathan takes aim at his street-style political rhetoric, arguing that Gen Z may not appreciate being spoken to in “tapori” language. He also questions whether this style of politics is helping the Congress - or inadvertently giving Narendra Modi and the BJP an advantage. Is India missing a more effective, responsible opposition? Watch the full conversation on Scrutiny here Aditi Prasad Anand Ranganathan #RahulGandhi #AnandRanganathan #GenZ #Congress #NarendraModi #Scrutiny #IndianPolitics

The Times Of India

38,691 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

#WATCH | Gurugram, Haryana: Activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo, says, "At midnight, we got written confirmation from govt of acceptance of our demand for no FIR against student protestors, compensation for NEET victims and discussion on educational reforms in Parliament. JP Nadda ji and Jitendra Singh from the government had come here yesterday. Before that, 16 MPs visited here, and 65 MPs from the Opposition have given written assurance that this issue will be discussed in Parliament. The govt and the Opposition have decided that discussion on education reforms will take place in this Monsoon session. This has awakened the whole nation. NEET paper leak was the symptom, but the causes are present in the system. We hope that this will be a wake-up call for the government. It has been a successful movement, and this is why Sonam ended his fast. From tomorrow, he will graduate to a semi-solid diet."

#WATCH | Gurugram, Haryana: Activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo, says, "At midnight, we got written confirmation from govt of acceptance of our demand for no FIR against student protestors, compensation for NEET victims and discussion on educational reforms in Parliament. JP Nadda ji and Jitendra Singh from the government had come here yesterday. Before that, 16 MPs visited here, and 65 MPs from the Opposition have given written assurance that this issue will be discussed in Parliament. The govt and the Opposition have decided that discussion on education reforms will take place in this Monsoon session. This has awakened the whole nation. NEET paper leak was the symptom, but the causes are present in the system. We hope that this will be a wake-up call for the government. It has been a successful movement, and this is why Sonam ended his fast. From tomorrow, he will graduate to a semi-solid diet."

ANI

107,765 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

VIDEO | Delhi: On PM Modi's X post, Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) national spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka says, "The first thing is that it is good that after one and a half months of protests, the Prime Minister has finally taken notice. Perhaps his foreign visits are over and he has returned to India, which is a good thing. But what punishment are you imposing after the paper leak has already taken place? That is not going to solve the problem of paper leaks. The real question is why paper leaks are happening in the first place. That question must be answered... Applying ointment after an injury is one thing, but the real fight is about preventing the injury from happening in the first place. The injury keeps happening because the people running the system are neither accountable nor competent. Therefore, these measures are not sufficient by any means. We will not leave this place until Dharmendra Pradhan resigns." (Full video available on PTI Videos -

VIDEO | Delhi: On PM Modi's X post, Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) national spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka says, "The first thing is that it is good that after one and a half months of protests, the Prime Minister has finally taken notice. Perhaps his foreign visits are over and he has returned to India, which is a good thing. But what punishment are you imposing after the paper leak has already taken place? That is not going to solve the problem of paper leaks. The real question is why paper leaks are happening in the first place. That question must be answered... Applying ointment after an injury is one thing, but the real fight is about preventing the injury from happening in the first place. The injury keeps happening because the people running the system are neither accountable nor competent. Therefore, these measures are not sufficient by any means. We will not leave this place until Dharmendra Pradhan resigns." (Full video available on PTI Videos -

Press Trust of India

57,577 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Delhi | At the Gandhi Smriti, Congress MP P Chidambaram says, "What are they afraid of? We are MPs. We are not armed. We are not violent. We want to visit Gandhi Smriti, where Gandhiji was shot. This is a sacred place. We are coming here to pay homage. Why are there so many policemen? Why are there hundreds and thousands of policemen? What are they afraid of? We were in the bus for almost 30 minutes. Why? I think you should ask them: what is this sense of panic that seems to have gripped the entire government?... This protest will continue until the demands are met. The first demand is that Mr Dharmendra Pradhan, the Education Minister, must resign, and that there must be a full-scale debate on NEET and other issues...Whether the Prime Minister asks for his resignation or not, he (Dharmendra Pradhan) should voluntarily step down. He should voluntarily offer to step down. That will help diffuse the situation"

#WATCH | Delhi | At the Gandhi Smriti, Congress MP P Chidambaram says, "What are they afraid of? We are MPs. We are not armed. We are not violent. We want to visit Gandhi Smriti, where Gandhiji was shot. This is a sacred place. We are coming here to pay homage. Why are there so many policemen? Why are there hundreds and thousands of policemen? What are they afraid of? We were in the bus for almost 30 minutes. Why? I think you should ask them: what is this sense of panic that seems to have gripped the entire government?... This protest will continue until the demands are met. The first demand is that Mr Dharmendra Pradhan, the Education Minister, must resign, and that there must be a full-scale debate on NEET and other issues...Whether the Prime Minister asks for his resignation or not, he (Dharmendra Pradhan) should voluntarily step down. He should voluntarily offer to step down. That will help diffuse the situation"

ANI

53,648 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

We have launched a nationwide campaign (Chhatron Ki Goonj) on the crisis in India's education system. As part of this campaign, Leader of Opposition Shri Rahul Gandhi ji has already interacted with students in Kota and will soon address students in Patna and Prayagraj, culminating in a major rally in Delhi in mid-July. Shri Rahul Gandhi is not just raising the issues surrounding NEET and CBSE examinations, he is raising the fundamental issue of education in India and the urgent need for greater public investment in the sector. Today, families across the country are spending more on coaching centres than the Central Government spends on education. This reflects a fundamental mismatch in our education system, where coaching centres have become indispensable for success. We must build an education system that is fair, accessible, and capable of nurturing the aspirations of every young Indian. 👉Why are coaching centres so popular in this country? 👉Why is medical education so expensive in this country? 👉Why is everything getting privatized? Those are the questions that he raised in Kota, and I think those are the questions that we have to raise in Parliament and outside. : Congress General Secretary (Communications) Shri Jairam Ramesh

We have launched a nationwide campaign (Chhatron Ki Goonj) on the crisis in India's education system. As part of this campaign, Leader of Opposition Shri Rahul Gandhi ji has already interacted with students in Kota and will soon address students in Patna and Prayagraj, culminating in a major rally in Delhi in mid-July. Shri Rahul Gandhi is not just raising the issues surrounding NEET and CBSE examinations, he is raising the fundamental issue of education in India and the urgent need for greater public investment in the sector. Today, families across the country are spending more on coaching centres than the Central Government spends on education. This reflects a fundamental mismatch in our education system, where coaching centres have become indispensable for success. We must build an education system that is fair, accessible, and capable of nurturing the aspirations of every young Indian. 👉Why are coaching centres so popular in this country? 👉Why is medical education so expensive in this country? 👉Why is everything getting privatized? Those are the questions that he raised in Kota, and I think those are the questions that we have to raise in Parliament and outside. : Congress General Secretary (Communications) Shri Jairam Ramesh

Congress

29,536 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

NEET CANCELLED: A Global Power That Cannot Hold A Fair Exam. In this "RAW DISPATCH FROM MY DESK" i reflect on Twenty-three lakh students or 2.3 million students who will not sleep well tonight in one of the world’s fastest rising powers. Why? Because the government finds it difficult to ensure the integrity of an exam that will decide the course of their lives. Yes, for all its pretensions of being a world power, India cannot hold an exam without the fear of a question paper leak. The NEET exam for 2026 now stands cancelled and the students will be re-tested, re-traumatised. All it took was a paltry sum of Rs 5 lakhs to ensure that cheats got hold of the paper or at least large sections of it that reportedly matched the actual NEET paper “word for word, comma for comma”. The NEET ecosystem has repeatedly faced allegations of leaks, malpractice and compromised integrity over the past decade. Investigators claim that the paper was circulating days before the exam in WhatsApp groups as a “guess paper”. The question is how did a paper allegedly copied at a printing press in Nashik travel across multiple states including Maharashtra, Haryana, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar and Kerala without the NTA detecting a single breach? And if the paper is so easily accessed every so often, isn’t it evident that organised rackets have penetrated India’s examination ecosystem under the NTA’s watch? What is surprising is that not one top NTA official has offered to hold him or herself to account. Not one has offered to step down voluntarily. In fact, when the question was repeatedly asked of Abhishek Singh, the DG of the NTA , he was evasive. The point is a simple one: given the scale of its repeated failures, does the NTA understand that every leak destroys not just an exam, but public faith in the idea of fair competition itself? The Modi government prides itself on ensuring that every ordinary Indian gets a level playing field. It must now ask itself whether it is living up to that commitment made to the people.

NEET CANCELLED: A Global Power That Cannot Hold A Fair Exam. In this "RAW DISPATCH FROM MY DESK" i reflect on Twenty-three lakh students or 2.3 million students who will not sleep well tonight in one of the world’s fastest rising powers. Why? Because the government finds it difficult to ensure the integrity of an exam that will decide the course of their lives. Yes, for all its pretensions of being a world power, India cannot hold an exam without the fear of a question paper leak. The NEET exam for 2026 now stands cancelled and the students will be re-tested, re-traumatised. All it took was a paltry sum of Rs 5 lakhs to ensure that cheats got hold of the paper or at least large sections of it that reportedly matched the actual NEET paper “word for word, comma for comma”. The NEET ecosystem has repeatedly faced allegations of leaks, malpractice and compromised integrity over the past decade. Investigators claim that the paper was circulating days before the exam in WhatsApp groups as a “guess paper”. The question is how did a paper allegedly copied at a printing press in Nashik travel across multiple states including Maharashtra, Haryana, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar and Kerala without the NTA detecting a single breach? And if the paper is so easily accessed every so often, isn’t it evident that organised rackets have penetrated India’s examination ecosystem under the NTA’s watch? What is surprising is that not one top NTA official has offered to hold him or herself to account. Not one has offered to step down voluntarily. In fact, when the question was repeatedly asked of Abhishek Singh, the DG of the NTA , he was evasive. The point is a simple one: given the scale of its repeated failures, does the NTA understand that every leak destroys not just an exam, but public faith in the idea of fair competition itself? The Modi government prides itself on ensuring that every ordinary Indian gets a level playing field. It must now ask itself whether it is living up to that commitment made to the people.

