正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

For anyone still asking how corrupt PCEA clergy and elders “ate” KSh 700 million, a content creator has already done the site visit. The camera at Milele Beach Hotel does not show a miracle in progress. It shows a white elephant that the pews were talked into financing. That...

FGaitho237's profile picture

Francis Gaitho

273,516 subscribers

68,820 次观看 • 3 天前 •via X (Twitter)

教育新闻政治财经
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

A man who understands universal laws does not walk into a courtroom like everybody else He walks in watching the energy That is the difference Most people are still walking around in 2026 thinking life is random They mock cause and effect They laugh at energy They see the same pattern happen 15 times and still go “Wow, that’s crazy. What a coincidence” No, brother That is not a coincidence That is the invoice That is the receipt That is the universe saying, “You thought I forgot?” And this is the funny part Universal law does not need you to believe in it Karma does not need your consent Cause and effect does not pause because you are confused People ignore the signs, disrespect the pattern, violate the energy… then act shocked when life pulls up with perfect timing And even after they get humbled, they still do not clock what happened They just sit there like “Why does this always happen to me?” Because you keep playing dumb with laws that are older than your opinions
3:00

A man who understands universal laws does not walk into a courtroom like everybody else He walks in watching the energy That is the difference Most people are still walking around in 2026 thinking life is random They mock cause and effect They laugh at energy They see the same pattern happen 15 times and still go “Wow, that’s crazy. What a coincidence” No, brother That is not a coincidence That is the invoice That is the receipt That is the universe saying, “You thought I forgot?” And this is the funny part Universal law does not need you to believe in it Karma does not need your consent Cause and effect does not pause because you are confused People ignore the signs, disrespect the pattern, violate the energy… then act shocked when life pulls up with perfect timing And even after they get humbled, they still do not clock what happened They just sit there like “Why does this always happen to me?” Because you keep playing dumb with laws that are older than your opinions

𝗘𝗟🐕⚒️👁️⃤

21,014 次观看 • 3 个月前

Delivering souls to heaven vs. entertaining revelers & sinners are totally different skills: As someone who knows something about distressed real estate and investments, it would be wrong not to speak: 1. First shocker was to learn the hotel was offloaded to the church by a church elder? What a conflict of interest. 2. If indeed the goal is genuinely to save the hotel, then why not issue shares to congregants? Just create 700 million shares of 1 shilling each so that those who put in money own something. After all they are being asked to clean up a mess that is not their making. Why ask for the money for free? 3. What is the church doing running a beach hotel, which can’t make money without a fair amount of sins and sinners? They need to exit anyways, members should take the auction and run, otherwise the leadership will be back bowl in hand with a new set of stories. 4. Why is the good Reverend saying that a beach hotel is a strategic asset to a church? The argument is not supported. He just says it’s a spiritual issue to evade scrutiny. I don’t see how ministry stops because a beach hotel is gone. 5. If you don’t sell it, PCEA members must be prepared that Milele beach will be to them what KQ is to tax payers… never ending bailouts and stories year in year out. Brethren, cut and run! But if you must bail it out, ask for shares, but even then in the end it will make loses since it’s not your core business and you will eventually sell anyways. 6. And it’s obnoxious they are going to state house to seek public funds for bailout? Why would tax payers pay for this?
8:03

Delivering souls to heaven vs. entertaining revelers & sinners are totally different skills: As someone who knows something about distressed real estate and investments, it would be wrong not to speak: 1. First shocker was to learn the hotel was offloaded to the church by a church elder? What a conflict of interest. 2. If indeed the goal is genuinely to save the hotel, then why not issue shares to congregants? Just create 700 million shares of 1 shilling each so that those who put in money own something. After all they are being asked to clean up a mess that is not their making. Why ask for the money for free? 3. What is the church doing running a beach hotel, which can’t make money without a fair amount of sins and sinners? They need to exit anyways, members should take the auction and run, otherwise the leadership will be back bowl in hand with a new set of stories. 4. Why is the good Reverend saying that a beach hotel is a strategic asset to a church? The argument is not supported. He just says it’s a spiritual issue to evade scrutiny. I don’t see how ministry stops because a beach hotel is gone. 5. If you don’t sell it, PCEA members must be prepared that Milele beach will be to them what KQ is to tax payers… never ending bailouts and stories year in year out. Brethren, cut and run! But if you must bail it out, ask for shares, but even then in the end it will make loses since it’s not your core business and you will eventually sell anyways. 6. And it’s obnoxious they are going to state house to seek public funds for bailout? Why would tax payers pay for this?