Rahul Shivshankar

16,250 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Activist Sonam Wangchuk says, "Today, on the 26th day, I would like to share some important news with you. It's about 12:30 at night. Just a while ago, Union Ministers JP Nadda and Jitendra Singh came here, and the top leaders of the Apex Body of Ladakh also came here. Before that, you know, about 65 MPs from various political parties came and signed, asking us to break our fast. They assured us that they would discuss this issue in Parliament, including the NEET paper leak and the examination system. The ministers who came from the government also assured us that for the past two days, we had been very tough. What can I say, there was a kind of bargaining going on: I want assurances, and they want them in writing. This took two days, and that's why I had to sit on the fast for two more days. I could have sat on it even longer, but finally, today they have given me written assurances..." He adds, "Today they have given written assurances. Our students and youth who are peacefully protesting at Jantar Mantar or those who participated in the 'Sansad Chalo' march on July 20th, no legal action, FIRs, etc. will be taken against them... Secondly, the children who died in this paper leak accident, more than 20 in number, will be given appropriate compensation; compensation will be provided to their families. Thirdly, there will be a thorough discussion and debate in Parliament on this issue and on bringing accountability to the government in education and examinations, to ensure that this does not happen again and that there is full accountability for what has happened. Now you will definitely ask what happened to Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation. Firstly, they were unable to give me any assurance as to when this would happen... Now I had two options: either I go on a hunger strike for more weeks, and perhaps that would lead to the end of me. Then thousands of you have been telling me since 2-3 weeks ago that my life is important, and to continue the struggle, I have to stay alive... But I also don't believe that we haven't achieved this. My mind works differently. If he (Dharmendra Pradhan) doesn't do this, doesn't resign, it won't harm the children or us; it will harm the government itself. By not avoiding this small issue, he is harming himself. He should have resigned. Resignation would have stopped all this damage long ago. This wasn't the most important thing for me; it would be resolved on its own. More important to me than any other way was that our children should not be implicated in such cases... I have seen how in Ladakh, for years, FIRs have ruined kids' futures. Nothing like this will happen. We have achieved this from them; I am happy about that, and the families of the deceased children will be given proper compensation. In the highest temple of India's democracy, which is our Parliament, there will be a full debate on this issue and on accountability. I also thank you all very much for supporting this movement." (Source: Sonam Wangchuk/YouTube)

#WATCH | Activist Sonam Wangchuk says, "Today, on the 26th day, I would like to share some important news with you. It's about 12:30 at night. Just a while ago, Union Ministers JP Nadda and Jitendra Singh came here, and the top leaders of the Apex Body of Ladakh also came here. Before that, you know, about 65 MPs from various political parties came and signed, asking us to break our fast. They assured us that they would discuss this issue in Parliament, including the NEET paper leak and the examination system. The ministers who came from the government also assured us that for the past two days, we had been very tough. What can I say, there was a kind of bargaining going on: I want assurances, and they want them in writing. This took two days, and that's why I had to sit on the fast for two more days. I could have sat on it even longer, but finally, today they have given me written assurances..." He adds, "Today they have given written assurances. Our students and youth who are peacefully protesting at Jantar Mantar or those who participated in the 'Sansad Chalo' march on July 20th, no legal action, FIRs, etc. will be taken against them... Secondly, the children who died in this paper leak accident, more than 20 in number, will be given appropriate compensation; compensation will be provided to their families. Thirdly, there will be a thorough discussion and debate in Parliament on this issue and on bringing accountability to the government in education and examinations, to ensure that this does not happen again and that there is full accountability for what has happened. Now you will definitely ask what happened to Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation. Firstly, they were unable to give me any assurance as to when this would happen... Now I had two options: either I go on a hunger strike for more weeks, and perhaps that would lead to the end of me. Then thousands of you have been telling me since 2-3 weeks ago that my life is important, and to continue the struggle, I have to stay alive... But I also don't believe that we haven't achieved this. My mind works differently. If he (Dharmendra Pradhan) doesn't do this, doesn't resign, it won't harm the children or us; it will harm the government itself. By not avoiding this small issue, he is harming himself. He should have resigned. Resignation would have stopped all this damage long ago. This wasn't the most important thing for me; it would be resolved on its own. More important to me than any other way was that our children should not be implicated in such cases... I have seen how in Ladakh, for years, FIRs have ruined kids' futures. Nothing like this will happen. We have achieved this from them; I am happy about that, and the families of the deceased children will be given proper compensation. In the highest temple of India's democracy, which is our Parliament, there will be a full debate on this issue and on accountability. I also thank you all very much for supporting this movement." (Source: Sonam Wangchuk/YouTube)

ANI

98,009 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Former Delhi CM and AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal says, "Exam papers are being leaked constantly, day after day. There are irregularities in the papers and flaws in the evaluation process... When the NEET paper leaked, 20 students committed suicide, yet the government took no measures to assure anyone that leaks wouldn't recur. Further leaks followed the NEET incident, and the CBSE evaluation system was compromised, yet no action was taken against the company involved. It appears the government is consumed by arrogance. I want to tell the government: either listen to the voice of the youth, or these very young people will throw you out of power in 2029... I urge the Prime Minister and the country's 1.4 billion citizens to desire that Sonam Wangchuk be appointed as the Education Minister in his place." He adds, "I know the Prime Minister won't do this; he would fear that Sonam Wangchuk might take revolutionary steps... I want to tell them again: do not be so arrogant. The government that preceded yours was also incredibly arrogant. There is an English saying: 'History repeats itself.' It was right here at Jantar Mantar on April 4, 2011, when Anna Hazare sat here. Three years later, the government of that time was voted out. Three years from now, your government will be voted out if you do not listen to the voice of the youth."

#WATCH | Former Delhi CM and AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal says, "Exam papers are being leaked constantly, day after day. There are irregularities in the papers and flaws in the evaluation process... When the NEET paper leaked, 20 students committed suicide, yet the government took no measures to assure anyone that leaks wouldn't recur. Further leaks followed the NEET incident, and the CBSE evaluation system was compromised, yet no action was taken against the company involved. It appears the government is consumed by arrogance. I want to tell the government: either listen to the voice of the youth, or these very young people will throw you out of power in 2029... I urge the Prime Minister and the country's 1.4 billion citizens to desire that Sonam Wangchuk be appointed as the Education Minister in his place." He adds, "I know the Prime Minister won't do this; he would fear that Sonam Wangchuk might take revolutionary steps... I want to tell them again: do not be so arrogant. The government that preceded yours was also incredibly arrogant. There is an English saying: 'History repeats itself.' It was right here at Jantar Mantar on April 4, 2011, when Anna Hazare sat here. Three years later, the government of that time was voted out. Three years from now, your government will be voted out if you do not listen to the voice of the youth."

ANI

57,329 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Delhi: On meeting Rahul Gandhi during over Congress's protest at Lok Kalyan Marg, Union Minister Jitendra Singh says, "It was learned that Congress Party National President Mallikarjun Kharge and other senior leaders like Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi and other had suddenly started a protest. It was also reported that the place was not very conducive to a sit-in protest. It was causing significant inconvenience to the public. The government decided that I, along with the Union Home Secretary, would go to the site and meet with these senior leaders. We went with the idea that we would politely present our point of view and argue that a discussion with the government would be better. However, upon arriving, Rahul Gandhi urged us that if the government agreed to a discussion in Parliament on NEET and related education issues, he would immediately end the protest. I asked him this question not once but two or three times... Discussions were held with the top leadership of the government, and we were told to assure them on behalf of the government that the government has no objection. The government is ready to discuss NEET in Parliament, both related issues and the ongoing protests. When we raised this issue with Rahul Gandhi, he said, "I also want the Education Minister to resign." We replied, "when you were repeatedly asked what you demanded, you said that if you were assured that the government would allow the Congress Party to discuss the matter in Parliament, or that you were willing to do so, I would immediately end this protest. But now you are going back on your word." He replied, "Sir, this is my wish. My demands have changed." We replied, "This is not fair, you are changing the goalpost." He replied, "This is my wish." We then politely explained to him that it is unbecoming of a senior leader like you, who is also the Leader of the Opposition, to go back on your word in a matter of moments. When the government is saying it's ready for a discussion in Parliament, not just on this issue but on all other related topics, he said, "No, sir, we'll sit here. You can take us away." We said, "I came to discuss this with you. I didn't intend to take you away, very politely. I just came to make this request. But it seems you're not in the mood to find a solution through the media." He said, "You can draw your own conclusions. I'll do what I want..." It's very unfortunate that the LoP behaves this way, changing his stance so quickly. This means he's in a mood of conflict. He doesn't want to cooperate with the government to discuss or advance public interest issues. They've come with the intention of confrontation, conflict, and finding an issue... And as far as the government is concerned, you remember the Prime Minister made it very clear today that strict action will be taken against those responsible for the NEET exam and paper leaks, and is already being taken. Many people have also been detained. This is an issue that has affected almost every state in the country, and we will not allow or tolerate injustice against our children. Despite this, if the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition are unwilling to cooperate, I'm sure the people of the country are watching."