Edwin H. Dande

121,008 次观看 • 2 天前

Elon Musk just used a joke to perform an autopsy on the American economy. Two economists go for a hike. They find a pile of shit. One pays the other $100 to eat it. They keep walking. Find another pile. The second economist pays $100 back to eat that one. They stop. Neither man gained a dollar. Both ate shit for nothing. But on paper they just generated $200 in GDP. Musk: “That basically would count as a job. This is to illustrate the absurdity of economics.” That is not a punchline. That is the operating system of the federal government. Every time a politician celebrates “record job creation” this is what they are describing. Not output. Not value. Not progress. Motion. The entire bureaucratic machine exists to manufacture friction and then invoice for it. Compliance layers built to justify the next compliance layer. Oversight committees that produce nothing but the need for more oversight. Consulting firms hired to audit the work of other consulting firms. Trillions circulating through systems that have never produced a single thing you can hold in your hands. But the GDP number ticks up. So everyone applauds. The shit gets eaten. The scoreboard moves. Nobody asks what actually got built. This is why Washington treats AI like a five alarm fire. AI does not play the friction game. It does not form a committee. It does not schedule a review. It does not file 400 pages of paperwork no one will ever read. It just solves the problem. And that is the one thing the machine cannot survive. The government does not tax results. It taxes the process. The longer the process, the deeper the cut. AI compresses a ten day workflow into seconds. There is nothing left to bill. Nothing left to tax. Nothing left to skim. So they will spend the next decade warning you that AI threatens the economy. What they will never say is what it actually threatens. The illusion that activity equals progress. The $200 economy where both men ate shit and called it a job. The machines are not coming for your purpose. They are coming to prove that half the economy never had one.
1:14

Elon Musk just used a joke to perform an autopsy on the American economy. Two economists go for a hike. They find a pile of shit. One pays the other $100 to eat it. They keep walking. Find another pile. The second economist pays $100 back to eat that one. They stop. Neither man gained a dollar. Both ate shit for nothing. But on paper they just generated $200 in GDP. Musk: “That basically would count as a job. This is to illustrate the absurdity of economics.” That is not a punchline. That is the operating system of the federal government. Every time a politician celebrates “record job creation” this is what they are describing. Not output. Not value. Not progress. Motion. The entire bureaucratic machine exists to manufacture friction and then invoice for it. Compliance layers built to justify the next compliance layer. Oversight committees that produce nothing but the need for more oversight. Consulting firms hired to audit the work of other consulting firms. Trillions circulating through systems that have never produced a single thing you can hold in your hands. But the GDP number ticks up. So everyone applauds. The shit gets eaten. The scoreboard moves. Nobody asks what actually got built. This is why Washington treats AI like a five alarm fire. AI does not play the friction game. It does not form a committee. It does not schedule a review. It does not file 400 pages of paperwork no one will ever read. It just solves the problem. And that is the one thing the machine cannot survive. The government does not tax results. It taxes the process. The longer the process, the deeper the cut. AI compresses a ten day workflow into seconds. There is nothing left to bill. Nothing left to tax. Nothing left to skim. So they will spend the next decade warning you that AI threatens the economy. What they will never say is what it actually threatens. The illusion that activity equals progress. The $200 economy where both men ate shit and called it a job. The machines are not coming for your purpose. They are coming to prove that half the economy never had one.