#WATCH | Delhi: On meeting Rahul Gandhi during over Congress's protest at Lok Kalyan Marg, Union Minister Jitendra Singh says, "It was learned that Congress Party National President Mallikarjun Kharge and other senior leaders like Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi and other had suddenly started a protest. It was also reported that the place was not very conducive to a sit-in protest. It was causing significant inconvenience to the public. The government decided that I, along with the Union Home Secretary, would go to the site and meet with these senior leaders. We went with the idea that we would politely present our point of view and argue that a discussion with the government would be better. However, upon arriving, Rahul Gandhi urged us that if the government agreed to a discussion in Parliament on NEET and related education issues, he would immediately end the protest. I asked him this question not once but two or three times... Discussions were held with the top leadership of the government, and we were told to assure them on behalf of the government that the government has no objection. The government is ready to discuss NEET in Parliament, both related issues and the ongoing protests. When we raised this issue with Rahul Gandhi, he said, "I also want the Education Minister to resign." We replied, "when you were repeatedly asked what you demanded, you said that if you were assured that the government would allow the Congress Party to discuss the matter in Parliament, or that you were willing to do so, I would immediately end this protest. But now you are going back on your word." He replied, "Sir, this is my wish. My demands have changed." We replied, "This is not fair, you are changing the goalpost." He replied, "This is my wish." We then politely explained to him that it is unbecoming of a senior leader like you, who is also the Leader of the Opposition, to go back on your word in a matter of moments. When the government is saying it's ready for a discussion in Parliament, not just on this issue but on all other related topics, he said, "No, sir, we'll sit here. You can take us away." We said, "I came to discuss this with you. I didn't intend to take you away, very politely. I just came to make this request. But it seems you're not in the mood to find a solution through the media." He said, "You can draw your own conclusions. I'll do what I want..." It's very unfortunate that the LoP behaves this way, changing his stance so quickly. This means he's in a mood of conflict. He doesn't want to cooperate with the government to discuss or advance public interest issues. They've come with the intention of confrontation, conflict, and finding an issue... And as far as the government is concerned, you remember the Prime Minister made it very clear today that strict action will be taken against those responsible for the NEET exam and paper leaks, and is already being taken. Many people have also been detained. This is an issue that has affected almost every state in the country, and we will not allow or tolerate injustice against our children. Despite this, if the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition are unwilling to cooperate, I'm sure the people of the country are watching."

ANI

66,699 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

JD Vance just admitted the White House plan is to take ownership of every major AI company in America. Steven Bartlett brought up Bernie Sanders' proposal that workers should own 50% of the major AI companies. Vance's response: "The president by the way likes that idea too. He likes that idea." Trump's preferred mechanism, Vance said, is a sovereign wealth fund where the US government takes equity stakes in private AI companies. The Vice President literally just confirmed that an administration is planning the most radical economic policy proposed in modern American history. Partial nationalization of the MOST valuable private companies on earth. And the idea originally came from Bernie Sanders, who Vance said Trump agrees with on this point. This is not a small thing: The US has spent 80 years selling the world on the model where private companies stay private and the government stays off the cap table. The countries that did the opposite, with sovereign wealth funds owning slices of their biggest firms, are Norway, Saudi Arabia, China, and Singapore. And the Trump administration told you on a podcast it wants to do the same to Silicon Valley. But the reasoning Vance gave for it is where it gets really interesting... He said the historical analogy that scares him is the original Industrial Revolution. His own words: "Rich people got way richer. And that led to in Europe fascism and communism." He believes AI will not cause mass unemployment but mass inequality, and that mass inequality is what breaks societies. His fix is that workers need a seat at the bargaining table before the wealth gets created, not a redistribution check after. "I think labor unions are a very important model here." And the other thing about AI that scares him is surveillance. His exact phrase was that AI is "fundamentally a communist technology" because it lets governments and corporations watch and score people in ways NOTHING else can. He said he doesn't want a social credit system, doesn't want a tech CEO deciding whether you can buy a beer based on an algorithm nobody understands, and is afraid of exactly that outcome. So here is the full picture: The sitting Republican administration believes AI will make the rich dramatically richer, that this will radicalize the country the way the Industrial Revolution radicalized Europe, that the answer is government equity stakes plus stronger labor unions, and that the second-biggest threat is the surveillance state these companies are building. That is not a Republican worldview. That is not even a Democratic worldview. This is a worldview that has no political home in the United States right now. Most people are still arguing about whether ChatGPT will take their jobs. But the people with the actual power are already past that argument. They are quietly designing the framework for owning the companies that will. The craziest part is how casually Vance dropped it as a sidenote on a podcast millions will half-listen to in the background. If you have money in OpenAI, Anthropic, or anything like that, you should be watching the full thing yourself. What do you think?

JD Vance just admitted the White House plan is to take ownership of every major AI company in America. Steven Bartlett brought up Bernie Sanders' proposal that workers should own 50% of the major AI companies. Vance's response: "The president by the way likes that idea too. He likes that idea." Trump's preferred mechanism, Vance said, is a sovereign wealth fund where the US government takes equity stakes in private AI companies. The Vice President literally just confirmed that an administration is planning the most radical economic policy proposed in modern American history. Partial nationalization of the MOST valuable private companies on earth. And the idea originally came from Bernie Sanders, who Vance said Trump agrees with on this point. This is not a small thing: The US has spent 80 years selling the world on the model where private companies stay private and the government stays off the cap table. The countries that did the opposite, with sovereign wealth funds owning slices of their biggest firms, are Norway, Saudi Arabia, China, and Singapore. And the Trump administration told you on a podcast it wants to do the same to Silicon Valley. But the reasoning Vance gave for it is where it gets really interesting... He said the historical analogy that scares him is the original Industrial Revolution. His own words: "Rich people got way richer. And that led to in Europe fascism and communism." He believes AI will not cause mass unemployment but mass inequality, and that mass inequality is what breaks societies. His fix is that workers need a seat at the bargaining table before the wealth gets created, not a redistribution check after. "I think labor unions are a very important model here." And the other thing about AI that scares him is surveillance. His exact phrase was that AI is "fundamentally a communist technology" because it lets governments and corporations watch and score people in ways NOTHING else can. He said he doesn't want a social credit system, doesn't want a tech CEO deciding whether you can buy a beer based on an algorithm nobody understands, and is afraid of exactly that outcome. So here is the full picture: The sitting Republican administration believes AI will make the rich dramatically richer, that this will radicalize the country the way the Industrial Revolution radicalized Europe, that the answer is government equity stakes plus stronger labor unions, and that the second-biggest threat is the surveillance state these companies are building. That is not a Republican worldview. That is not even a Democratic worldview. This is a worldview that has no political home in the United States right now. Most people are still arguing about whether ChatGPT will take their jobs. But the people with the actual power are already past that argument. They are quietly designing the framework for owning the companies that will. The craziest part is how casually Vance dropped it as a sidenote on a podcast millions will half-listen to in the background. If you have money in OpenAI, Anthropic, or anything like that, you should be watching the full thing yourself. What do you think?

Ricardo

504,568 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

LLM Defender Synapsec Subnet 14 powered by $TAO on Bittensor is tackling some seriously critical issues in AI security 🛡. The risks of prompt injection attacks, data leaks, malware - this stuff is no joke. If left unchecked, it could really fu¢k up the progress and potential of AI. But that's where @SYNAPSEC_AI and their badass team come in. They're not just building another firewall; they're pioneering a whole new approach to AI security. By leveraging the decentralized intelligence of the Bittensor network, they're creating a multi-layered, adaptive defense system that can evolve as fast as the threats do. The fact that they're focussing on prompt injection attacks first shows they've got their priorities straight. As the article explains, these attacks can trick AI into doing all sorts of shady shit, from leaking sensitive data to straight up breaking the law. It's a hacker's wet dream 💦 come true if we don't put a stop to it. Here's how Synapsec can tackle prompt injection threats in AI systems: 1. Protection Importance: As companies increasingly use LLMs, Synapsec will prioritize protecting client data from prompt injection attacks that risk exposing sensitive information. 2. Direct Prompt Injection: Synapsec will implement strict input validations to prevent malicious prompt injections that could manipulate the AI system. 3. Indirect and Stored Prompt Injection: Synapsec will sanitize external data sources to ensure security and prevent indirect prompt injections. 4. Prompt Leaking Attacks: Techniques like shortening user prompts and adding system-controlled information will be used to avoid leakage of internal prompt details. 5. Continuous Improvement: Synapsec will continually enhance their security practices to address evolving prompt injection threats, ensuring protection for client systems. The security of client AI applications as LLM adoption grows will be a massive industry. But Synapsec is coming out swinging with their analyzer engines and Bug Bounty program. They're not just waiting for attacks to happen; they're proactively hunting down vulnerabilities and bringing in the best minds in cybersecurity to fortify their defenses. The beauty of it all is that it's powered by $TAO and the Bittensor ecosystem. This isn't just another corporate cybersecurity gig; it's a decentralized, community-driven effort to safeguard the future of AI. By aligning incentives through the $TAO token, they're ensuring that everyone has a stake in keeping these systems secure. So yeah, I'm stoked about what Subnet 14 is doing. It's not just important; it's absolutely essential if we want AI to reach its full potential without being hijacked by bad actors. These guys are the real dwal, working behind the scenes to keep our AI safe and sound. And for anyone who's still sleeping on $TAO and Bittensor, wake the fu¢k up. This is where the real innovation in AI and blockchain is happening. With subnets like LLM Defender leading the charge, $TAO isn't just another crypto play; it's the backbone of a revolution in decentralized AI. So keep your eyes peeled, folks. Subnet 14 and Synapsec are just getting started, and they've got the vision, the tech, and the balls to take AI security to the next level. In a world where AI is increasingly weaving into the fabric of our lives, their work couldn't be more critical. I, for one, am grateful that they're on our side, fighting the good fight. 🙏💪🔒

LLM Defender Synapsec Subnet 14 powered by $TAO on Bittensor is tackling some seriously critical issues in AI security 🛡. The risks of prompt injection attacks, data leaks, malware - this stuff is no joke. If left unchecked, it could really fu¢k up the progress and potential of AI. But that's where @SYNAPSEC_AI and their badass team come in. They're not just building another firewall; they're pioneering a whole new approach to AI security. By leveraging the decentralized intelligence of the Bittensor network, they're creating a multi-layered, adaptive defense system that can evolve as fast as the threats do. The fact that they're focussing on prompt injection attacks first shows they've got their priorities straight. As the article explains, these attacks can trick AI into doing all sorts of shady shit, from leaking sensitive data to straight up breaking the law. It's a hacker's wet dream 💦 come true if we don't put a stop to it. Here's how Synapsec can tackle prompt injection threats in AI systems: 1. Protection Importance: As companies increasingly use LLMs, Synapsec will prioritize protecting client data from prompt injection attacks that risk exposing sensitive information. 2. Direct Prompt Injection: Synapsec will implement strict input validations to prevent malicious prompt injections that could manipulate the AI system. 3. Indirect and Stored Prompt Injection: Synapsec will sanitize external data sources to ensure security and prevent indirect prompt injections. 4. Prompt Leaking Attacks: Techniques like shortening user prompts and adding system-controlled information will be used to avoid leakage of internal prompt details. 5. Continuous Improvement: Synapsec will continually enhance their security practices to address evolving prompt injection threats, ensuring protection for client systems. The security of client AI applications as LLM adoption grows will be a massive industry. But Synapsec is coming out swinging with their analyzer engines and Bug Bounty program. They're not just waiting for attacks to happen; they're proactively hunting down vulnerabilities and bringing in the best minds in cybersecurity to fortify their defenses. The beauty of it all is that it's powered by $TAO and the Bittensor ecosystem. This isn't just another corporate cybersecurity gig; it's a decentralized, community-driven effort to safeguard the future of AI. By aligning incentives through the $TAO token, they're ensuring that everyone has a stake in keeping these systems secure. So yeah, I'm stoked about what Subnet 14 is doing. It's not just important; it's absolutely essential if we want AI to reach its full potential without being hijacked by bad actors. These guys are the real dwal, working behind the scenes to keep our AI safe and sound. And for anyone who's still sleeping on $TAO and Bittensor, wake the fu¢k up. This is where the real innovation in AI and blockchain is happening. With subnets like LLM Defender leading the charge, $TAO isn't just another crypto play; it's the backbone of a revolution in decentralized AI. So keep your eyes peeled, folks. Subnet 14 and Synapsec are just getting started, and they've got the vision, the tech, and the balls to take AI security to the next level. In a world where AI is increasingly weaving into the fabric of our lives, their work couldn't be more critical. I, for one, am grateful that they're on our side, fighting the good fight. 🙏💪🔒

Andy ττ

10,745 просмотров • 2 лет назад

JAI HIND, JAI BHARAT! 🇮🇳 I Tehseen Poonawalla, on behalf of Team Bharat, am announcing a massive, uncompromising citizen's protest against the hasty implementation of the E20 (Ethanol 20%) Blending Policy. First of all, my deepest gratitude to every single citizen who supported us during the first phase of this protest. Your trust ensures that I am indebted to you for life. But the battle has just begun! Here are our 5 Non-Negotiable Demands regarding the E20 Policy: 1️⃣ Protect Older Vehicles: E10 petrol must be provided exclusively for cars manufactured before 2023 that are only E10 compatible. 2️⃣ Fair Pricing: Cut the price of E20 petrol by a straight 20%. Why should consumers pay full price for blended fuel? 3️⃣ Universal Availability of E0: Pure petrol (E0) must be available at every single petrol pump. Currently, it costs a exorbitant ₹165–₹170/litre. This must be slashed and made affordable! Remember, countries like Nepal (₹123/L), Bhutan (₹97/L), and Bangladesh (~₹112/L) buy petrol from India, yet they sell pure, ethanol-free petrol to their citizens far cheaper than we do! 4️⃣ Total Transparency: Publicize every single document, study, and agreement related to the Ethanol 20 blending policy immediately. 5️⃣ Compensation for Damage: Provide concrete solutions and compensation for vehicle owners facing massive engine issues and technical damage due to forced E20 fuel in pre-2023 cars. This fight will be fought ruthlessly across 3 Pillars: SADAK, SANSAD, aur SUPREME COURT! ✊ BUT LET ME MAKE THE RULES OF THIS PLATFORM ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: ❌ NO Politicians: No political leader from any party will be given a stage or space here. ❌ NO Chichoras, Flop Comedians, or Third grade wanna be actors: No 'panoutis' (jinxes) or opportunists will be allowed to revive their careers on our platform. ❌ NO Anti-Religious Abuse: Anyone who abuses Maryada Purushottam Bhagwan Ram or uses this stage for irrelevant agendas will be thrown out. ❌ NO Communal Hate: This stage will never be used to abuse Muslims or Hindus, nor will we tolerate divisive communal slogans. 🎯 This is a platform for EVERY INDIAN: Whether Brahmin or Dalit, man or woman, or third gender ! If you are a citizen harmed by Ethanol, this is your voice! NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ACCUSATIONS & THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Shri Nitin Gadkari ji is running a "Beta Bachao Yojana"! His family is deeply entrenched in companies like CIAN Agro Industries and MANAS. This is a blatant, textbook case of Conflict of Interest where the Minister formulating the Ethanol policy has family businesses directly benefiting from it! Threaten me all you want, Gadkari ji unlike other political leaders, Tehseen Poonawalla does NOT fear your threats and I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE. I stand firmly by my words! And as for Dharmendra Pradhan ji he is undisputedly the Worst Education Minister in Indian History. He is a pure 'Nepo Kid' who only holds a cabinet position because his late father was a Union Minister in Atal Bihari Vajpayee ji's cabinet. Look at his brilliant 'ideas' to stop paper leaks: using the Air Force to distribute exam papers and banning Telegram! Does Dharmendra Pradhan ji not realize that paper leaks easily happen over WhatsApp and Signal too? He has completely ruined the education system and HE MUST GO! While we demand that Nitin Gadkari, Hardeep Puri, and Dharmendra Pradhan must resign and go, let it be clear: our ultimate focus remains fixed on fixing the disastrous E20 policy. Join the movement. Our Vehicles. Our Livelihoods. Our Voice. Jai Hind. Jai Bharat. 🇮🇳 #E20Protest #SadakSansadSupremeCourt #TeamBharat #NitinGadkari #DharmendraPradhan #EthanolScam #ConsumersFirst BETA BADHAO YOJNA SUGAR DADDY Dinesh Rattan Dhillon Nidhhi Sharma Vishal Singh Jain Ishaan Bharadwaj Shanky Nachiket Deshpande

JAI HIND, JAI BHARAT! 🇮🇳 I Tehseen Poonawalla, on behalf of Team Bharat, am announcing a massive, uncompromising citizen's protest against the hasty implementation of the E20 (Ethanol 20%) Blending Policy. First of all, my deepest gratitude to every single citizen who supported us during the first phase of this protest. Your trust ensures that I am indebted to you for life. But the battle has just begun! Here are our 5 Non-Negotiable Demands regarding the E20 Policy: 1️⃣ Protect Older Vehicles: E10 petrol must be provided exclusively for cars manufactured before 2023 that are only E10 compatible. 2️⃣ Fair Pricing: Cut the price of E20 petrol by a straight 20%. Why should consumers pay full price for blended fuel? 3️⃣ Universal Availability of E0: Pure petrol (E0) must be available at every single petrol pump. Currently, it costs a exorbitant ₹165–₹170/litre. This must be slashed and made affordable! Remember, countries like Nepal (₹123/L), Bhutan (₹97/L), and Bangladesh (~₹112/L) buy petrol from India, yet they sell pure, ethanol-free petrol to their citizens far cheaper than we do! 4️⃣ Total Transparency: Publicize every single document, study, and agreement related to the Ethanol 20 blending policy immediately. 5️⃣ Compensation for Damage: Provide concrete solutions and compensation for vehicle owners facing massive engine issues and technical damage due to forced E20 fuel in pre-2023 cars. This fight will be fought ruthlessly across 3 Pillars: SADAK, SANSAD, aur SUPREME COURT! ✊ BUT LET ME MAKE THE RULES OF THIS PLATFORM ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: ❌ NO Politicians: No political leader from any party will be given a stage or space here. ❌ NO Chichoras, Flop Comedians, or Third grade wanna be actors: No 'panoutis' (jinxes) or opportunists will be allowed to revive their careers on our platform. ❌ NO Anti-Religious Abuse: Anyone who abuses Maryada Purushottam Bhagwan Ram or uses this stage for irrelevant agendas will be thrown out. ❌ NO Communal Hate: This stage will never be used to abuse Muslims or Hindus, nor will we tolerate divisive communal slogans. 🎯 This is a platform for EVERY INDIAN: Whether Brahmin or Dalit, man or woman, or third gender ! If you are a citizen harmed by Ethanol, this is your voice! NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ACCUSATIONS & THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Shri Nitin Gadkari ji is running a "Beta Bachao Yojana"! His family is deeply entrenched in companies like CIAN Agro Industries and MANAS. This is a blatant, textbook case of Conflict of Interest where the Minister formulating the Ethanol policy has family businesses directly benefiting from it! Threaten me all you want, Gadkari ji unlike other political leaders, Tehseen Poonawalla does NOT fear your threats and I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE. I stand firmly by my words! And as for Dharmendra Pradhan ji he is undisputedly the Worst Education Minister in Indian History. He is a pure 'Nepo Kid' who only holds a cabinet position because his late father was a Union Minister in Atal Bihari Vajpayee ji's cabinet. Look at his brilliant 'ideas' to stop paper leaks: using the Air Force to distribute exam papers and banning Telegram! Does Dharmendra Pradhan ji not realize that paper leaks easily happen over WhatsApp and Signal too? He has completely ruined the education system and HE MUST GO! While we demand that Nitin Gadkari, Hardeep Puri, and Dharmendra Pradhan must resign and go, let it be clear: our ultimate focus remains fixed on fixing the disastrous E20 policy. Join the movement. Our Vehicles. Our Livelihoods. Our Voice. Jai Hind. Jai Bharat. 🇮🇳 #E20Protest #SadakSansadSupremeCourt #TeamBharat #NitinGadkari #DharmendraPradhan #EthanolScam #ConsumersFirst BETA BADHAO YOJNA SUGAR DADDY Dinesh Rattan Dhillon Nidhhi Sharma Vishal Singh Jain Ishaan Bharadwaj Shanky Nachiket Deshpande