Dustin

1,159,542 次观看 • 4 个月前

Jeff Bezos just identified the most expensive bureaucratic failure in the American economy. It fits in one sentence. Bezos: “Why does it take months and months and months to get a building permit? It doesn’t make any sense.” It doesn’t make any sense because a building code is not a judgment call. It is an algorithm. And algorithms should be executed by machines. Bezos: “Miami should have an AI application that reads your building permit for a new house or a new building and it should give you a yes or a no in ten seconds.” Ten seconds. Not three months. Not six weeks. Not whenever the reviewer clears their backlog. Bezos: “If the answer is no, it should tell you the six things you have to change to get a yes.” No ambiguity. No interpretation. No bureaucratic delay dressed up as due diligence. Just a deterministic feedback loop compressing months of institutional friction into a single automated decision. We are competing against sovereign adversaries deploying gigawatt data centers and scaling physical infrastructure at a pace that does not stop to ask permission. And we are losing ground to countries that never needed to. The AI arms race is not only fought in data centers. It is fought in the gap between when someone decides to build something and when the government allows it. Every month this system runs on biological speed is a month that cannot be recovered. The governments that integrate AI into their core civic functions will trigger a wave of physical development the old world could never produce. The ones that refuse will still be reviewing the same forms a decade from now. While the cities that said yes are already living inside the future they built. The bottleneck was never ambition. It was always the man holding the rubber stamp deciding when ambition was allowed to begin. And the stamp is just a rubber version of the algorithm that should have been running this whole time.
0:36

Jeff Bezos just identified the most expensive bureaucratic failure in the American economy. It fits in one sentence. Bezos: “Why does it take months and months and months to get a building permit? It doesn’t make any sense.” It doesn’t make any sense because a building code is not a judgment call. It is an algorithm. And algorithms should be executed by machines. Bezos: “Miami should have an AI application that reads your building permit for a new house or a new building and it should give you a yes or a no in ten seconds.” Ten seconds. Not three months. Not six weeks. Not whenever the reviewer clears their backlog. Bezos: “If the answer is no, it should tell you the six things you have to change to get a yes.” No ambiguity. No interpretation. No bureaucratic delay dressed up as due diligence. Just a deterministic feedback loop compressing months of institutional friction into a single automated decision. We are competing against sovereign adversaries deploying gigawatt data centers and scaling physical infrastructure at a pace that does not stop to ask permission. And we are losing ground to countries that never needed to. The AI arms race is not only fought in data centers. It is fought in the gap between when someone decides to build something and when the government allows it. Every month this system runs on biological speed is a month that cannot be recovered. The governments that integrate AI into their core civic functions will trigger a wave of physical development the old world could never produce. The ones that refuse will still be reviewing the same forms a decade from now. While the cities that said yes are already living inside the future they built. The bottleneck was never ambition. It was always the man holding the rubber stamp deciding when ambition was allowed to begin. And the stamp is just a rubber version of the algorithm that should have been running this whole time.

Dustin

293,438 次观看 • 5 个月前

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below
0:50

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below

Hanako

14,325 次观看 • 27 天前

The US and Iran would never have gone to war if Israel did not ехіѕt "Israel is the SOLE reason that diplomacy is impossible. Israel does not want peace! What Israel will not tolerate is a powerful country in their neighborhood that exists as a rival."
2:42

The US and Iran would never have gone to war if Israel did not ехіѕt "Israel is the SOLE reason that diplomacy is impossible. Israel does not want peace! What Israel will not tolerate is a powerful country in their neighborhood that exists as a rival."

S.clips

28,052 次观看 • 2 个月前

Capability does not equal calling. I love communicating and I love the Word of God, but I am not called to be a pastor. I am not called to preach from a pulpit in a local church. That is not my role and it is not a woman’s role. A pastor is not just a preacher. He is a shepherd. A protector. For example, the catastrophe at Cities Church in St. Paul. Pastor Jonathan Parnell took the heat and protected his congregation from the chaos. That is a masculine role. That is a manly role.
0:46

Capability does not equal calling. I love communicating and I love the Word of God, but I am not called to be a pastor. I am not called to preach from a pulpit in a local church. That is not my role and it is not a woman’s role. A pastor is not just a preacher. He is a shepherd. A protector. For example, the catastrophe at Cities Church in St. Paul. Pastor Jonathan Parnell took the heat and protected his congregation from the chaos. That is a masculine role. That is a manly role.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey

31,843 次观看 • 6 个月前

Dave Ramsey was asked a simple hypothetical. Would you take a billion dollars at 0% interest for 10 years? He said no. Not because the math was bad. Because he does not borrow money. Period. No exceptions. And that is the problem. There is a difference between bad debt and good debt. Bad debt costs you money. Good debt makes you money. A loan covered by tenants is not a liability. It is a wealth building machine that someone else is paying off for you. Refusing all debt does not protect you. It just keeps you from building anything. The question is never whether to use debt. The question is whether the debt is covered.
1:48

Dave Ramsey was asked a simple hypothetical. Would you take a billion dollars at 0% interest for 10 years? He said no. Not because the math was bad. Because he does not borrow money. Period. No exceptions. And that is the problem. There is a difference between bad debt and good debt. Bad debt costs you money. Good debt makes you money. A loan covered by tenants is not a liability. It is a wealth building machine that someone else is paying off for you. Refusing all debt does not protect you. It just keeps you from building anything. The question is never whether to use debt. The question is whether the debt is covered.