Tehseen Poonawalla Official 🇮🇳

63,100 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Perplexity declared war on the biggest open source AI movement of 2026. This changes how millions of people will interact with AI agents forever. Here is what happened and why almost nobody is talking about the real implications. OpenClaw exploded in January and it became one of the fastest growing open source projects in GitHub history. The premise was radical. An AI agent that runs on your own machine, connects to your messaging apps and actually does things while you sleep. Developers went wild and over 700 community built skills appeared on ClawHub. People were negotiating car deals, filing legal rebuttals, and building entire social networks run by AI agents. Then Perplexity showed up with something different. A cloud powered system that coordinates 20 frontier AI models at once. They call it Perplexity Computer and this week they went even further. They announced Personal Computer. An always on AI agent that lives on a Mac mini in your home, connected to your local files and Perplexity's secure servers around the clock. It never sleeps or stops working and you control it from any device, anywhere. But the real story is what CEO Aravind Srinivas said during the Q&A session at their inaugural developer conference in San Francisco. He called Perplexity Computer a product "meant for serious people." He talked about Uber drivers asking him when they could stop driving and let AI make them passive income. That, he said, is the actual vision and then he went directly after OpenClaw. He said even a former Perplexity engineer struggled to get OpenClaw running on their own machine. He warned about unvetted malware being imported through OpenClaw's community skill hub, with no control over what people are contributing. He called the hobbyist approach of managing 700 API keys and sub agent configuration files a dead end for mainstream adoption. And four years of building world class orchestration gives Perplexity something an open source project cannot match. Enterprise grade security for solopreneurs and businesses alike. On one side, OpenClaw represents radical openness. Your data stays local, you choose your own models, you own everything and the community builds the tools. On the other hand, Perplexity is betting that most people don’t want to be system administrators. They want results, security guarantees, and something that just works out of the box. The Personal Computer runs on Perplexity's SOC 2 certified infrastructure. Every sensitive action requires user approval, every action is logged, and there is a kill switch. The enterprise version connects natively to Snowflake, Salesforce, HubSpot, and hundreds of other platforms. Teams can query data warehouses and build financial models without waiting on an analytics team. The real question is not which product is technically better. The real question is whether the future of AI agents looks like Linux or looks like the iPhone. Because the Uber driver Srinivas described is not going to configure sub agent routing tables. That person needs something that works the moment they open it. And if Perplexity captures that market, the open source movement becomes a niche for developers instead of a revolution for everyone. That is the billion dollar bet being made right now.

Perplexity declared war on the biggest open source AI movement of 2026. This changes how millions of people will interact with AI agents forever. Here is what happened and why almost nobody is talking about the real implications. OpenClaw exploded in January and it became one of the fastest growing open source projects in GitHub history. The premise was radical. An AI agent that runs on your own machine, connects to your messaging apps and actually does things while you sleep. Developers went wild and over 700 community built skills appeared on ClawHub. People were negotiating car deals, filing legal rebuttals, and building entire social networks run by AI agents. Then Perplexity showed up with something different. A cloud powered system that coordinates 20 frontier AI models at once. They call it Perplexity Computer and this week they went even further. They announced Personal Computer. An always on AI agent that lives on a Mac mini in your home, connected to your local files and Perplexity's secure servers around the clock. It never sleeps or stops working and you control it from any device, anywhere. But the real story is what CEO Aravind Srinivas said during the Q&A session at their inaugural developer conference in San Francisco. He called Perplexity Computer a product "meant for serious people." He talked about Uber drivers asking him when they could stop driving and let AI make them passive income. That, he said, is the actual vision and then he went directly after OpenClaw. He said even a former Perplexity engineer struggled to get OpenClaw running on their own machine. He warned about unvetted malware being imported through OpenClaw's community skill hub, with no control over what people are contributing. He called the hobbyist approach of managing 700 API keys and sub agent configuration files a dead end for mainstream adoption. And four years of building world class orchestration gives Perplexity something an open source project cannot match. Enterprise grade security for solopreneurs and businesses alike. On one side, OpenClaw represents radical openness. Your data stays local, you choose your own models, you own everything and the community builds the tools. On the other hand, Perplexity is betting that most people don’t want to be system administrators. They want results, security guarantees, and something that just works out of the box. The Personal Computer runs on Perplexity's SOC 2 certified infrastructure. Every sensitive action requires user approval, every action is logged, and there is a kill switch. The enterprise version connects natively to Snowflake, Salesforce, HubSpot, and hundreds of other platforms. Teams can query data warehouses and build financial models without waiting on an analytics team. The real question is not which product is technically better. The real question is whether the future of AI agents looks like Linux or looks like the iPhone. Because the Uber driver Srinivas described is not going to configure sub agent routing tables. That person needs something that works the moment they open it. And if Perplexity captures that market, the open source movement becomes a niche for developers instead of a revolution for everyone. That is the billion dollar bet being made right now.

Milk Road AI

22,333 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Larry Page wanted to build a digital god. "He really seemed to want some sort of digital superintelligence. Basically a digital god, if you will. As soon as possible." Elon Musk asked: "What about making sure humanity's okay here?" Page called him a speciesist. "I said yes, I'm a speciesist. You got me. What are you? I'm fully a speciesist. Busted." Musk spent 10 minutes with Tucker Carlson explaining why he created OpenAI: Tucker asked the basic question. "All of a sudden AI is everywhere. People are playing with it on their phones. Is that good or bad?" Musk starts with first principles. "The smartest creatures as far as we know on this Earth are humans. That's our defining characteristic." "We're obviously weaker than chimpanzees. Less agile. But we are smarter." "Now. What happens when something vastly smarter than the smartest person comes along in silicon form?" "It's very difficult to predict what will happen in that circumstance." He explains the singularity. "It's called the singularity. Like a black hole. Because you don't know what happens after that." "It's hard to predict." He argues for regulation. "I think there should be some government oversight. Because it affects the public. It's a danger to the public." "That's why we have the Food and Drug Administration. The Federal Aviation Administration. The FCC." "We have these agencies to oversee things that affect the public. Where there could be public harm." "You don't want companies cutting corners on safety. And then having people suffer as a result." He addresses the perception that he fights regulators. "People think I'm some sort of regulatory maverick that defies regulators on a regular basis. But this is actually not the case." "Once in a blue moon, rarely, I will disagree with regulators. But the vast majority of the time my companies agree with the regulations and comply." Tucker asks the obvious question. "All regulations start with a perceived danger. Planes fall out of the sky. I don't think an average person playing with AI on his iPhone perceives any danger." "Can you explain what you think the dangers might be?" Musk's answer. "AI is perhaps more dangerous than mismanaged aircraft design or production maintenance or bad car production." "In the sense that it has the potential. It is a small probability, but it is not trivial." "It has the potential of civilization destruction." He explains the timing problem. "Regulations are really only put into effect after something terrible has happened." "If that's the case for AI, and we only put in regulations after something terrible has happened, it may be too late to put the regulations in place." "They may be out of control at that point." Tucker asks directly. "It's conceivable that AI could take control and reach a point where you couldn't turn it off and it would be making the decisions for people?" Musk's answer. "Yeah. Absolutely." "That's definitely the way things are headed." He explains why OpenAI exists. "Larry Page and I used to be close friends. I would stay at his house in Palo Alto. I would talk to him late in the night about AI safety." "At least my perception was that Larry was not taking AI safety seriously enough." Tucker asked what Page said. "He really seemed to want some sort of digital superintelligence. Basically a digital god, if you will. As soon as possible." Musk pushed back. "I agree there's great potential for good. But there's also potential for bad." "If you have some radical new technology, you want to take actions to maximize the probability it will do good. Minimize the probability it will do bad things." "It can't just be barreling forward and hope for the best." Then the speciesist moment. "At one point I said: what about making sure humanity's okay here?" "And then he called me a speciesist." Tucker: "Did he use that term?" "Yes." "I said yes, I'm a speciesist. You got me. What are you? I'm fully a speciesist. Busted." That was the last straw. "At the time, Google had DeepMind. Google and DeepMind had three-quarters of all the AI talent in the world." "They obviously had a lot of money and more computers than anyone else." "We're in a unipolar world here. One company that has close to a monopoly on AI talent and computers. And the person who's in charge doesn't seem to care about safety." "This is not good." So he created the opposite. "I thought: what's the furthest thing from Google?" "A nonprofit that is fully open. Because Google was closed and for-profit." "Open AI. Open source. Transparent. So people know what's going on." "We don't want this to be a for-profit maximizing demon from hell that just never stops." Tucker asks about the specific danger. "The cool parts of AI are obvious. Write your college paper for you. Write a limerick about yourself. There's a lot that's fun and useful." "But can you be more precise about what's potentially dangerous? What specifically are you worried about?" Musk's answer. "The pen is mightier than the sword." "If you have a superintelligent AI that is capable of writing incredibly well. In a way that is very influential, convincing." "And is constantly figuring out what is more convincing to people over time." "And then enters social media. Twitter. Facebook. Others." "And potentially manipulates public opinion in a way that is very bad." "How would we even know?"