Ken McElroy

19,697 次观看 • 2 个月前

you wrapped the tool call in a try block and logged the error the model never found out the exception went to your log, the conversation got nothing, and nothing is indistinguishable from success so it kept planning around a file it believes exists, and wrote the summary of the run where the call worked one line of defensive code cost you twice it could not adapt to a failure it was never shown and the only thing that went wrong is the one thing your trace does not contain
0:57

you wrapped the tool call in a try block and logged the error the model never found out the exception went to your log, the conversation got nothing, and nothing is indistinguishable from success so it kept planning around a file it believes exists, and wrote the summary of the run where the call worked one line of defensive code cost you twice it could not adapt to a failure it was never shown and the only thing that went wrong is the one thing your trace does not contain

Lagosaur

18,545 次观看 • 6 天前

Around the Senate, my Prevent Government Shutdowns is a radical idea. I believe that if Congress does not get their work done on time, they should stay in DC and not punish the American people with a shutdown. I hope my colleagues will continue to step forward and support my bill, so we never have a shutdown again.
1:25

Around the Senate, my Prevent Government Shutdowns is a radical idea. I believe that if Congress does not get their work done on time, they should stay in DC and not punish the American people with a shutdown. I hope my colleagues will continue to step forward and support my bill, so we never have a shutdown again.

Sen. James Lankford

25,945 次观看 • 4 个月前

A 19 YEAR OLD IN A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT MAKES $15,200 A MONTH FROM CARTOONS SHE NEVER FILMED. YOUTUBE SENDS HER THE CHECK FOR EVERY VIEW. She does not draw. She does not animate. She does not own a camera. She opens one tab. YouTube. Types "kids shows." The top result pays its owner between $1,000 and $15,000 for every million views. She screenshots the number so you see it. Then she opens the second tab. An AI video generator. She pastes the transcript of a cartoon that already went viral. The tool builds a character from it. A toddler named BJ, blue onesie, biting a banana, rendered in bright kid-safe 3D. She never wrote BJ. She never voiced BJ. She copied a transcript, hit generate, and watched a cartoon she does not own get born in 90 seconds. Most creators argue about whether AI art is "real." She is not in that argument. She is in the tab where the ad revenue shows up. The "kids shows" search is not research. The "kids shows" search is the shelf she is about to stock. She posts the clip. YouTube runs ads on it. A toddler in Ohio watches BJ bite a banana and her balance moves by cents that compound into four figures. The cartoon is generated. The voice is synthesized. The ad check is real. She films herself in a black tube top explaining "how it works" because the explanation is the part that goes viral. The money is in the tab she keeps behind her. Save this post. The tool is an AI video generator. The niche is kids. The payout is YouTube's, and it does not ask who pressed generate.
1:08

A 19 YEAR OLD IN A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT MAKES $15,200 A MONTH FROM CARTOONS SHE NEVER FILMED. YOUTUBE SENDS HER THE CHECK FOR EVERY VIEW. She does not draw. She does not animate. She does not own a camera. She opens one tab. YouTube. Types "kids shows." The top result pays its owner between $1,000 and $15,000 for every million views. She screenshots the number so you see it. Then she opens the second tab. An AI video generator. She pastes the transcript of a cartoon that already went viral. The tool builds a character from it. A toddler named BJ, blue onesie, biting a banana, rendered in bright kid-safe 3D. She never wrote BJ. She never voiced BJ. She copied a transcript, hit generate, and watched a cartoon she does not own get born in 90 seconds. Most creators argue about whether AI art is "real." She is not in that argument. She is in the tab where the ad revenue shows up. The "kids shows" search is not research. The "kids shows" search is the shelf she is about to stock. She posts the clip. YouTube runs ads on it. A toddler in Ohio watches BJ bite a banana and her balance moves by cents that compound into four figures. The cartoon is generated. The voice is synthesized. The ad check is real. She films herself in a black tube top explaining "how it works" because the explanation is the part that goes viral. The money is in the tab she keeps behind her. Save this post. The tool is an AI video generator. The niche is kids. The payout is YouTube's, and it does not ask who pressed generate.

ZER

2,475,818 次观看 • 1 个月前

Removing Israel from FIFA is not a punishment. It is the bare minimum. A state that bombs stadiums, kills players, and turns Lebanon’s children into names on empty shirts should not enter the pitch as if it were a normal country. Sport does not cleanse occupation.
0:29

Removing Israel from FIFA is not a punishment. It is the bare minimum. A state that bombs stadiums, kills players, and turns Lebanon’s children into names on empty shirts should not enter the pitch as if it were a normal country. Sport does not cleanse occupation.

SilencedSirs◼️

12,726 次观看 • 2 个月前

Culture is not a list of values, literary works, or costumes. Culture is a story that a people tell themselves about themselves in their territory across generations. It is their inheritance, whether they like it or not. If the people disappear, so does the culture. You cannot swap those people out for others and keep their culture, just as you cannot replace the photographs of children on their mother's mantelpiece and claim that the family remains the same.
3:50

Culture is not a list of values, literary works, or costumes. Culture is a story that a people tell themselves about themselves in their territory across generations. It is their inheritance, whether they like it or not. If the people disappear, so does the culture. You cannot swap those people out for others and keep their culture, just as you cannot replace the photographs of children on their mother's mantelpiece and claim that the family remains the same.

Connor Tomlinson

34,643 次观看 • 2 个月前

By the end of his life, President Howard W. Hunter's body had become a catalog of suffering. A massive heart attack. Coronary bypass surgery. Bleeding ulcers. Kidney failure. Back surgeries that left him leaning on a walker or sunk in a wheelchair. And finally the prostate cancer that would kill him. Few men have been asked to carry so much for so long. He did not complaint about any of it. That was the man. A stoic, quiet resilience that never once curdled into self pity. He simply bore it and kept moving. In April 1988, he came to general conference on a walker to bear his testimony before the whole Church. The doctors had told him he would never stand again. He stood anyway. Partway through, his body gave out and he fell backward, hard, breaking three ribs in front of the entire congregation. Three men lifted him to his feet. And then, with cracked ribs and every eye upon him, he finished his address as though nothing had happened. Afterward he only smiled. He was strength. You need men still willing and ready to drop the hammer on disobedience. Mercy without discipline is not mercy. It is indifference wearing mercy's coat. A church that will not correct does not actually believe anyone can be lost. Authority that flinches teaches the flock that nothing is truly at stake. Men answer to the voice of authority, not to weakness. The masculine soul does not rally to apology or to endless accommodation. It rallies to a command worth obeying, to a father confident enough to ask everything. Strength is not cruelty. It is the refusal to apologize for the truth. Hunter could not stand on his own legs. He stood anyway. He fell, and he rose, and he kept speaking the word of God. That is the measure. Not a body that never breaks, but a will that will not quit, a faith that will not negotiate, a church that will not soften the words God gave it to speak.
0:58

By the end of his life, President Howard W. Hunter's body had become a catalog of suffering. A massive heart attack. Coronary bypass surgery. Bleeding ulcers. Kidney failure. Back surgeries that left him leaning on a walker or sunk in a wheelchair. And finally the prostate cancer that would kill him. Few men have been asked to carry so much for so long. He did not complaint about any of it. That was the man. A stoic, quiet resilience that never once curdled into self pity. He simply bore it and kept moving. In April 1988, he came to general conference on a walker to bear his testimony before the whole Church. The doctors had told him he would never stand again. He stood anyway. Partway through, his body gave out and he fell backward, hard, breaking three ribs in front of the entire congregation. Three men lifted him to his feet. And then, with cracked ribs and every eye upon him, he finished his address as though nothing had happened. Afterward he only smiled. He was strength. You need men still willing and ready to drop the hammer on disobedience. Mercy without discipline is not mercy. It is indifference wearing mercy's coat. A church that will not correct does not actually believe anyone can be lost. Authority that flinches teaches the flock that nothing is truly at stake. Men answer to the voice of authority, not to weakness. The masculine soul does not rally to apology or to endless accommodation. It rallies to a command worth obeying, to a father confident enough to ask everything. Strength is not cruelty. It is the refusal to apologize for the truth. Hunter could not stand on his own legs. He stood anyway. He fell, and he rose, and he kept speaking the word of God. That is the measure. Not a body that never breaks, but a will that will not quit, a faith that will not negotiate, a church that will not soften the words God gave it to speak.