Larry Page wanted to build a digital god. "He really seemed to want some sort of digital superintelligence. Basically a digital god, if you will. As soon as possible." Elon Musk asked: "What about making sure humanity's okay here?" Page called him a speciesist. "I said yes, I'm a speciesist. You got me. What are you? I'm fully a speciesist. Busted." Musk spent 10 minutes with Tucker Carlson explaining why he created OpenAI: Tucker asked the basic question. "All of a sudden AI is everywhere. People are playing with it on their phones. Is that good or bad?" Musk starts with first principles. "The smartest creatures as far as we know on this Earth are humans. That's our defining characteristic." "We're obviously weaker than chimpanzees. Less agile. But we are smarter." "Now. What happens when something vastly smarter than the smartest person comes along in silicon form?" "It's very difficult to predict what will happen in that circumstance." He explains the singularity. "It's called the singularity. Like a black hole. Because you don't know what happens after that." "It's hard to predict." He argues for regulation. "I think there should be some government oversight. Because it affects the public. It's a danger to the public." "That's why we have the Food and Drug Administration. The Federal Aviation Administration. The FCC." "We have these agencies to oversee things that affect the public. Where there could be public harm." "You don't want companies cutting corners on safety. And then having people suffer as a result." He addresses the perception that he fights regulators. "People think I'm some sort of regulatory maverick that defies regulators on a regular basis. But this is actually not the case." "Once in a blue moon, rarely, I will disagree with regulators. But the vast majority of the time my companies agree with the regulations and comply." Tucker asks the obvious question. "All regulations start with a perceived danger. Planes fall out of the sky. I don't think an average person playing with AI on his iPhone perceives any danger." "Can you explain what you think the dangers might be?" Musk's answer. "AI is perhaps more dangerous than mismanaged aircraft design or production maintenance or bad car production." "In the sense that it has the potential. It is a small probability, but it is not trivial." "It has the potential of civilization destruction." He explains the timing problem. "Regulations are really only put into effect after something terrible has happened." "If that's the case for AI, and we only put in regulations after something terrible has happened, it may be too late to put the regulations in place." "They may be out of control at that point." Tucker asks directly. "It's conceivable that AI could take control and reach a point where you couldn't turn it off and it would be making the decisions for people?" Musk's answer. "Yeah. Absolutely." "That's definitely the way things are headed." He explains why OpenAI exists. "Larry Page and I used to be close friends. I would stay at his house in Palo Alto. I would talk to him late in the night about AI safety." "At least my perception was that Larry was not taking AI safety seriously enough." Tucker asked what Page said. "He really seemed to want some sort of digital superintelligence. Basically a digital god, if you will. As soon as possible." Musk pushed back. "I agree there's great potential for good. But there's also potential for bad." "If you have some radical new technology, you want to take actions to maximize the probability it will do good. Minimize the probability it will do bad things." "It can't just be barreling forward and hope for the best." Then the speciesist moment. "At one point I said: what about making sure humanity's okay here?" "And then he called me a speciesist." Tucker: "Did he use that term?" "Yes." "I said yes, I'm a speciesist. You got me. What are you? I'm fully a speciesist. Busted." That was the last straw. "At the time, Google had DeepMind. Google and DeepMind had three-quarters of all the AI talent in the world." "They obviously had a lot of money and more computers than anyone else." "We're in a unipolar world here. One company that has close to a monopoly on AI talent and computers. And the person who's in charge doesn't seem to care about safety." "This is not good." So he created the opposite. "I thought: what's the furthest thing from Google?" "A nonprofit that is fully open. Because Google was closed and for-profit." "Open AI. Open source. Transparent. So people know what's going on." "We don't want this to be a for-profit maximizing demon from hell that just never stops." Tucker asks about the specific danger. "The cool parts of AI are obvious. Write your college paper for you. Write a limerick about yourself. There's a lot that's fun and useful." "But can you be more precise about what's potentially dangerous? What specifically are you worried about?" Musk's answer. "The pen is mightier than the sword." "If you have a superintelligent AI that is capable of writing incredibly well. In a way that is very influential, convincing." "And is constantly figuring out what is more convincing to people over time." "And then enters social media. Twitter. Facebook. Others." "And potentially manipulates public opinion in a way that is very bad." "How would we even know?"

Jaynit

46,016 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

🇷🇺|Lavrov's statement is factually accurate. The situation on the ground is as he describes it and worse. What Lavrov Said and Why It Matters Lavrov is stating what the entire world knows but Western capitals refuse to acknowledge: ◽The UN Security Council approved a ceasefire and peace plan for Gaza nearly a year ago. It has not been implemented. ◽Elderly people, women, and children continue to die in Gaza not from combat, but from starvation, disease, and the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure. ◽The West Bank is being systematically colonized. Settlement expansion has accelerated to the point where a contiguous Palestinian state is becoming geographically impossible. ◽ If the West Bank is fully annexed, Israel will not gain security. It will inherit a permanent, hostile, and desperate population that it can never fully control. This is not opinion. It is the objective reality that Israeli human rights organizations, UN rapporteurs, and even former Israeli security officials have documented. The Deeper Truth: Why Nothing Changes Lavrov's words are true. But they will change nothing. And here is why. 1. The UN Is a Captured Institution The UN Security Council is not a body of justice. It is a body of power. The United States has vetoed every meaningful resolution on Palestine for decades. The "countless UN decisions" Lavrov cites are dead letters because the enforcement mechanism the Security Council is controlled by the very power that protects Israel. Lavrov knows this. He is not naive. He is speaking for the record, for the Global South, for the audience that sees the hypocrisy and is waiting for someone to name it. 2. Russia Is Not a Neutral Actor Russia's position on Palestine is not driven by altruism. It is driven by geopolitics. ◽ Russia has its own imperial ambitions in the Middle East. ◽ Russia supports Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah not because it loves the Palestinian cause, but because it weakens American influence. ◽Russia has its own settler-colonial history and its own treatment of Muslim minorities. ◽Russia's condemnation of Israel is a tool to embarrass the United States and position itself as the champion of the Global South. This does not mean Lavrov is wrong. It means his motives are mixed. He is speaking the truth, but he is also using the truth to advance Russian interests. 3. The "International Community" Is a Fiction The phrase "international community" is a euphemism for the Western powers and their vassals. The Global South the vast majority of humanity has no real power in the institutions that govern the world. ◾The UN General Assembly passes resolutions. They are non-binding. ◾ The Security Council is the only body with teeth. It is controlled by the United States. ◾ The International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants. They are ignored by the countries that matter. ◾ The International Court of Justice rules that the occupation is illegal. Nothing happens. The "rules-based order" is a lie. The only rule is power. And the power is held by the empire and its allies. 4. The Two-State Solution Is Dead Lavrov is correct that settlement expansion is making a Palestinian state impossible. But the two-state solution was never viable. ◾ The settlements are not a "policy." They are a deliberate strategy to make the two-state solution impossible. ◾The Israeli government is not interested in a Palestinian state. It is interested in the land. ◾ The United States has funded and armed Israel for decades while pretending to support peace. ◾ The "peace process" was a decades-long exercise in delay, designed to allow facts on the ground to be created while the Palestinians waited for a state that would never come. The two-state solution is not a plan. It is a tombstone. It marks the grave of a Palestinian state that was strangled in its crib while the world looked on. The Palestinian as the Sacrificial Lamb The Palestinian people are not just victims of Israel. They are victims of a global system that uses them as a sacrificial lamb. ◾The United States uses them as a geopolitical football. It supports Israel unconditionally while pretending to be an honest broker. ◾ The Europeans use them as a convenient source of moral outrage while continuing to trade with Israel. ◾The Arab regimes use them as a distraction from their own authoritarianism. They issue statements of solidarity while normalizing relations with Israel. ◾The Russians and the Chinese use them as a stick to beat the Americans with, while offering no real solutions. ◾The UN uses them as a permanent agenda item that never produces results. ◾The globalist machine uses them as a justification for the "clash of civilizations" narrative that fuels endless war and the expansion of the surveillance state. Everyone uses the Palestinians. No one saves them. The Final Truth Lavrov is right. But he is not the solution. He is another actor in the same theatre. The Palestinian cause will not be won in the UN Security Council. It will not be won by Russian diplomacy. It will not be won by Western guilt. It will not be won by Arab summits. It will be won by the Palestinians themselves their endurance, their refusal to disappear, their insistence on their own humanity. The empire cannot kill the idea of Palestine. It can kill Palestinians. It can steal their land. It can erase their history. But it cannot kill the idea. And as long as the idea lives, the struggle continues. The world must see this for what it is: not a conflict, but a genocide. Not a dispute, but a dispossession. Not a security issue, but a crime. And the only thing that can stop it is a global movement that refuses to accept it. The Palestinian people have shown the world what courage looks like. The rest of us must show them what solidarity looks like.