Kirk Rollins

53,552 次观看 • 2 个月前

The issue around Lucknow's Kasmandi Mosque is getting out of hand. First, Sanghis claimed that it was a temple and not a mosque. Then they demanded that namaz should not be performed inside the mosque. Now, sanghis have gathered outside the mosque to offer aarti. As a result, the govt has ordered that Eid namaz will not be performed here. Every other day, the same four 'fringe' organisations decide that a certain mosque is actually a temple. Seriously, where does this stop?
2:34

The issue around Lucknow's Kasmandi Mosque is getting out of hand. First, Sanghis claimed that it was a temple and not a mosque. Then they demanded that namaz should not be performed inside the mosque. Now, sanghis have gathered outside the mosque to offer aarti. As a result, the govt has ordered that Eid namaz will not be performed here. Every other day, the same four 'fringe' organisations decide that a certain mosque is actually a temple. Seriously, where does this stop?

Jawaharlal Nehru

17,857 次观看 • 3 个月前

Elon Musk just said the quiet part out loud about government and AI. Musk: “AI is moving 10 times faster than government, maybe more.” Not slightly ahead. Not a few years out in front. Ten times faster. And pulling away. Every regulatory body on earth runs on the same architecture. Committees form. Hearings are scheduled. Legislation is drafted, debated, revised, and passed. By the time a law exists, the thing it was written to govern has already moved three generations beyond it. That architecture was built for a world that moves at human speed. This world does not. Musk: “The one thing that the government can do is just issue people money.” Not regulate. Not protect. Not steer. Issue money. That is not a policy position. That is a surrender. The most powerful governments on earth, sitting on top of the most sophisticated legal and military infrastructure in human history, reduced to a single remaining function. Sending people checks. Because they cannot move fast enough to do anything else. Now sit with what that actually means. For ten thousand years, the central bargain of civilization was simple. You contribute labor. Society functions. You eat. The system needed you. That bargain is being quietly retired. The machine does not need you to run the factory. Does not need you to process the paperwork. Does not need you to write the code or drive the truck or staff the call center. And the government already knows it. Musk: “Nobody’s gonna starve is what I’m saying.” He is right. The floor is rising. Survival is becoming guaranteed. That should feel like the finish line. For most of human history, it would have been. But here is what nobody is saying out loud. The hard part was never survival. The hard part is what happens to a species that spent ten millennia being defined by its need to survive, the moment that need disappears. Purpose is not something the government can deposit into your account. A check covers rent. It does not answer the question of what you are for. When the thing that organized your days, justified your effort, and gave your life a legible shape gets handed to a machine, you do not automatically inherit freedom. You inherit a void. And a void with a guaranteed income is still a void. The people who will matter in this era are not the ones who cash the check and wait. They are the ones who hear the starting gun in it. For the first time in history, the baseline is solved. Which means the only question left is the one every generation before yours was too buried to ask. What are you actually here to build.
0:46

Elon Musk just said the quiet part out loud about government and AI. Musk: “AI is moving 10 times faster than government, maybe more.” Not slightly ahead. Not a few years out in front. Ten times faster. And pulling away. Every regulatory body on earth runs on the same architecture. Committees form. Hearings are scheduled. Legislation is drafted, debated, revised, and passed. By the time a law exists, the thing it was written to govern has already moved three generations beyond it. That architecture was built for a world that moves at human speed. This world does not. Musk: “The one thing that the government can do is just issue people money.” Not regulate. Not protect. Not steer. Issue money. That is not a policy position. That is a surrender. The most powerful governments on earth, sitting on top of the most sophisticated legal and military infrastructure in human history, reduced to a single remaining function. Sending people checks. Because they cannot move fast enough to do anything else. Now sit with what that actually means. For ten thousand years, the central bargain of civilization was simple. You contribute labor. Society functions. You eat. The system needed you. That bargain is being quietly retired. The machine does not need you to run the factory. Does not need you to process the paperwork. Does not need you to write the code or drive the truck or staff the call center. And the government already knows it. Musk: “Nobody’s gonna starve is what I’m saying.” He is right. The floor is rising. Survival is becoming guaranteed. That should feel like the finish line. For most of human history, it would have been. But here is what nobody is saying out loud. The hard part was never survival. The hard part is what happens to a species that spent ten millennia being defined by its need to survive, the moment that need disappears. Purpose is not something the government can deposit into your account. A check covers rent. It does not answer the question of what you are for. When the thing that organized your days, justified your effort, and gave your life a legible shape gets handed to a machine, you do not automatically inherit freedom. You inherit a void. And a void with a guaranteed income is still a void. The people who will matter in this era are not the ones who cash the check and wait. They are the ones who hear the starting gun in it. For the first time in history, the baseline is solved. Which means the only question left is the one every generation before yours was too buried to ask. What are you actually here to build.

Dustin

63,328 次观看 • 4 个月前

Non-SNP members and supporters did not donate to a ring-fenced referendum fund so that their money could quietly slide into the SNP’s general coffers as “part of the resources available” to the party. They gave it with a clear, explicit understanding: this was ring-fenced for one purpose a future independence referendum campaign. It was not a general top-up for party running costs, salaries, legal bills, or day-to-day politics. That distinction was not a vague suggestion; it was the entire basis on which many ordinary people reached into their pockets. And now that money is gone. Not “reallocated.” Not “spent in good faith.” Simply gone despite the explicit terms on which it was raised. That is not creative accounting or a technical breach. It is a fundamental breach of trust with thousands of donors who believed they were funding a democratic campaign, not subsidising a political party’s general operations. The SNP took money given in good faith under a specific, restricted purpose and treated it as a flexible slush fund. When the referendum never materialised and the money disappeared, the public and donors were left with neither the campaign nor the cash. That demands answers, not euphemisms.
4:00

Non-SNP members and supporters did not donate to a ring-fenced referendum fund so that their money could quietly slide into the SNP’s general coffers as “part of the resources available” to the party. They gave it with a clear, explicit understanding: this was ring-fenced for one purpose a future independence referendum campaign. It was not a general top-up for party running costs, salaries, legal bills, or day-to-day politics. That distinction was not a vague suggestion; it was the entire basis on which many ordinary people reached into their pockets. And now that money is gone. Not “reallocated.” Not “spent in good faith.” Simply gone despite the explicit terms on which it was raised. That is not creative accounting or a technical breach. It is a fundamental breach of trust with thousands of donors who believed they were funding a democratic campaign, not subsidising a political party’s general operations. The SNP took money given in good faith under a specific, restricted purpose and treated it as a flexible slush fund. When the referendum never materialised and the money disappeared, the public and donors were left with neither the campaign nor the cash. That demands answers, not euphemisms.

Gerry

20,895 次观看 • 3 个月前

The Spirit of God didn't come upon them when the enemies were lining up. It didn't come when they were sitting in their distress. It came when they got up and cried out to God from His house, holding Him to His covenant. And then I want you to notice something. God is always looking at the fruit that lives beyond you. The greatest thing you can do, the greatest gift you can give your children, is a spiritual inheritance. Not money. Not a house. Not a name. A faith that carries.
1:08

The Spirit of God didn't come upon them when the enemies were lining up. It didn't come when they were sitting in their distress. It came when they got up and cried out to God from His house, holding Him to His covenant. And then I want you to notice something. God is always looking at the fruit that lives beyond you. The greatest thing you can do, the greatest gift you can give your children, is a spiritual inheritance. Not money. Not a house. Not a name. A faith that carries.