🇷🇺|Lavrov's statement is factually accurate. The situation on the ground is as he describes it and worse. What Lavrov Said and Why It Matters Lavrov is stating what the entire world knows but Western capitals refuse to acknowledge: ◽The UN Security Council approved a ceasefire and peace plan for Gaza nearly a year ago. It has not been implemented. ◽Elderly people, women, and children continue to die in Gaza not from combat, but from starvation, disease, and the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure. ◽The West Bank is being systematically colonized. Settlement expansion has accelerated to the point where a contiguous Palestinian state is becoming geographically impossible. ◽ If the West Bank is fully annexed, Israel will not gain security. It will inherit a permanent, hostile, and desperate population that it can never fully control. This is not opinion. It is the objective reality that Israeli human rights organizations, UN rapporteurs, and even former Israeli security officials have documented. The Deeper Truth: Why Nothing Changes Lavrov's words are true. But they will change nothing. And here is why. 1. The UN Is a Captured Institution The UN Security Council is not a body of justice. It is a body of power. The United States has vetoed every meaningful resolution on Palestine for decades. The "countless UN decisions" Lavrov cites are dead letters because the enforcement mechanism the Security Council is controlled by the very power that protects Israel. Lavrov knows this. He is not naive. He is speaking for the record, for the Global South, for the audience that sees the hypocrisy and is waiting for someone to name it. 2. Russia Is Not a Neutral Actor Russia's position on Palestine is not driven by altruism. It is driven by geopolitics. ◽ Russia has its own imperial ambitions in the Middle East. ◽ Russia supports Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah not because it loves the Palestinian cause, but because it weakens American influence. ◽Russia has its own settler-colonial history and its own treatment of Muslim minorities. ◽Russia's condemnation of Israel is a tool to embarrass the United States and position itself as the champion of the Global South. This does not mean Lavrov is wrong. It means his motives are mixed. He is speaking the truth, but he is also using the truth to advance Russian interests. 3. The "International Community" Is a Fiction The phrase "international community" is a euphemism for the Western powers and their vassals. The Global South the vast majority of humanity has no real power in the institutions that govern the world. ◾The UN General Assembly passes resolutions. They are non-binding. ◾ The Security Council is the only body with teeth. It is controlled by the United States. ◾ The International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants. They are ignored by the countries that matter. ◾ The International Court of Justice rules that the occupation is illegal. Nothing happens. The "rules-based order" is a lie. The only rule is power. And the power is held by the empire and its allies. 4. The Two-State Solution Is Dead Lavrov is correct that settlement expansion is making a Palestinian state impossible. But the two-state solution was never viable. ◾ The settlements are not a "policy." They are a deliberate strategy to make the two-state solution impossible. ◾The Israeli government is not interested in a Palestinian state. It is interested in the land. ◾ The United States has funded and armed Israel for decades while pretending to support peace. ◾ The "peace process" was a decades-long exercise in delay, designed to allow facts on the ground to be created while the Palestinians waited for a state that would never come. The two-state solution is not a plan. It is a tombstone. It marks the grave of a Palestinian state that was strangled in its crib while the world looked on. The Palestinian as the Sacrificial Lamb The Palestinian people are not just victims of Israel. They are victims of a global system that uses them as a sacrificial lamb. ◾The United States uses them as a geopolitical football. It supports Israel unconditionally while pretending to be an honest broker. ◾ The Europeans use them as a convenient source of moral outrage while continuing to trade with Israel. ◾The Arab regimes use them as a distraction from their own authoritarianism. They issue statements of solidarity while normalizing relations with Israel. ◾The Russians and the Chinese use them as a stick to beat the Americans with, while offering no real solutions. ◾The UN uses them as a permanent agenda item that never produces results. ◾The globalist machine uses them as a justification for the "clash of civilizations" narrative that fuels endless war and the expansion of the surveillance state. Everyone uses the Palestinians. No one saves them. The Final Truth Lavrov is right. But he is not the solution. He is another actor in the same theatre. The Palestinian cause will not be won in the UN Security Council. It will not be won by Russian diplomacy. It will not be won by Western guilt. It will not be won by Arab summits. It will be won by the Palestinians themselves their endurance, their refusal to disappear, their insistence on their own humanity. The empire cannot kill the idea of Palestine. It can kill Palestinians. It can steal their land. It can erase their history. But it cannot kill the idea. And as long as the idea lives, the struggle continues. The world must see this for what it is: not a conflict, but a genocide. Not a dispute, but a dispossession. Not a security issue, but a crime. And the only thing that can stop it is a global movement that refuses to accept it. The Palestinian people have shown the world what courage looks like. The rest of us must show them what solidarity looks like.

Aprajita Nafs Nefes 🦋 Ancient Believer

10,371 просмотров • 5 дней назад

Ezra Levant: Thanks to floor crossers, Carney can now ram through his spy bill Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill. The answer? It is a direct assault on parliamentary democracy and your freedoms. Last year, Mark Carney won the election with just 43 percent of the vote. That delivered him 169 seats out of 343 in the House of Commons, three short of the 172 needed for a majority. Canadians deliberately gave him a minority government. Sometimes voters do that on purpose, wanting to keep a politician on a shorter leash and force him to work with Parliament rather than dominate it. But Carney was not content with the verdict of the electorate. While the political establishment spent years warning that Donald Trump might refuse to accept election results, Carney set about changing his own. By persuading a string of opposition MPs to cross the floor, he secured the majority Canadians had declined to give him at the ballot box. The obvious question is why? Justin Trudeau governed for nearly a decade without a formal majority, relying on NDP support to pass budgets and survive confidence votes. There was little reason to believe Carney could not have done the same. Ezra’s answer is that Carney wanted something more than legislative support. He wanted the ability to shut down parliamentary scrutiny itself. That is now on full display. Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill. The legislation would compel technology companies to retain user data for up to a year and make that information available to government authorities. Civil liberties advocates have raised serious concerns about privacy, government overreach and the expansion of state surveillance powers. The concerns are hardly theoretical. Canadians have already witnessed a government willing to freeze bank accounts and invoke extraordinary powers during the trucker protests. Mark Carney himself, while living in Europe at the time, wrote in The Globe and Mail that Ottawa should take a harder line against convoy participants and their supporters. It is therefore not surprising that critics view Bill C-22 as part of a broader push toward greater state control. What makes the situation particularly troubling is not only the substance of the legislation but the manner in which it is being advanced. The government has introduced a motion declaring that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-22 will be pushed through Parliament on an accelerated timetable. In plain English, the normal rules are being set aside. Committee members will have just 30 minutes to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Any remaining amendments will be deemed moved and voted upon without further debate. The legislation will then move rapidly through report stage and third reading with strictly limited speaking time for opposition parties and virtually no opportunity for extended scrutiny. For a bill that constitutes one of the most significant expansions of government surveillance powers in Canadian history, Parliament is being afforded remarkably little time to examine the details. Professor Michael Geist, one of Canada’s leading experts on technology law and digital policy, has publicly criticized the government’s approach. Geist argues that hearings are being cut short, amendments are being rushed through without proper discussion, and the public is being denied the transparency normally expected during the legislative process. His warning is not about partisan politics but about the erosion of parliamentary accountability. This is why Carney needed those extra seats. The issue is not merely that opposition MPs crossed the floor. It is what those additional seats are now being used to accomplish. This is a double violation of democratic principles: first, altering the balance of Parliament after voters had already spoken; and second, using that altered balance to restrict Parliament’s ability to debate, amend and scrutinize legislation. The implications extend beyond a single bill. Across Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Australia, governments are increasingly embracing online surveillance measures, age-verification requirements and expanded regulatory control over digital spaces. These initiatives are almost always presented as necessary protections for children or public safety, yet they also require citizens to surrender more privacy and give governments more information about their online activities. It is a stark contrast to the vision of technological progress championed by figures such as Elon Musk, who promote innovation, space exploration, artificial intelligence and the expansion of human potential. One approach sees technology as a tool of freedom and advancement. The other increasingly treats it as something to be monitored, regulated and controlled. This is what an unchecked majority can look like under Mark Carney: Parliament reduced to a rubber stamp, debate curtailed, privacy placed at risk and major legislation rushed through with minimal scrutiny. Canadians deserve better. The democratic process only matters if it is respected when it becomes inconvenient. If Parliament is no longer permitted to properly examine legislation, question witnesses or challenge the government of the day, then the institution itself is diminished. That should concern every Canadian regardless of political affiliation.

Ezra Levant: Thanks to floor crossers, Carney can now ram through his spy bill Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill. The answer? It is a direct assault on parliamentary democracy and your freedoms. Last year, Mark Carney won the election with just 43 percent of the vote. That delivered him 169 seats out of 343 in the House of Commons, three short of the 172 needed for a majority. Canadians deliberately gave him a minority government. Sometimes voters do that on purpose, wanting to keep a politician on a shorter leash and force him to work with Parliament rather than dominate it. But Carney was not content with the verdict of the electorate. While the political establishment spent years warning that Donald Trump might refuse to accept election results, Carney set about changing his own. By persuading a string of opposition MPs to cross the floor, he secured the majority Canadians had declined to give him at the ballot box. The obvious question is why? Justin Trudeau governed for nearly a decade without a formal majority, relying on NDP support to pass budgets and survive confidence votes. There was little reason to believe Carney could not have done the same. Ezra’s answer is that Carney wanted something more than legislative support. He wanted the ability to shut down parliamentary scrutiny itself. That is now on full display. Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill. The legislation would compel technology companies to retain user data for up to a year and make that information available to government authorities. Civil liberties advocates have raised serious concerns about privacy, government overreach and the expansion of state surveillance powers. The concerns are hardly theoretical. Canadians have already witnessed a government willing to freeze bank accounts and invoke extraordinary powers during the trucker protests. Mark Carney himself, while living in Europe at the time, wrote in The Globe and Mail that Ottawa should take a harder line against convoy participants and their supporters. It is therefore not surprising that critics view Bill C-22 as part of a broader push toward greater state control. What makes the situation particularly troubling is not only the substance of the legislation but the manner in which it is being advanced. The government has introduced a motion declaring that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-22 will be pushed through Parliament on an accelerated timetable. In plain English, the normal rules are being set aside. Committee members will have just 30 minutes to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Any remaining amendments will be deemed moved and voted upon without further debate. The legislation will then move rapidly through report stage and third reading with strictly limited speaking time for opposition parties and virtually no opportunity for extended scrutiny. For a bill that constitutes one of the most significant expansions of government surveillance powers in Canadian history, Parliament is being afforded remarkably little time to examine the details. Professor Michael Geist, one of Canada’s leading experts on technology law and digital policy, has publicly criticized the government’s approach. Geist argues that hearings are being cut short, amendments are being rushed through without proper discussion, and the public is being denied the transparency normally expected during the legislative process. His warning is not about partisan politics but about the erosion of parliamentary accountability. This is why Carney needed those extra seats. The issue is not merely that opposition MPs crossed the floor. It is what those additional seats are now being used to accomplish. This is a double violation of democratic principles: first, altering the balance of Parliament after voters had already spoken; and second, using that altered balance to restrict Parliament’s ability to debate, amend and scrutinize legislation. The implications extend beyond a single bill. Across Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Australia, governments are increasingly embracing online surveillance measures, age-verification requirements and expanded regulatory control over digital spaces. These initiatives are almost always presented as necessary protections for children or public safety, yet they also require citizens to surrender more privacy and give governments more information about their online activities. It is a stark contrast to the vision of technological progress championed by figures such as Elon Musk, who promote innovation, space exploration, artificial intelligence and the expansion of human potential. One approach sees technology as a tool of freedom and advancement. The other increasingly treats it as something to be monitored, regulated and controlled. This is what an unchecked majority can look like under Mark Carney: Parliament reduced to a rubber stamp, debate curtailed, privacy placed at risk and major legislation rushed through with minimal scrutiny. Canadians deserve better. The democratic process only matters if it is respected when it becomes inconvenient. If Parliament is no longer permitted to properly examine legislation, question witnesses or challenge the government of the day, then the institution itself is diminished. That should concern every Canadian regardless of political affiliation.