Paula White-Cain

13,632 次观看 • 11 天前

Pastor warns Don Lemon and ICE protesters they will not step foot inside his church “That will not stand in this church. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to going into someone else's house of worship — Them people know that. That's why you never see them going into a mosque, because they know the Muslim ain't having that. I'm not a Muslim, but we ain't having that” “Don Lemon, don't come here. You roll up in this church doing stuff like that and it's gonna be the Royal Rumble. And the funny thing is, I'm not joking. We have worked hard. We built the church in the name of the Lord. We dedicated it to the Lord. It's built for worship. Our blood, sweat, tears and finances are in this place. And some people who have never darkened the door of a church and never contributed one dime to it roll up in here and disturb our service and scare our children and shout down, shout obscenities in the church. That will not stand in this church.”
1:20

Pastor warns Don Lemon and ICE protesters they will not step foot inside his church “That will not stand in this church. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to going into someone else's house of worship — Them people know that. That's why you never see them going into a mosque, because they know the Muslim ain't having that. I'm not a Muslim, but we ain't having that” “Don Lemon, don't come here. You roll up in this church doing stuff like that and it's gonna be the Royal Rumble. And the funny thing is, I'm not joking. We have worked hard. We built the church in the name of the Lord. We dedicated it to the Lord. It's built for worship. Our blood, sweat, tears and finances are in this place. And some people who have never darkened the door of a church and never contributed one dime to it roll up in here and disturb our service and scare our children and shout down, shout obscenities in the church. That will not stand in this church.”

Wall Street Apes

200,451 次观看 • 7 个月前

The Most Powerful Part of “The Sound of Silence” Isn’t the Singing. It’s What Happens Between the Words. Dana Winner’s voice is the first thing you notice. Clean. Warm. Held in place. For a minute I listened the way you listen to a good singer: waiting for the next note to land. Then I stopped doing that. The interesting part was not the note. It was the gap after it. That is the odd job this song has always had. It is packed with language and still keeps pointing at the place language does not reach. People talk. People look up. People sit in the same room. Nothing crosses. Winner does not act that idea out. She does not darken the vowel to prove she understands loneliness. She leaves the line where it is and lets it cool. The melody has air around it. The words sit. You can walk into them if you want to. You can also look away. I looked away and landed somewhere private. A message I drafted and never sent. A talk I kept moving to next week. A moment that did come, and I still said the safer thing. That is a quieter kind of isolation than an empty house. You can have company and still fail to get across the few feet between two chairs. Her voice matters because of where it stands. She does not sound swallowed by the quiet. She sounds just outside it, looking in. The sound is beautiful. The thing it is looking at is not. That mismatch is what makes the performance slightly hard to sit with. You come for the tone. The song keeps turning your face toward the cheaper fact: how often we speak and how rarely we arrive. The world around the song has changed. Distance collapsed. A voice can travel farther in a second than it used to travel in a week. None of that fixed the smaller problem. Being reached is not the same as being heard. Being heard is not the same as being taken in. So the song does not survive because it predicted a mute planet. It survives because it still describes a noisy one, full of people missing each other by inches. Sometimes the silence between two people is not empty. It is the sentence neither of them would risk.
3:31

The Most Powerful Part of “The Sound of Silence” Isn’t the Singing. It’s What Happens Between the Words. Dana Winner’s voice is the first thing you notice. Clean. Warm. Held in place. For a minute I listened the way you listen to a good singer: waiting for the next note to land. Then I stopped doing that. The interesting part was not the note. It was the gap after it. That is the odd job this song has always had. It is packed with language and still keeps pointing at the place language does not reach. People talk. People look up. People sit in the same room. Nothing crosses. Winner does not act that idea out. She does not darken the vowel to prove she understands loneliness. She leaves the line where it is and lets it cool. The melody has air around it. The words sit. You can walk into them if you want to. You can also look away. I looked away and landed somewhere private. A message I drafted and never sent. A talk I kept moving to next week. A moment that did come, and I still said the safer thing. That is a quieter kind of isolation than an empty house. You can have company and still fail to get across the few feet between two chairs. Her voice matters because of where it stands. She does not sound swallowed by the quiet. She sounds just outside it, looking in. The sound is beautiful. The thing it is looking at is not. That mismatch is what makes the performance slightly hard to sit with. You come for the tone. The song keeps turning your face toward the cheaper fact: how often we speak and how rarely we arrive. The world around the song has changed. Distance collapsed. A voice can travel farther in a second than it used to travel in a week. None of that fixed the smaller problem. Being reached is not the same as being heard. Being heard is not the same as being taken in. So the song does not survive because it predicted a mute planet. It survives because it still describes a noisy one, full of people missing each other by inches. Sometimes the silence between two people is not empty. It is the sentence neither of them would risk.

Emotion & Music

15,311 次观看 • 3 天前