Rebel News

29,577 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Violence has erupted on the streets of Delhi after thousands of protesters supporting India’s Gen Z ‘cockroach’ movement marched towards parliament - and were met with police batons and tear gas. But how did it all start? The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) first emerged in May after a Supreme Court judge compared unemployed young people to “cockroaches.” And the young people didn’t just fight back, they embraced their new nickname. An online movement started with an AI-generated cockroach mascot - and its popularity exploded. The group, which is calling for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to resign, says it wants to see change in jobs and education in India, where figures show 40% of graduates below the age of 25 are unemployed. It comes after a scandal that saw millions of students forced to re-sit their exams when question papers were leaked. The government has said it’s since taken steps to prevent future paper leaks and will punish those responsible. The Chief Justice, who made the initial 'cockroaches' comment, later told media his comment related to some people acquiring fraudulent degrees and did not target India’s youth, whom he called 'the pillars of a developed India'. In this episode of the breakdown, we speak to Siddiq Wahid, historian and political analyst, and explore how a movement that started as an online joke has now disrupted Indian politics. A warning, this report contains themes which some viewers may find distressing. Watch the full episode of the breakdown on Channel 4 News' YouTube channel.

Violence has erupted on the streets of Delhi after thousands of protesters supporting India’s Gen Z ‘cockroach’ movement marched towards parliament - and were met with police batons and tear gas. But how did it all start? The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) first emerged in May after a Supreme Court judge compared unemployed young people to “cockroaches.” And the young people didn’t just fight back, they embraced their new nickname. An online movement started with an AI-generated cockroach mascot - and its popularity exploded. The group, which is calling for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to resign, says it wants to see change in jobs and education in India, where figures show 40% of graduates below the age of 25 are unemployed. It comes after a scandal that saw millions of students forced to re-sit their exams when question papers were leaked. The government has said it’s since taken steps to prevent future paper leaks and will punish those responsible. The Chief Justice, who made the initial 'cockroaches' comment, later told media his comment related to some people acquiring fraudulent degrees and did not target India’s youth, whom he called 'the pillars of a developed India'. In this episode of the breakdown, we speak to Siddiq Wahid, historian and political analyst, and explore how a movement that started as an online joke has now disrupted Indian politics. A warning, this report contains themes which some viewers may find distressing. Watch the full episode of the breakdown on Channel 4 News' YouTube channel.

Channel 4 News

45,503 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

The Firearms Control Amendment Bill cannot be steamrolled through Parliament. In the Portfolio Committee on Police, I raised a serious concern with the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service. On slide 9 of their presentation, the Secretariat referred to the review of the Firearms Control Amendment Bill and used the words “to ensure enactment.” That wording matters. It suggests that the outcome has already been decided: push the Bill through, and treat Parliament and public participation as process boxes to tick afterwards. I asked the Secretariat directly whether they intend to advance the Bill in its current form, or whether they are prepared to substantially reconsider it based on actual evidence and stakeholder input. Because right now, the approach does not line up with the serious concerns raised by stakeholders, the slow Nedlac process, and the failures we already see in the current firearm control system. My question was simple: Why is the Department prioritising further legislative restriction before demonstrating measurable improvements in: -the Central Firearms Registry; -SAPS’s own firearm losses; -illegal firearm recovery; -firearm tracing; -ballistic capacity; and -actual enforcement against criminal possession of firearms? I also made it clear: the Portfolio Committee on Police is not a rubber stamp. The Secretariat then made an important concession. They accepted that the word “enactment” may need to be revised. More importantly, they confirmed that they have commissioned research into whether the current firearm legislation is actually being fully implemented, and what the failures in implementation are. The most important line from the response was this: “We can’t rush to the amendment of legislation if, for instance, it’s the failures of the implementation of the current legislation.” That is exactly the point. Marco van Niekerk captured this well in his article. The concern is that government appears to be moving towards new restrictions before properly diagnosing the real problem. He also points out that the failures are not theoretical: CFR dysfunction, state firearm losses, weak tracing capability, and limited enforcement against criminal possession of illegal firearms are all part of the problem. (Here is Marco’s article on The Common Sense: And to add insult to injury, this past week the SANDF confirmed that military weapons were stolen from Tek Base in Lyttelton. Reports state that three R4 assault rifles and a grenade launcher were stolen after a break-in was discovered on 27 April. Access was suspected to have been gained by cutting a hole in the perimeter fence, and a burglar door was forced open. That raises obvious questions. Where were the controls? Was there functioning CCTV? Were there alarm systems? Were there access logs? Were there armed patrols? Were inventories being audited? How can military-grade weapons be stolen from a base while government wants to tell law-abiding citizens that the problem is that they are not regulated enough? This is the contradiction. The State loses firearms. The State fails to secure military weapons. The State struggles with tracing and ballistics. The CFR remains dysfunctional. Criminals continue to possess illegal firearms. But the policy answer is apparently more restriction on lawful firearm owners. That is not good enough. South Africa does not need symbolic legislation. We need enforcement. We need working systems. We need accountability. We need functioning ballistics. We need a competent CFR. We need state-owned firearms secured. We need illegal firearms recovered. We need criminals prosecuted. Any revised Firearms Control Amendment Bill must be evidence-based, transparent and properly consulted on. No steamrolling. No predetermined enactment. No rubber-stamping. Fix the State’s failures first.

The Firearms Control Amendment Bill cannot be steamrolled through Parliament. In the Portfolio Committee on Police, I raised a serious concern with the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service. On slide 9 of their presentation, the Secretariat referred to the review of the Firearms Control Amendment Bill and used the words “to ensure enactment.” That wording matters. It suggests that the outcome has already been decided: push the Bill through, and treat Parliament and public participation as process boxes to tick afterwards. I asked the Secretariat directly whether they intend to advance the Bill in its current form, or whether they are prepared to substantially reconsider it based on actual evidence and stakeholder input. Because right now, the approach does not line up with the serious concerns raised by stakeholders, the slow Nedlac process, and the failures we already see in the current firearm control system. My question was simple: Why is the Department prioritising further legislative restriction before demonstrating measurable improvements in: -the Central Firearms Registry; -SAPS’s own firearm losses; -illegal firearm recovery; -firearm tracing; -ballistic capacity; and -actual enforcement against criminal possession of firearms? I also made it clear: the Portfolio Committee on Police is not a rubber stamp. The Secretariat then made an important concession. They accepted that the word “enactment” may need to be revised. More importantly, they confirmed that they have commissioned research into whether the current firearm legislation is actually being fully implemented, and what the failures in implementation are. The most important line from the response was this: “We can’t rush to the amendment of legislation if, for instance, it’s the failures of the implementation of the current legislation.” That is exactly the point. Marco van Niekerk captured this well in his article. The concern is that government appears to be moving towards new restrictions before properly diagnosing the real problem. He also points out that the failures are not theoretical: CFR dysfunction, state firearm losses, weak tracing capability, and limited enforcement against criminal possession of illegal firearms are all part of the problem. (Here is Marco’s article on The Common Sense: And to add insult to injury, this past week the SANDF confirmed that military weapons were stolen from Tek Base in Lyttelton. Reports state that three R4 assault rifles and a grenade launcher were stolen after a break-in was discovered on 27 April. Access was suspected to have been gained by cutting a hole in the perimeter fence, and a burglar door was forced open. That raises obvious questions. Where were the controls? Was there functioning CCTV? Were there alarm systems? Were there access logs? Were there armed patrols? Were inventories being audited? How can military-grade weapons be stolen from a base while government wants to tell law-abiding citizens that the problem is that they are not regulated enough? This is the contradiction. The State loses firearms. The State fails to secure military weapons. The State struggles with tracing and ballistics. The CFR remains dysfunctional. Criminals continue to possess illegal firearms. But the policy answer is apparently more restriction on lawful firearm owners. That is not good enough. South Africa does not need symbolic legislation. We need enforcement. We need working systems. We need accountability. We need functioning ballistics. We need a competent CFR. We need state-owned firearms secured. We need illegal firearms recovered. We need criminals prosecuted. Any revised Firearms Control Amendment Bill must be evidence-based, transparent and properly consulted on. No steamrolling. No predetermined enactment. No rubber-stamping. Fix the State’s failures first.

Ian Cameron

15,352 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад