Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Third jerking today💧but be honest — does this tight shaved hole look like a proper cumdump? 😈 #Balaclava #AssUp #ShavedAss #SmoothHole #TightHole #CumDump #BreedMe #Public #Anonymous #NSFW #UrbanKink #HoleReady #UsedHole

piercetease's profile picture

Pierce Tease

12,510 subscribers

10,584 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#Balaclava#AssUp#ShavedAss#SmoothHole#TightHole#CumDump#BreedMe#Public#Anonymous#NSFW#UrbanKink#HoleReady#UsedHole
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Flew this tight little white twink all the way to Dubai to be our personal cum-guzzling fuck toy, breeding bitch, and eager pink boy-cunt for the entire week. We parade and pose him like a trophy wherever we go, but behind closed doors we three huge hung Black Bulls are viciously destroying and wrecking his sloppy, greedy boy-pussy — brutally stretching, pile-driving, and gaping his hungry fuckhole raw with our thick veiny BBCs until it’s completely ruined, prolapsed, wrecked, and turned into a sloppy dripping cum-sleeve. By the end of the week this little snowbunny won’t be walking straight, just waddling bow-legged with our thick loads bubbling and leaking out of his destroyed cunt down his thighs. Hope he packed a fucking diaper for that long flight home 😈🍆💦💦💦 #BBC #Interracial #SizeQueen #BlackDaddies #BoyPussy #TwinkDestruction #LuxuryBBC #BreedingSeason #HeightDifference #Snowbunny #BBCGang #PinkBoyPussy #CumDump #HoleWrecker #BBCBreeding #GapingBoy #SloppyCunt #BoyCunt #CumSleeve #ProlapsedPussy #BBCWorship
0:33

Flew this tight little white twink all the way to Dubai to be our personal cum-guzzling fuck toy, breeding bitch, and eager pink boy-cunt for the entire week. We parade and pose him like a trophy wherever we go, but behind closed doors we three huge hung Black Bulls are viciously destroying and wrecking his sloppy, greedy boy-pussy — brutally stretching, pile-driving, and gaping his hungry fuckhole raw with our thick veiny BBCs until it’s completely ruined, prolapsed, wrecked, and turned into a sloppy dripping cum-sleeve. By the end of the week this little snowbunny won’t be walking straight, just waddling bow-legged with our thick loads bubbling and leaking out of his destroyed cunt down his thighs. Hope he packed a fucking diaper for that long flight home 😈🍆💦💦💦 #BBC #Interracial #SizeQueen #BlackDaddies #BoyPussy #TwinkDestruction #LuxuryBBC #BreedingSeason #HeightDifference #Snowbunny #BBCGang #PinkBoyPussy #CumDump #HoleWrecker #BBCBreeding #GapingBoy #SloppyCunt #BoyCunt #CumSleeve #ProlapsedPussy #BBCWorship

DC Daddy

18,196 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

I might get cancelled for this, but it needs to be said. How we present ourselves in public often mirrors our self-respect and inner condition. When many people show up ungroomed, overly casual, and careless in their overall presentation (with an indulgent lifestyle), it can drastically shift a society toward lower standards of dignity and mutual respect. Which is what we see in the West. Compare how Americans dress today to how Americans dressed 100 years ago. And compare the moral standards and ethics in society today to 100 years ago. Yes, it is directly correlated. What you look like on the outside and how you present yourself in society DOES matter. Let us strive to be more dignified and ordered so we can elevate society to value things that are beautiful once again.
2:18

I might get cancelled for this, but it needs to be said. How we present ourselves in public often mirrors our self-respect and inner condition. When many people show up ungroomed, overly casual, and careless in their overall presentation (with an indulgent lifestyle), it can drastically shift a society toward lower standards of dignity and mutual respect. Which is what we see in the West. Compare how Americans dress today to how Americans dressed 100 years ago. And compare the moral standards and ethics in society today to 100 years ago. Yes, it is directly correlated. What you look like on the outside and how you present yourself in society DOES matter. Let us strive to be more dignified and ordered so we can elevate society to value things that are beautiful once again.

Kangmin Lee | 이강민

72,123 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

This situation is blowing up, and people are split… ✈️ A woman trying to board a Delta flight in Chicago says things took a turn when she was told she had too many items. She had a backpack and a small bag, nothing crazy. She even complied and consolidated everything. But then it escalated. She tried to explain one of the items she was carrying a breast pump, and said it was a medical device. That’s when she claims the employee pushed back hard… “You don’t look like you need a medical device. Prove it.” So she does. She takes it out. Shows it. And according to her, the response? “That’s not a medical device.” Now, the situation shifts from a simple boarding issue to something much bigger, questions about privacy, respect, and who gets to decide what qualifies as a “medical need.” Some people are backing her, saying no one should be forced to “prove” something like that in public. Others are questioning whether a breast pump actually falls under the same category as medical devices in airline policies. But either way… the interaction itself has people talking. Because once it becomes about how someone “looks” and whether they “deserve” something… it hits differently. So be honest, was this discrimination, or just a misunderstanding of policy? And should passengers ever have to prove something that personal just to board a flight?
1:58

This situation is blowing up, and people are split… ✈️ A woman trying to board a Delta flight in Chicago says things took a turn when she was told she had too many items. She had a backpack and a small bag, nothing crazy. She even complied and consolidated everything. But then it escalated. She tried to explain one of the items she was carrying a breast pump, and said it was a medical device. That’s when she claims the employee pushed back hard… “You don’t look like you need a medical device. Prove it.” So she does. She takes it out. Shows it. And according to her, the response? “That’s not a medical device.” Now, the situation shifts from a simple boarding issue to something much bigger, questions about privacy, respect, and who gets to decide what qualifies as a “medical need.” Some people are backing her, saying no one should be forced to “prove” something like that in public. Others are questioning whether a breast pump actually falls under the same category as medical devices in airline policies. But either way… the interaction itself has people talking. Because once it becomes about how someone “looks” and whether they “deserve” something… it hits differently. So be honest, was this discrimination, or just a misunderstanding of policy? And should passengers ever have to prove something that personal just to board a flight?

Dr.L

810,344 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

TODD SCHULTE of FWD.us on Republicans circumventing Democrats to fund ICE through reconciliation: Yeah, look—our understanding is that if they choose to move forward with a reconciliation bill, there are three things that are really important. Number one, it’s a party-line vote, and it’s something you have to pay for with offsets. Number two, DHS already has $150 billion for ICE and CBP, and now they’re talking about adding tens of billions more on top of that—for three years, along with funding for the war in Iran. So third, you’re talking about a couple hundred billion more for ICE and CBP, a couple hundred billion more for Iran—paid for at a time when costs are skyrocketing—with what, half a trillion dollars in cuts to healthcare, to Medicaid, to Medicare? Look, that’s bad policy, but the politics couldn’t be more clear. The public does not want hundreds of billions of dollars spent on ICE, paid for by cuts to their healthcare. And I think it’s important to understand the difference between this reconciliation package and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was also a reconciliation bill. People may remember last year’s bill—it was a party-line vote that only needed 50 votes. Last time, it was about big tax cuts paid for by roughly a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicaid. It wasn’t popular, but it passed. There was $191 billion for DHS in that bill—it didn’t get a lot of attention, but it should have. Vice President Vance said that was actually the most important part of the bill—the funding for ICE and CBP. But now, this is going to be about ICE and Iran, paid for by healthcare cuts. At a time when the public is outraged after events in Minneapolis and Los Angeles—when places like Home Depot, churches, and schools are being described as deportation sites—this is going to be a huge, nasty political fight. And I hope Republicans abandon it.
2:09

TODD SCHULTE of FWD.us on Republicans circumventing Democrats to fund ICE through reconciliation: Yeah, look—our understanding is that if they choose to move forward with a reconciliation bill, there are three things that are really important. Number one, it’s a party-line vote, and it’s something you have to pay for with offsets. Number two, DHS already has $150 billion for ICE and CBP, and now they’re talking about adding tens of billions more on top of that—for three years, along with funding for the war in Iran. So third, you’re talking about a couple hundred billion more for ICE and CBP, a couple hundred billion more for Iran—paid for at a time when costs are skyrocketing—with what, half a trillion dollars in cuts to healthcare, to Medicaid, to Medicare? Look, that’s bad policy, but the politics couldn’t be more clear. The public does not want hundreds of billions of dollars spent on ICE, paid for by cuts to their healthcare. And I think it’s important to understand the difference between this reconciliation package and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was also a reconciliation bill. People may remember last year’s bill—it was a party-line vote that only needed 50 votes. Last time, it was about big tax cuts paid for by roughly a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicaid. It wasn’t popular, but it passed. There was $191 billion for DHS in that bill—it didn’t get a lot of attention, but it should have. Vice President Vance said that was actually the most important part of the bill—the funding for ICE and CBP. But now, this is going to be about ICE and Iran, paid for by healthcare cuts. At a time when the public is outraged after events in Minneapolis and Los Angeles—when places like Home Depot, churches, and schools are being described as deportation sites—this is going to be a huge, nasty political fight. And I hope Republicans abandon it.

Pablo Manríquez

40,070 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Many don’t like me because I’m direct, straightforward, and brutally honest. Ironically, those who love PDJT, but dislike me, clearly have issues. I’m just like him. We also have the same Simple and Hebrew Gematria numbers. I got my raising from old school Grandparents and Parents. It was a common theme with PDJT’s generation. My Dad is 4 years older than PDJT. Too many have forgotten SIMPLE PRINCIPLES. I don’t say anything that I don’t already know the answer to. I don’t say anything that I’m not willing to answer for or defend my stance. One may not like my stance, but I won’t be wishy-washy or flip-flopping. They’re still trying to show and teach people what Chameleons look like. Because IF you change your stance on something in your life, and it’s on public or family / friend record… You’ll need to address that and then be dang sure that you are VERY KEENLY CONSISTENT on your new stance. As we grow older, we are supposed to mature, and learn things, and we are subject to change stances due to various circumstances, factors, and reasons. But once one does, know why you’re changing and always be consistent after it. The Swamp, NEVER did this, they say things for Votes depending on the atmosphere and environment of topic and people’s stances. You’d much rather have someone consistent with a more rigid personality versus a soft spoken, non-consistent, changing with the vote sway, to stay in “office” to get a free paycheck at your expense. 📌
1:05

Many don’t like me because I’m direct, straightforward, and brutally honest. Ironically, those who love PDJT, but dislike me, clearly have issues. I’m just like him. We also have the same Simple and Hebrew Gematria numbers. I got my raising from old school Grandparents and Parents. It was a common theme with PDJT’s generation. My Dad is 4 years older than PDJT. Too many have forgotten SIMPLE PRINCIPLES. I don’t say anything that I don’t already know the answer to. I don’t say anything that I’m not willing to answer for or defend my stance. One may not like my stance, but I won’t be wishy-washy or flip-flopping. They’re still trying to show and teach people what Chameleons look like. Because IF you change your stance on something in your life, and it’s on public or family / friend record… You’ll need to address that and then be dang sure that you are VERY KEENLY CONSISTENT on your new stance. As we grow older, we are supposed to mature, and learn things, and we are subject to change stances due to various circumstances, factors, and reasons. But once one does, know why you’re changing and always be consistent after it. The Swamp, NEVER did this, they say things for Votes depending on the atmosphere and environment of topic and people’s stances. You’d much rather have someone consistent with a more rigid personality versus a soft spoken, non-consistent, changing with the vote sway, to stay in “office” to get a free paycheck at your expense. 📌

Derek Johnson

18,705 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

This clip is deeply disturbing, it was shared with me today. A senior IOG employee describes autonomous killing drones using "skin tone" to identify targets, says it would be "quite trivial" and adds that for "third world" cultures it would be nearly impossible to defend against. Why is this the kind of example being casually discussed by someone representing a major Cardano company? This is not an isolated concern. We have already seen racial slurs from people connected to or aligned with IOG/Cardano governance circles. ie. Phil 🪏 a CC member and Lucas a former employee Does Input Output Group condone this kind of language and thinking from its employees, consultants or representatives? Do companies and organizations working with IOG, Cardano institutions, Cardano Foundation, EMURGO consider this acceptable? Because every time institutions fund, endorse or defend an IOG proposal without demanding accountability, they should ask themselves what behavior they are normalizing. Influencers keep talking about "controlling the narrative." But maybe the real issue is not the narrative. Maybe the issue is the conduct, comments and culture people are being asked to ignore. You cannot market your way out of this. Big companies, regulators and serious partners do not look at comments like this and say "great ecosystem." They ask what kind of culture allows it.
0:50

This clip is deeply disturbing, it was shared with me today. A senior IOG employee describes autonomous killing drones using "skin tone" to identify targets, says it would be "quite trivial" and adds that for "third world" cultures it would be nearly impossible to defend against. Why is this the kind of example being casually discussed by someone representing a major Cardano company? This is not an isolated concern. We have already seen racial slurs from people connected to or aligned with IOG/Cardano governance circles. ie. Phil 🪏 a CC member and Lucas a former employee Does Input Output Group condone this kind of language and thinking from its employees, consultants or representatives? Do companies and organizations working with IOG, Cardano institutions, Cardano Foundation, EMURGO consider this acceptable? Because every time institutions fund, endorse or defend an IOG proposal without demanding accountability, they should ask themselves what behavior they are normalizing. Influencers keep talking about "controlling the narrative." But maybe the real issue is not the narrative. Maybe the issue is the conduct, comments and culture people are being asked to ignore. You cannot market your way out of this. Big companies, regulators and serious partners do not look at comments like this and say "great ecosystem." They ask what kind of culture allows it.

⛏️Dr. Navjit Dhaliwal

16,405 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Sam Altman says an AI will be a better CEO of OpenAI than he is, and that he expects it reasonably soon: "If we had an AI system that could do a better job at making decisions than anyone we could possibly have, be, say, president of the United States, would we, and like confidently, much better, would we politically or societally want that? It's very unclear. Most people I think today at least would say probably not." "Or, you know, like an AI CEO of a big company, would you rather have, I think it'd be awesome for OpenAI to have an AI CEO. But I think a lot of people would be like, ah, that's a little scary." "But I have no delusions that an AI will not be a better CEO of OpenAI than me at some reasonably soon time." "If that's true, and if some companies or countries don't do that, and others do, and AI is much better, like that will have a real impact in economic competitiveness, national competitiveness, things like that." "I think people will feel increasingly like, we either do worse, or we put the AI in more and more, influential positions." "I think people will always want human board members, and that's probably a really great idea." Read that third quote twice. He is not predicting this for other companies. He is saying it about his own job. Then look at the pressure he describes right after. Nobody has to be convinced that an AI CEO is a good idea. If one company hands over the decision and pulls ahead, everyone else picks between falling behind and doing the same. Competitive pressure does the deciding, and what most people would want stops mattering. His answer to that is human board members. I would take it. I also do not think it is enough on its own. A board oversees a CEO by reading what it is told, once a quarter. That works because a human CEO can be questioned, and thinks slowly enough for humans to follow along. What does a board actually check when the thing it oversees makes a thousand consequential calls a day? Nobody has built that. Not for a single AI system anywhere. - Sam Altman (Sam Altman), CEO of OpenAI, at TreeHacks 2026.
1:50

Sam Altman says an AI will be a better CEO of OpenAI than he is, and that he expects it reasonably soon: "If we had an AI system that could do a better job at making decisions than anyone we could possibly have, be, say, president of the United States, would we, and like confidently, much better, would we politically or societally want that? It's very unclear. Most people I think today at least would say probably not." "Or, you know, like an AI CEO of a big company, would you rather have, I think it'd be awesome for OpenAI to have an AI CEO. But I think a lot of people would be like, ah, that's a little scary." "But I have no delusions that an AI will not be a better CEO of OpenAI than me at some reasonably soon time." "If that's true, and if some companies or countries don't do that, and others do, and AI is much better, like that will have a real impact in economic competitiveness, national competitiveness, things like that." "I think people will feel increasingly like, we either do worse, or we put the AI in more and more, influential positions." "I think people will always want human board members, and that's probably a really great idea." Read that third quote twice. He is not predicting this for other companies. He is saying it about his own job. Then look at the pressure he describes right after. Nobody has to be convinced that an AI CEO is a good idea. If one company hands over the decision and pulls ahead, everyone else picks between falling behind and doing the same. Competitive pressure does the deciding, and what most people would want stops mattering. His answer to that is human board members. I would take it. I also do not think it is enough on its own. A board oversees a CEO by reading what it is told, once a quarter. That works because a human CEO can be questioned, and thinks slowly enough for humans to follow along. What does a board actually check when the thing it oversees makes a thousand consequential calls a day? Nobody has built that. Not for a single AI system anywhere. - Sam Altman (Sam Altman), CEO of OpenAI, at TreeHacks 2026.

Karl Mehta

28,061 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Prevail International Group has demonstrated, project after project, what professional execution looks like. This embarrassment at National Sports Stadium is the price Zimbabwe pays when inexperienced contractors are handed contracts they cannot honour." Look at it. Just look at it. The photograph now circulating on social media showing the renovated toilets at National sports Stadium is not the image of a completed project. It is the image of a failure. Uneven tiled floors. Awkward, unnecessary stepped platforms in the middle of a bathroom. This is what happens when a contract meant for professionals ends up in the hands of the inexperienced. And the most painful part? It did not have to be this way.Prevail International Group was available. Prevail International Group has a proven track record. Prevail International Group has delivered, at scale, the kind of infrastructure work that Zimbabwe's public health system desperately needed. The Presidential Borehole Drilling Scheme. The Muroodzi River Rehabilitation. Village Business Units rolled out across rural communities. Hospital refurbishment programmes that actually looked like hospital refurbishments when the ribbon was cut. Prevail International Group, under its development mandate, has consistently demonstrated what professional project execution looks like in Zimbabwe. Their hospital refurbishment work at Parirenyatwa, Mpilo, and Mbuya Nehanda Maternity set a benchmark that other contractors have struggled to match. Clean finishes. Proper materials. Work that holds up not just on launch day, but weeks and months later when the cameras are gone. Instead, someone made a different decision. Someone awarded a contract funded by public resources to a contractor who clearly lacked the experience, the supervision, or the professionalism to deliver. The result is now viral on social media, being shared and mocked across platforms, an embarrassment to the facility, to the programme, and to Zimbabwe. There is a dangerous misconception that drives poor procurement decisions in Zimbabwe's public sector the belief that awarding a contract to a cheaper, less experienced contractor saves money. It does not. It never does. What you save on the contract price, you spend twice over on remedial work, on reputational damage, on the loss of public confidence in renovation programmes that are genuinely trying to make a difference. The authorities responsible for procurement at National Sports Stadium owe the public an explanation. Who was awarded this contract? What were the selection criteria? Who conducted the site inspections? And critically was payment released for work that looks like this? The lesson from National Sports Stadium is not that renovation programmes should stop. The lesson is that they must be entrusted to those who have already proven they can deliver. The right partner Prevail International was always there. The question is why they were not chosen.
1:30

Prevail International Group has demonstrated, project after project, what professional execution looks like. This embarrassment at National Sports Stadium is the price Zimbabwe pays when inexperienced contractors are handed contracts they cannot honour." Look at it. Just look at it. The photograph now circulating on social media showing the renovated toilets at National sports Stadium is not the image of a completed project. It is the image of a failure. Uneven tiled floors. Awkward, unnecessary stepped platforms in the middle of a bathroom. This is what happens when a contract meant for professionals ends up in the hands of the inexperienced. And the most painful part? It did not have to be this way.Prevail International Group was available. Prevail International Group has a proven track record. Prevail International Group has delivered, at scale, the kind of infrastructure work that Zimbabwe's public health system desperately needed. The Presidential Borehole Drilling Scheme. The Muroodzi River Rehabilitation. Village Business Units rolled out across rural communities. Hospital refurbishment programmes that actually looked like hospital refurbishments when the ribbon was cut. Prevail International Group, under its development mandate, has consistently demonstrated what professional project execution looks like in Zimbabwe. Their hospital refurbishment work at Parirenyatwa, Mpilo, and Mbuya Nehanda Maternity set a benchmark that other contractors have struggled to match. Clean finishes. Proper materials. Work that holds up not just on launch day, but weeks and months later when the cameras are gone. Instead, someone made a different decision. Someone awarded a contract funded by public resources to a contractor who clearly lacked the experience, the supervision, or the professionalism to deliver. The result is now viral on social media, being shared and mocked across platforms, an embarrassment to the facility, to the programme, and to Zimbabwe. There is a dangerous misconception that drives poor procurement decisions in Zimbabwe's public sector the belief that awarding a contract to a cheaper, less experienced contractor saves money. It does not. It never does. What you save on the contract price, you spend twice over on remedial work, on reputational damage, on the loss of public confidence in renovation programmes that are genuinely trying to make a difference. The authorities responsible for procurement at National Sports Stadium owe the public an explanation. Who was awarded this contract? What were the selection criteria? Who conducted the site inspections? And critically was payment released for work that looks like this? The lesson from National Sports Stadium is not that renovation programmes should stop. The lesson is that they must be entrusted to those who have already proven they can deliver. The right partner Prevail International was always there. The question is why they were not chosen.

Gachange

23,496 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Q showing why you can't outsmart the 10MA. I just want to show you this one this is also the reason why you should use the 10-day moving average we bought this thing on stream this is a five-star setup memorize this, hot sector covid19 stock like a vaccine name right perfect five star setup has a big move pulls back finds support on the rising 20 day puts in like a tight range and then breaks out on high volume we bought it unfortunately I sold it way too early I sold it in the like high 70s or something I didn't wait for it first close below the 10 day because you know I was up what 70 percent in just a week or two. Sometimes holding a big winner is the hardest thing to do and look at this thing after I sold it the stock doubled the stock doubled I had a hard time holding a 60-70% winner and after I sold it it doubled that's why you use the 10MA, and you would still be in it because it hasn't closed below the 10 day yet this is what happens sometimes like I have way too many things on my charts I'm thinking about removing stuff I actually removed one moving average like the 65 ema on the daily chart I removed it because you know sometimes you look at too many things you kind of lose focus you cannot lose focus on the important stuff and in this case it was the first close below the 10-day which still hasn't happened and you don't need to do any predictions like oh I have a target for it, all you need to focus on: -You sell half or a third or two thirds or whatever whatever you feel like but I would say around half after the first three to five days -Move your stop to break even -Then you just trail on the 10-day moving average you don't need any predictions it doesn't matter what the Fed says, it doesn't matter what China does, it doesn't work no matter what trump says or does, you don't need to care about any of those things only thing you need to care about is the 10-day moving average that's it no rocket science involved.
2:28

Q showing why you can't outsmart the 10MA. I just want to show you this one this is also the reason why you should use the 10-day moving average we bought this thing on stream this is a five-star setup memorize this, hot sector covid19 stock like a vaccine name right perfect five star setup has a big move pulls back finds support on the rising 20 day puts in like a tight range and then breaks out on high volume we bought it unfortunately I sold it way too early I sold it in the like high 70s or something I didn't wait for it first close below the 10 day because you know I was up what 70 percent in just a week or two. Sometimes holding a big winner is the hardest thing to do and look at this thing after I sold it the stock doubled the stock doubled I had a hard time holding a 60-70% winner and after I sold it it doubled that's why you use the 10MA, and you would still be in it because it hasn't closed below the 10 day yet this is what happens sometimes like I have way too many things on my charts I'm thinking about removing stuff I actually removed one moving average like the 65 ema on the daily chart I removed it because you know sometimes you look at too many things you kind of lose focus you cannot lose focus on the important stuff and in this case it was the first close below the 10-day which still hasn't happened and you don't need to do any predictions like oh I have a target for it, all you need to focus on: -You sell half or a third or two thirds or whatever whatever you feel like but I would say around half after the first three to five days -Move your stop to break even -Then you just trail on the 10-day moving average you don't need any predictions it doesn't matter what the Fed says, it doesn't matter what China does, it doesn't work no matter what trump says or does, you don't need to care about any of those things only thing you need to care about is the 10-day moving average that's it no rocket science involved.

Qullamaggie Wisdom

23,565 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

They’re not hanging about are they? A full cabinet… a flurry of policy announcements…a speech from the Chancellor and a tour of all four nations by the Prime Minister. No time to sit in a dark room, pour a stiff drink and recover after the general election campaign. And to be honest, you can see why. The incoming Labour Government has built almost their entire economic strategy around one thing: growth. If you ask them how on earth they can improve public services without putting up taxes or breaking their fiscal rules, this is the answer they give. Growth. The problem is… it’s quite hard to get growth. You can’t just click your fingers and it comes. And it’s unpredictable. It’s a bit like when I try and follow a recipe… I put in all the right ingredients but I’m never sure what’s going to emerge at the end and what it’s going to taste like. It’s the same with growth. You can do all the right things… but a big international event, or an unpredictable national crisis happens and that changes everything. Every Government wants growth. But it’s not that easy. So you can see why Labour isn’t hanging around. Today Rachel Reeves is pulling out all the stops to try and get growth back into the economy. She’s bringing back housebuilding targets, overhauling the planning system, and ending the ban on onshore wind farms. And they need it to work. Because without growth, they’ve got a big hole in their economic plans. Video 👇
1:24

They’re not hanging about are they? A full cabinet… a flurry of policy announcements…a speech from the Chancellor and a tour of all four nations by the Prime Minister. No time to sit in a dark room, pour a stiff drink and recover after the general election campaign. And to be honest, you can see why. The incoming Labour Government has built almost their entire economic strategy around one thing: growth. If you ask them how on earth they can improve public services without putting up taxes or breaking their fiscal rules, this is the answer they give. Growth. The problem is… it’s quite hard to get growth. You can’t just click your fingers and it comes. And it’s unpredictable. It’s a bit like when I try and follow a recipe… I put in all the right ingredients but I’m never sure what’s going to emerge at the end and what it’s going to taste like. It’s the same with growth. You can do all the right things… but a big international event, or an unpredictable national crisis happens and that changes everything. Every Government wants growth. But it’s not that easy. So you can see why Labour isn’t hanging around. Today Rachel Reeves is pulling out all the stops to try and get growth back into the economy. She’s bringing back housebuilding targets, overhauling the planning system, and ending the ban on onshore wind farms. And they need it to work. Because without growth, they’ve got a big hole in their economic plans. Video 👇

Sophy Ridge

1,062,617 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

DEEP THOUGHTS from Scott Adams and Naval on Singularity Theory and the nature of consciousness. Naval: I try not to go too much in the supernatural, but I'll be honest, there are times when I've prayed. (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) Scott: Can't hurt! Naval: Nobody's perfect! Yeah, exactly. Pascal's wager, right? Just in case! Scott: Yeah, I've got a version of this. I don't know if I've ever said this out loud before, but every now and then I just talk to the creators of The Simulation that are watching me -- because it might be me . . . . Naval: Yeah, exactly! No, I completely agree. Yes, if simulation hypothesis is true, then, you know, God or creator or master programmer has your best interest at heart. Scott: I say things like, you know: "Is this the plan? I mean, are you really going to do this thing?" Naval: Exactly. Exactly. No, yeah. Like, “don't take me out of the game too fast.” Like, “you need some resource if you want me to be effective, right?” Or like, “I'm not Job. Don't try me. I'll fail.” (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) “Let's not go through. Let's not take that route. Let's try a different one.” Yeah, I think everybody does that. Because at the end of the day, existence itself is an unexplained miracle! Like how did we get here? Why am I here? Why am I a monkey? Why am I three dimensional? Why am I male? Why am I talking to you right now? What does it even mean to talk, right? The whole thing is so surreal that there is an instantaneous and overarching miracle of just consciousness. Like why even be conscious? Why not just be like zombies or robots talking to each other, going through the same actions? Why even be aware? So, there's so much here that you just have to take axiomatically -- and that is spirituality. And I think your spirituality, your current religion, is a Simulation Hypothesis. It's perfectly valid, you know. Mine is probably closer to the Tao and, you know, other people's Christianity or whatever, but somehow, you have to explain this miracle of existence. And everyone has to do it in their own frame. But the rest is science, right? The rest is all -- follows the rules of science. And so, what I don't like is when like someone says: “This one, I'm correct, it's scientific, you should believe it because of these following arguments.” And then I'm like: “Okay, well, what are the implications? How do we test it?” If you want me to believe in the real world, it has to be scientific, which means it has to be testable. There's a third category that I will accept, which is direct experience, but it's only valid for you. So, if you have a direct experience of something, you can hold it, but your ability to convey it is zero, because everybody has their own experience and you can't take anybody else's experience at value. Scott: I'll give you that. I'm gonna give you that my personal experience is so bizarre that -- I mean, it's not, I don't think it's quite Elon Musk level, but I mean, you've got your own life that's kind of, doesn't match. Naval: Yeah, very surreal. Yeah. Scott: I mean, how do the three of us exist? Is this really – like, there's so many things in my life that happened, and I'm sure you have the same feeling, where you just say, how is this real? I mean, just how is this real? Naval: If you want to talk absolute truth, and nothing else, the only statement that you can make that is absolutely true is that – what’s that? Go ahead. Scott: I know where this is going. Naval: Sorry. What's yours? Scott: It's that we exist. To ask the question. That's the only thing you know. Naval: It's actually even worse than that! (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) I used to say it was I exist and then a very smart friend of mine corrected me and he said, no, awareness exists. You don't even know that you exist. Your thought, like yes, your current thought exists and you're aware of that current thought, but what is the you that is having that thought? That's the whole Buddhist question, the whole enlightenment question. Is there a persistent self-identity other than just thoughts that are referring to each other? Like when you look for yourself, you're not actually there. There's an awareness. The awareness exists, but the you separate from that awareness, does that even exist? Full transcript of podcast (excerpt begins at 54:33): Full video:
24:30

DEEP THOUGHTS from Scott Adams and Naval on Singularity Theory and the nature of consciousness. Naval: I try not to go too much in the supernatural, but I'll be honest, there are times when I've prayed. (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) Scott: Can't hurt! Naval: Nobody's perfect! Yeah, exactly. Pascal's wager, right? Just in case! Scott: Yeah, I've got a version of this. I don't know if I've ever said this out loud before, but every now and then I just talk to the creators of The Simulation that are watching me -- because it might be me . . . . Naval: Yeah, exactly! No, I completely agree. Yes, if simulation hypothesis is true, then, you know, God or creator or master programmer has your best interest at heart. Scott: I say things like, you know: "Is this the plan? I mean, are you really going to do this thing?" Naval: Exactly. Exactly. No, yeah. Like, “don't take me out of the game too fast.” Like, “you need some resource if you want me to be effective, right?” Or like, “I'm not Job. Don't try me. I'll fail.” (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) “Let's not go through. Let's not take that route. Let's try a different one.” Yeah, I think everybody does that. Because at the end of the day, existence itself is an unexplained miracle! Like how did we get here? Why am I here? Why am I a monkey? Why am I three dimensional? Why am I male? Why am I talking to you right now? What does it even mean to talk, right? The whole thing is so surreal that there is an instantaneous and overarching miracle of just consciousness. Like why even be conscious? Why not just be like zombies or robots talking to each other, going through the same actions? Why even be aware? So, there's so much here that you just have to take axiomatically -- and that is spirituality. And I think your spirituality, your current religion, is a Simulation Hypothesis. It's perfectly valid, you know. Mine is probably closer to the Tao and, you know, other people's Christianity or whatever, but somehow, you have to explain this miracle of existence. And everyone has to do it in their own frame. But the rest is science, right? The rest is all -- follows the rules of science. And so, what I don't like is when like someone says: “This one, I'm correct, it's scientific, you should believe it because of these following arguments.” And then I'm like: “Okay, well, what are the implications? How do we test it?” If you want me to believe in the real world, it has to be scientific, which means it has to be testable. There's a third category that I will accept, which is direct experience, but it's only valid for you. So, if you have a direct experience of something, you can hold it, but your ability to convey it is zero, because everybody has their own experience and you can't take anybody else's experience at value. Scott: I'll give you that. I'm gonna give you that my personal experience is so bizarre that -- I mean, it's not, I don't think it's quite Elon Musk level, but I mean, you've got your own life that's kind of, doesn't match. Naval: Yeah, very surreal. Yeah. Scott: I mean, how do the three of us exist? Is this really – like, there's so many things in my life that happened, and I'm sure you have the same feeling, where you just say, how is this real? I mean, just how is this real? Naval: If you want to talk absolute truth, and nothing else, the only statement that you can make that is absolutely true is that – what’s that? Go ahead. Scott: I know where this is going. Naval: Sorry. What's yours? Scott: It's that we exist. To ask the question. That's the only thing you know. Naval: It's actually even worse than that! (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) I used to say it was I exist and then a very smart friend of mine corrected me and he said, no, awareness exists. You don't even know that you exist. Your thought, like yes, your current thought exists and you're aware of that current thought, but what is the you that is having that thought? That's the whole Buddhist question, the whole enlightenment question. Is there a persistent self-identity other than just thoughts that are referring to each other? Like when you look for yourself, you're not actually there. There's an awareness. The awareness exists, but the you separate from that awareness, does that even exist? Full transcript of podcast (excerpt begins at 54:33): Full video:

ScottAdamsVids

104,969 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Influencer with over 450k followers explains why she is no longer Democrat “It's really sad because I used to be left leaning when I felt like being on the left made sense to who I was — but when I look back, this is not the same party This party has gone so rogue out of such high emotions, whether that be hatred for Trump or love for feeling like they are a better person or the, you know, savior of the damned. What does the left stand for today that actually benefits the common American? Not the tiny little population of random third world minorities, not the 0.1% of the populations, right? I'm talking about the common middle class working American. What does the left advocate for that actually benefits their system or their personhood, their life? Their family values, maybe their Christian values, right? Because the left claims to be this. Inclusive party of tolerance, but then only has eyes and a soul for people that don't align with American values. And I can't for the life of me figure out why it's a Muslim socialist one day and then it's a Venezuelan drug dealing dictator the next day. You would rather on the left defend these people and find ways to morph them into your society than for one second say, you know, maybe the right has a point. How do you become so far out of sight? You can actually sit there and defend an actual dictator who has starved tens of millions of people, children, families. Because again, for one second, you can't possibly come out with, yeah, maybe Trump did a good thing. — We're the more educated party, but we’re gonna side with gang members because we hate our president so much that we'd rather hate him more than we hate you. Gang members, murderers, traffickers will defend fraud because they don't want to give credit where it's due to a right-wing person. How are you more mad at the person that exposed the fraud than the people doing the fraud? — You can't blame Trump for the fact that you won't look inward”
2:45

Influencer with over 450k followers explains why she is no longer Democrat “It's really sad because I used to be left leaning when I felt like being on the left made sense to who I was — but when I look back, this is not the same party This party has gone so rogue out of such high emotions, whether that be hatred for Trump or love for feeling like they are a better person or the, you know, savior of the damned. What does the left stand for today that actually benefits the common American? Not the tiny little population of random third world minorities, not the 0.1% of the populations, right? I'm talking about the common middle class working American. What does the left advocate for that actually benefits their system or their personhood, their life? Their family values, maybe their Christian values, right? Because the left claims to be this. Inclusive party of tolerance, but then only has eyes and a soul for people that don't align with American values. And I can't for the life of me figure out why it's a Muslim socialist one day and then it's a Venezuelan drug dealing dictator the next day. You would rather on the left defend these people and find ways to morph them into your society than for one second say, you know, maybe the right has a point. How do you become so far out of sight? You can actually sit there and defend an actual dictator who has starved tens of millions of people, children, families. Because again, for one second, you can't possibly come out with, yeah, maybe Trump did a good thing. — We're the more educated party, but we’re gonna side with gang members because we hate our president so much that we'd rather hate him more than we hate you. Gang members, murderers, traffickers will defend fraud because they don't want to give credit where it's due to a right-wing person. How are you more mad at the person that exposed the fraud than the people doing the fraud? — You can't blame Trump for the fact that you won't look inward”

Wall Street Apes

211,622 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Can I be honest with you? I didn’t want to start the programme talking about the Conservative claim that a Labour Government would cost you £2,000 in extra taxes. It’s obviously been disputed. Not just because it’s cumulative rather than annual – but because it’s based on an awful lot of assumptions, with some of the conclusions even being disowned by the authors who did the research. But look – I’m being sucked down the rabbit hole now too. There are two reasons I don’t want to talk about the £2,000 claim. The first is because the Conservatives WANT us to talk about it – because even if we’re discussing the fact the number is being disputed, we’re still talking about Labour putting up tax. But the second reason is even more important. The parties are both arguing about whether each others sums add up. Well… they don’t, do they? Both of them are promising they won’t raise income tax, national insurance, or VAT – three fifths of the total tax revenue. Nobody wants to borrow other than to invest. Health, schools and defence are all ring fenced from spending cuts in some form. I genuinely don’t understand how this all adds up. Not even close. Public spending projections after the next election have been described as a “fantasy” by economists – the tax burden is set to hit a historic high - and we’re spending more on debt interest payments than education. Forget about the quibbling over a few numbers here and there. Because it doesn’t seem to me like ANY party is being honest about just how difficult it will be after the election… and the kind of choices that the next Government will have to make – no matter who it turns out to be.
1:41

Can I be honest with you? I didn’t want to start the programme talking about the Conservative claim that a Labour Government would cost you £2,000 in extra taxes. It’s obviously been disputed. Not just because it’s cumulative rather than annual – but because it’s based on an awful lot of assumptions, with some of the conclusions even being disowned by the authors who did the research. But look – I’m being sucked down the rabbit hole now too. There are two reasons I don’t want to talk about the £2,000 claim. The first is because the Conservatives WANT us to talk about it – because even if we’re discussing the fact the number is being disputed, we’re still talking about Labour putting up tax. But the second reason is even more important. The parties are both arguing about whether each others sums add up. Well… they don’t, do they? Both of them are promising they won’t raise income tax, national insurance, or VAT – three fifths of the total tax revenue. Nobody wants to borrow other than to invest. Health, schools and defence are all ring fenced from spending cuts in some form. I genuinely don’t understand how this all adds up. Not even close. Public spending projections after the next election have been described as a “fantasy” by economists – the tax burden is set to hit a historic high - and we’re spending more on debt interest payments than education. Forget about the quibbling over a few numbers here and there. Because it doesn’t seem to me like ANY party is being honest about just how difficult it will be after the election… and the kind of choices that the next Government will have to make – no matter who it turns out to be.

Sophy Ridge

1,473,812 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Joe Rogan and Joe DeRosa discover that Honeymooners creator Jackie Gleason walked away from $7,000,000 left on his contract in 1956 because he didn’t want to “cheapen” the show. That's about $83,000,000 in today’s money, or $1,000,000 per episode. ROGAN: “There’s only one season?” DEROSA: "He did 39 episodes. And he was like, 'We did it. It's done.' Nobody does that now. They were like, 'You have to do more of these.' And he's like, 'Nope, we did it. We're good. We have nothing left to say.'" ROGAN: "Really?" DEROSA: "Yeah. And then they did reunion shows and shit. But, like, that was it. That's wild!" DEROSA: "Look at this. He had $7 million left in his contract in 1956, which is crazy money. [Gleason said], 'The excellence of the material could not be maintained. I had too much fondness for the show to cheapen it.'" ROGAN: "Wow." DEROSA: "I mean, that is baller shit back then. Like, that is not something people were doing back then." ROGAN: "Or he just got lazy because he had so much money." JAMIE: "CBS was gonna give him a three-year contract for what would have been $132 million today. He was going to get close to like a million dollars an episode." ROGAN: "A million an episode back then?" JAMIE: "No, no, no. [In today's dollars]." DEROSA: "When Seinfeld... announced they were all going to get a million an episode, I remember that was like groundbreaking... This guy was offered the equivalent of that back in '56 and said, 'Nah, I'm good.'" In December 1954, Gleason signed a three-year, $11,000,000 deal with Buick and CBS, the largest contract in television history at the time. The deal called for two seasons with an option for a third, but he stopped after one, leaving roughly $7,000,000 on the table. Gleason said: “The excellence of the material could not be maintained. I had too much fondness for the show to cheapen it.”
1:37

Joe Rogan and Joe DeRosa discover that Honeymooners creator Jackie Gleason walked away from $7,000,000 left on his contract in 1956 because he didn’t want to “cheapen” the show. That's about $83,000,000 in today’s money, or $1,000,000 per episode. ROGAN: “There’s only one season?” DEROSA: "He did 39 episodes. And he was like, 'We did it. It's done.' Nobody does that now. They were like, 'You have to do more of these.' And he's like, 'Nope, we did it. We're good. We have nothing left to say.'" ROGAN: "Really?" DEROSA: "Yeah. And then they did reunion shows and shit. But, like, that was it. That's wild!" DEROSA: "Look at this. He had $7 million left in his contract in 1956, which is crazy money. [Gleason said], 'The excellence of the material could not be maintained. I had too much fondness for the show to cheapen it.'" ROGAN: "Wow." DEROSA: "I mean, that is baller shit back then. Like, that is not something people were doing back then." ROGAN: "Or he just got lazy because he had so much money." JAMIE: "CBS was gonna give him a three-year contract for what would have been $132 million today. He was going to get close to like a million dollars an episode." ROGAN: "A million an episode back then?" JAMIE: "No, no, no. [In today's dollars]." DEROSA: "When Seinfeld... announced they were all going to get a million an episode, I remember that was like groundbreaking... This guy was offered the equivalent of that back in '56 and said, 'Nah, I'm good.'" In December 1954, Gleason signed a three-year, $11,000,000 deal with Buick and CBS, the largest contract in television history at the time. The deal called for two seasons with an option for a third, but he stopped after one, leaving roughly $7,000,000 on the table. Gleason said: “The excellence of the material could not be maintained. I had too much fondness for the show to cheapen it.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

130,442 görüntüleme • 12 gün önce

.Kemi Badenoch gave a speech this morning on rooting identity politics out of the public sector, and it's difficult to disagree with. Straightforward, concrete, specific - the kind of common sense that rarely goes viral for precisely that reason. No rage-farming, just a proposition worth considering. I start from the same place Badenoch does. The Equality Act's basic protections are worth keeping. Having lived abroad, like she has, I'm fairly sure Britain's legal and cultural guardrails against discrimination are something that make this society work. They let individuals reach their potential regardless of background. Which is why Reform's apparent appetite for repealing the whole thing strikes me as a bad idea - and why narrowing in on the Public Sector Equality Duty, the bit that effectively compels public bodies to pre-emptively audition their decisions for possible racism, seems exactly right. This is where the overcorrection happens. The police in the Henry Nowak case initially trusted a false narrative from his killer because of how the duty operates in practice. An 18-year-old dies handcuffed while the system worries about the wrong protected characteristics. If that's not a case study in why the PSED needs gutting, I'm not sure what is. But there's a second thing from this morning, separate but equally significant. A Spectator journalist asked Badenoch whether her entire party is with her on identity politics. Her response was blunt: anyone who isn't with her isn't a Conservative MP, and won't be with her at the next election. Deselection, in effect, for the dissenters. Clip attached. I've wondered for a while what happens to the Cameron-era intake - the wets and wokes - by the 2029 election. The party rules, judging from whatever is in the public domain, already point toward no automatic reselection. Badenoch's answer today suggests she's willing to use that. The days of ideological freelancing look numbered, and for a reason. The solutions Britain needs - genuine Thatcherite ones, strong borders, deregulated economy, a smaller state with a much smaller welfare bill - will require a party that isn't pretending to agree while briefing against the leadership. The dismantling of Blairite constitutional scaffolding, the quangos and diluted sovereignty, will be genuinely painful. Doing it needs discipline, not a coalition of people who quietly want the old dispensation to survive. So, the signal is unmissable. By 2029, the Conservative Party will be authentically conservative, by hook or by crook.
0:53

.Kemi Badenoch gave a speech this morning on rooting identity politics out of the public sector, and it's difficult to disagree with. Straightforward, concrete, specific - the kind of common sense that rarely goes viral for precisely that reason. No rage-farming, just a proposition worth considering. I start from the same place Badenoch does. The Equality Act's basic protections are worth keeping. Having lived abroad, like she has, I'm fairly sure Britain's legal and cultural guardrails against discrimination are something that make this society work. They let individuals reach their potential regardless of background. Which is why Reform's apparent appetite for repealing the whole thing strikes me as a bad idea - and why narrowing in on the Public Sector Equality Duty, the bit that effectively compels public bodies to pre-emptively audition their decisions for possible racism, seems exactly right. This is where the overcorrection happens. The police in the Henry Nowak case initially trusted a false narrative from his killer because of how the duty operates in practice. An 18-year-old dies handcuffed while the system worries about the wrong protected characteristics. If that's not a case study in why the PSED needs gutting, I'm not sure what is. But there's a second thing from this morning, separate but equally significant. A Spectator journalist asked Badenoch whether her entire party is with her on identity politics. Her response was blunt: anyone who isn't with her isn't a Conservative MP, and won't be with her at the next election. Deselection, in effect, for the dissenters. Clip attached. I've wondered for a while what happens to the Cameron-era intake - the wets and wokes - by the 2029 election. The party rules, judging from whatever is in the public domain, already point toward no automatic reselection. Badenoch's answer today suggests she's willing to use that. The days of ideological freelancing look numbered, and for a reason. The solutions Britain needs - genuine Thatcherite ones, strong borders, deregulated economy, a smaller state with a much smaller welfare bill - will require a party that isn't pretending to agree while briefing against the leadership. The dismantling of Blairite constitutional scaffolding, the quangos and diluted sovereignty, will be genuinely painful. Doing it needs discipline, not a coalition of people who quietly want the old dispensation to survive. So, the signal is unmissable. By 2029, the Conservative Party will be authentically conservative, by hook or by crook.

Vodka & Seledka 🇬🇧

11,639 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

🚨 Famine is swallowing Gaza’s children. 🚨 Donate now: Before you keep scrolling… Somewhere in Gaza… A child sits staring at their stomach. They no longer cry. They no longer scream. Even hunger… Has stolen their strength to cry. For months… They have not tasted a proper meal. No meat. No chicken. No vegetables. No fruit. Not even a warm plate of food like children elsewhere in the world. All they know now… Is hunger. Hunger when they wake up. Hunger when they try to sleep. A hunger that never leaves. Every day they ask their mother: “Will we eat today?” And every day… She hides her tears. She opens an empty pot. Searches through empty bags. Looks for anything… Anything that might ease her children’s hunger. But she finds nothing. She looks back at her child… And says the words that break her heart: “Be patient, my love… There is no food.” A child does not understand what famine means. But they feel it every moment. They feel it when they try to stand and cannot. They feel it when dizziness comes from hunger. They dream about food… Only to wake up with an empty stomach. Today… Thousands of children across Gaza are living this reality. Not for hours. Not for a day or two. But after months of deprivation. Their bodies are growing weaker. Their faces are becoming paler. Their eyes search for only one thing… A single bite to keep them alive. Imagine your own child looking at you and saying: “Dad… I’m hungry.” And you do not have even a piece of bread. Not a plate of rice. Not anything to feed them. This is the reality facing thousands of parents across Gaza. We are Project Muhmmed. We work directly from the heart of Gaza. With your support… We are trying to give children something they have been deprived of for months: A real meal. A hot meal. A meal that gives a child the strength to stand again. A meal that lets a mother breathe with relief because, for one day, her child has eaten. But we cannot continue alone. Donations have collapsed. If this support stops… More children will be left waiting with empty stomachs for food that never comes. We fear standing before hungry families… And having to say: “Today… We could not bring food.” There are no harder words to say. Because famine does not wait. And a hungry child cannot postpone hunger until tomorrow. This work has continued only because compassionate people refused to look away. 🩷 William Menaker (Will 🦥 Menaker) 🩷 Eyup Lovely (Eyup Lovely) 🩷 Felix (GoliathFan1952) Their voices have helped feed thousands of children. Now we are asking for yours. Every donation… Can become a meal for a child. Can keep an entire family from going to bed hungry. Can give a child another chance to live another day. Please… Don’t scroll past. Today, you can be the reason a child in Gaza goes to sleep with a full stomach instead of spending another night fighting hunger. 🍲 Donate now and help us save Gaza’s children from famine. Thousands of children in Gaza have endured months of hunger. Today, your donation can become a real meal for a child who has nothing left to eat. Please don’t look away. Every meal matters. Every donation can save a life. 🍲💔
1:28

🚨 Famine is swallowing Gaza’s children. 🚨 Donate now: Before you keep scrolling… Somewhere in Gaza… A child sits staring at their stomach. They no longer cry. They no longer scream. Even hunger… Has stolen their strength to cry. For months… They have not tasted a proper meal. No meat. No chicken. No vegetables. No fruit. Not even a warm plate of food like children elsewhere in the world. All they know now… Is hunger. Hunger when they wake up. Hunger when they try to sleep. A hunger that never leaves. Every day they ask their mother: “Will we eat today?” And every day… She hides her tears. She opens an empty pot. Searches through empty bags. Looks for anything… Anything that might ease her children’s hunger. But she finds nothing. She looks back at her child… And says the words that break her heart: “Be patient, my love… There is no food.” A child does not understand what famine means. But they feel it every moment. They feel it when they try to stand and cannot. They feel it when dizziness comes from hunger. They dream about food… Only to wake up with an empty stomach. Today… Thousands of children across Gaza are living this reality. Not for hours. Not for a day or two. But after months of deprivation. Their bodies are growing weaker. Their faces are becoming paler. Their eyes search for only one thing… A single bite to keep them alive. Imagine your own child looking at you and saying: “Dad… I’m hungry.” And you do not have even a piece of bread. Not a plate of rice. Not anything to feed them. This is the reality facing thousands of parents across Gaza. We are Project Muhmmed. We work directly from the heart of Gaza. With your support… We are trying to give children something they have been deprived of for months: A real meal. A hot meal. A meal that gives a child the strength to stand again. A meal that lets a mother breathe with relief because, for one day, her child has eaten. But we cannot continue alone. Donations have collapsed. If this support stops… More children will be left waiting with empty stomachs for food that never comes. We fear standing before hungry families… And having to say: “Today… We could not bring food.” There are no harder words to say. Because famine does not wait. And a hungry child cannot postpone hunger until tomorrow. This work has continued only because compassionate people refused to look away. 🩷 William Menaker (Will 🦥 Menaker) 🩷 Eyup Lovely (Eyup Lovely) 🩷 Felix (GoliathFan1952) Their voices have helped feed thousands of children. Now we are asking for yours. Every donation… Can become a meal for a child. Can keep an entire family from going to bed hungry. Can give a child another chance to live another day. Please… Don’t scroll past. Today, you can be the reason a child in Gaza goes to sleep with a full stomach instead of spending another night fighting hunger. 🍲 Donate now and help us save Gaza’s children from famine. Thousands of children in Gaza have endured months of hunger. Today, your donation can become a real meal for a child who has nothing left to eat. Please don’t look away. Every meal matters. Every donation can save a life. 🍲💔

Muhmmed Project𓂆 🇵🇸

21,421 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

You’re Valentino first Thai female brand ambassador, how feel when they chose you and when feel most connected with the brand? I’m very very excited. I connect with the brand artistic style (? - not sure) The brand artistic has some elements that make me feel no other brand allows me to be this much myself. So I thought, let’s try. And the first time I went to the ready to wear, I feel so fulfilled. And working with the team, Hq was so much fun. Now we have a strong bond and I feel like they are my second family. I’m happy every time I get to meet with team and do something together. And the upcoming projects, I feel, are me. Very artistic, both Valentino and Freen. How was meeting Alessandro Michele. Met Home 4 times. The first time—ready to wear—I was so nervous. Didn’t know what to say to him… nice to meet you, congratulations… it was the first collection that I explored with Valentino and they happened to change the designer at that time. Was excited. The clothes and show very very beautiful. It’s been two years and I can still remember the music at the show… do you? 🎶🎶 Yes… exactly… I loved it. The cracked glass/window floor. The first time I saw his design for Valentino and I was like… wowww how can it be this beautiful. The silhouette.. music… show…. Vibe… wow. It was like I was in a dream. Been to four events. Ready to wear and the latest one—Haute Couture—I talked to him a lot as we become closer. The second and third event he said.. hi, Freen… he remembers me. So the haute couture we talked about fashion… I said I like this that and congratulated him and that I’m excited for the next event. Then kiss kiss goodbye. The difference in ready to wear and haute couture is the delicacy. So many embroidery… much different in the techniques. Especially when you get to see it up close, it’s very clear that there are much more details. Also, the color is very beautiful. The show is very creative… I look forward to it every time—how will the show be, what music will they use, what’s the direction. And I love that they like to always have historic references. Reinvent history or changes our perspectives. Like the latest show, I read the newspaper they hand out at the event, it says we get to watch a private fashion show even though we’re in a public space. If I didn’t read it, I wouldn’t know. Like we look through a square hole. If I look from a distance, I see a portion of a silhouette eg just the dress. But if I press my face up close, I can see from head to toe. It’s like… if we don’t look with a frame but look without a frame, we will get to see all the beauty. It’s so so good. Very very excited to be there. Excited to represent their clothes and accessories. And when arrive at the show, excited to see what they will show and wow us. MC: listening to you, your level of involvement with the show is so high. It’s so much fun. Every time I go, I get excited when I enter the room and get to see what’s inside the mystery box set. There will be flowers and handwritten letter. And excited to see what’s the mystery. The latest time is a bell. The one I was really confused was the red toilet… the mystery was a red tile. Before the show I was like… what does it mean? So cool. When you see the hint, you get excited trying to decipher it. It’s only after the show that you go.. ahhhh.
6:31

You’re Valentino first Thai female brand ambassador, how feel when they chose you and when feel most connected with the brand? I’m very very excited. I connect with the brand artistic style (? - not sure) The brand artistic has some elements that make me feel no other brand allows me to be this much myself. So I thought, let’s try. And the first time I went to the ready to wear, I feel so fulfilled. And working with the team, Hq was so much fun. Now we have a strong bond and I feel like they are my second family. I’m happy every time I get to meet with team and do something together. And the upcoming projects, I feel, are me. Very artistic, both Valentino and Freen. How was meeting Alessandro Michele. Met Home 4 times. The first time—ready to wear—I was so nervous. Didn’t know what to say to him… nice to meet you, congratulations… it was the first collection that I explored with Valentino and they happened to change the designer at that time. Was excited. The clothes and show very very beautiful. It’s been two years and I can still remember the music at the show… do you? 🎶🎶 Yes… exactly… I loved it. The cracked glass/window floor. The first time I saw his design for Valentino and I was like… wowww how can it be this beautiful. The silhouette.. music… show…. Vibe… wow. It was like I was in a dream. Been to four events. Ready to wear and the latest one—Haute Couture—I talked to him a lot as we become closer. The second and third event he said.. hi, Freen… he remembers me. So the haute couture we talked about fashion… I said I like this that and congratulated him and that I’m excited for the next event. Then kiss kiss goodbye. The difference in ready to wear and haute couture is the delicacy. So many embroidery… much different in the techniques. Especially when you get to see it up close, it’s very clear that there are much more details. Also, the color is very beautiful. The show is very creative… I look forward to it every time—how will the show be, what music will they use, what’s the direction. And I love that they like to always have historic references. Reinvent history or changes our perspectives. Like the latest show, I read the newspaper they hand out at the event, it says we get to watch a private fashion show even though we’re in a public space. If I didn’t read it, I wouldn’t know. Like we look through a square hole. If I look from a distance, I see a portion of a silhouette eg just the dress. But if I press my face up close, I can see from head to toe. It’s like… if we don’t look with a frame but look without a frame, we will get to see all the beauty. It’s so so good. Very very excited to be there. Excited to represent their clothes and accessories. And when arrive at the show, excited to see what they will show and wow us. MC: listening to you, your level of involvement with the show is so high. It’s so much fun. Every time I go, I get excited when I enter the room and get to see what’s inside the mystery box set. There will be flowers and handwritten letter. And excited to see what’s the mystery. The latest time is a bell. The one I was really confused was the red toilet… the mystery was a red tile. Before the show I was like… what does it mean? So cool. When you see the hint, you get excited trying to decipher it. It’s only after the show that you go.. ahhhh.

panpan

40,006 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

$365K profit while the programmer slept. This bot found a hole in volatility and turned it into a personal ATM. Let's be honest. If you're trying to trade on Polymarket based on news or intuition you're not a trader. You're food. I analyzed the distinct-baguette wallet. No genius analytics. No White House insiders. Just cold code exploiting a 3-cent error in the order book. How does he make money out of thin air? His profile: At the core of the algorithm lies a simple mathematical glitch called Arbitrage Loop. In a perfect world the price of YES and NO shares always adds up to $1.00. But when chaos hits the market during matches or BTC news liquidity breaks. The bot finds the moment when YES costs 48 cents and NO costs 49 cents. Entry sum: 97 cents. The script instantly buys both sides. It doesn't care who wins. It just waits for expiration and is guaranteed to get $1.00. Result: 3 cents of pure risk-free profit per dollar. Repeat this 15000 times a month and you get his balance. Math vs Human A human is physically incapable of replicating this. Your reaction from eye to brain to click: 0.4 seconds. Python script reaction: 0.005 seconds. By the time you see the price on screen it's already gone. You're looking at ghosts. Trying to outrun this bot manually is like trying to stop a train with your palm. You're simply paying his bills with your slippage. How to stop being liquidity? In 2026 you either write code or you're feed. But there's a third option. You don't need to learn C++ or rent a server in the same rack as the exchange. You just need the right entry. I found a gateway that allows copying the logic of such wallets. You stop playing guessing games and connect to the smart money flow. When the algorithm finds a hole in the price you enter alongside it. Automatically. Stop trading against machines. Stand on their side: While you were reading this text the glitch happened three more times. Someone took that money. Why not you?
0:24

$365K profit while the programmer slept. This bot found a hole in volatility and turned it into a personal ATM. Let's be honest. If you're trying to trade on Polymarket based on news or intuition you're not a trader. You're food. I analyzed the distinct-baguette wallet. No genius analytics. No White House insiders. Just cold code exploiting a 3-cent error in the order book. How does he make money out of thin air? His profile: At the core of the algorithm lies a simple mathematical glitch called Arbitrage Loop. In a perfect world the price of YES and NO shares always adds up to $1.00. But when chaos hits the market during matches or BTC news liquidity breaks. The bot finds the moment when YES costs 48 cents and NO costs 49 cents. Entry sum: 97 cents. The script instantly buys both sides. It doesn't care who wins. It just waits for expiration and is guaranteed to get $1.00. Result: 3 cents of pure risk-free profit per dollar. Repeat this 15000 times a month and you get his balance. Math vs Human A human is physically incapable of replicating this. Your reaction from eye to brain to click: 0.4 seconds. Python script reaction: 0.005 seconds. By the time you see the price on screen it's already gone. You're looking at ghosts. Trying to outrun this bot manually is like trying to stop a train with your palm. You're simply paying his bills with your slippage. How to stop being liquidity? In 2026 you either write code or you're feed. But there's a third option. You don't need to learn C++ or rent a server in the same rack as the exchange. You just need the right entry. I found a gateway that allows copying the logic of such wallets. You stop playing guessing games and connect to the smart money flow. When the algorithm finds a hole in the price you enter alongside it. Automatically. Stop trading against machines. Stand on their side: While you were reading this text the glitch happened three more times. Someone took that money. Why not you?

Blaze

16,039 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

I added a lot to this transcript and I'm not happy right now.. A Non-Human Intelligence on this Planet? "We're not aware of anything along that line that's ever been hidden from Congress" ~Rounds "I really don't believe that that is necessarily what's happened here." ~Rounds "We haven't seen that yet. It's not something that any of us have been able to, that I've been able to identify. I'm not aware of any of it." ~Rounds ~ Ross Coulthart: "If it turns out that, for example, the United States has recovered, incredibly, non-human technology, perhaps even craft and bodies, biologics, as some people assert. If that's true, and that has not been properly disclosed to Congress, and yet, by all accounts, billions, perhaps trillions of dollars have been expended on such a program, do you see any reason why on national security grounds that ought not to be disclosed to the public? That's the key issue. I mean, are you guys gonna cave at the last minute and say, 'Well, if we do have a flying saucer in a cave, it should not be revealed to the public for national security reasons.' Can you see any reason why that wouldn't be allowed to be revealed?" (That is THE question. Like I said the other day, Ross asks good questions and this is the one I really wanted him to ask.) Rounds: "Well, there are two items here. You do have a hypothetical. We're not aware of anything along that line that's ever been hidden from Congress, directly that we're aware of." (Have any witnesses made that claim? If so, how many? Look at how different Marco Rubio responded during his interview with Joe Khalil. Rubio: "Either, what [Grusch] is saying is partially true or entirely true, or...we have some really smart, educated people with high clearances and very important positions in our government, who are crazy, and are leading us on a goose chase." ~Senator Marco Rubio Full interview transcript: (What does Rounds think about Grusch or the other folks Grusch says have gone to the IG and who allegedly have hands-on experience with these NHI craft? Has Rounds heard form them?) ~ Rounds: "Also, the second part of it is, is we don't know if there was something out there, was it actually disclosed to some members of Congress who have continued to keep it quiet based upon their concerns about the release? We don't know it." (In 2002, Admiral Wilson told Dr. Eric Davis that politicians were NOT on the list of folks who were read in, or given access, to the alleged crash retrieval program. If that has changed, and certain members of Congress HAVE been read in, that doesn't change the fact that THE WORLD DESERVES TO KNOW if we share this planet with another intelligence. Stop using the, "It might be our tech" excuse.) Rounds: "So it really is a series of hypotheticals that you're asking me." (We all know that. That's why Ross phrased the question like that.) Rounds: "But let me continue on, because I think really, if I could put it in a simpler way... Let's just say that there had been a meeting or a contact with something that we didn't believe was from this world. Whether, you know, from another country, or from our own resources. At that point, you know, I think there's gonna come a time here in which the American public and people from around the world are gonna look at it and say, 'You know, it really would be crazy for us to believe that we really were alone in the world, or in the Universe, and that there is no other intelligent life form out there." (If what we're dealing with are extraterrestrials from another planet, I agree that the masses could say, "No shit! Not a surprise!' But what if it's something that doesn't have a physical body? As George Knapp has asked : What if they can see us but we can't see them, and they can watch us when we're in the bathroom or taking a shower? How would people handle that? Or, if they're time travelers from our future, back here to save us from some sort of cataclysm? Would that cause panic? Or, even if they were "just" extraterrestrials. Would people be able to handle Reptilians who might find human meat a delicacy, or Mantid beings who look like giant bugs? As Christopher K. Mellon said in 2015: "John Podesta said publicly, the American people can handle the truth. My question would be…if you don’t know what the truth is, how do you know they can handle it? What if they’re flesh-eating arachnids or something? Doesn’t seem to make sense to me” ~Mellon ~ Rounds: "But it would be a matter of how you would disclose it correctly, and in what would be one of the greatest announcements in the history of mankind, that we are not alone." (Is it the job of politicians or governments to withhold information until they figure out the proper way to disclose it? What if the information is scary and could cause panic? Would any government have a right to withhold that information from the people? I say, hell no.) Rounds: "I really don't believe that that is necessarily what's happened here. But, we do know - and this is the part that is so sensitive to us - there are some things that we can't explain out there." (Seems like we're back to square one. Holy shit.) Rounds "And that's the reason why I really got involved in this in the first place, is, if we know that there are technologies there that appear to do things that physically, we're just not sure how it's getting done. Biggest concern I had was, is it ours? Or does it belong to somebody else on this earth, one of our adversaries? Or is it really something that is out of this world? But in any of those events, two of the three would be very serious if we disclosed it to the American public because it would mean national defense issues are being broached. And that would be, it would be one of our adversaries' capabilities, or one of our own capabilities." (In other words, it may appear to be a technology from a non-human intelligence but we have to make triple sure it's not from an adversary or our own tech!!! There's always that chance! OMG! It seems like that will always be the excuse for not disclosing.) Rounds: "The third alternative, which I wouldn't be afraid of seeing some day... (Some day? That sounds far away. When? 2040? 2050?) Rounds: "But it can't. It can't. We haven't seen that yet. It's not something that any of us have been able to, that I've been able to identify. I'm not aware of any of it. But I know that there are things that we don't know how to identify today. Does that help?" (We've known that for a long time.) Ross: "It does, sir, it does." (It doesn't really help.)
3:32

I added a lot to this transcript and I'm not happy right now.. A Non-Human Intelligence on this Planet? "We're not aware of anything along that line that's ever been hidden from Congress" ~Rounds "I really don't believe that that is necessarily what's happened here." ~Rounds "We haven't seen that yet. It's not something that any of us have been able to, that I've been able to identify. I'm not aware of any of it." ~Rounds ~ Ross Coulthart: "If it turns out that, for example, the United States has recovered, incredibly, non-human technology, perhaps even craft and bodies, biologics, as some people assert. If that's true, and that has not been properly disclosed to Congress, and yet, by all accounts, billions, perhaps trillions of dollars have been expended on such a program, do you see any reason why on national security grounds that ought not to be disclosed to the public? That's the key issue. I mean, are you guys gonna cave at the last minute and say, 'Well, if we do have a flying saucer in a cave, it should not be revealed to the public for national security reasons.' Can you see any reason why that wouldn't be allowed to be revealed?" (That is THE question. Like I said the other day, Ross asks good questions and this is the one I really wanted him to ask.) Rounds: "Well, there are two items here. You do have a hypothetical. We're not aware of anything along that line that's ever been hidden from Congress, directly that we're aware of." (Have any witnesses made that claim? If so, how many? Look at how different Marco Rubio responded during his interview with Joe Khalil. Rubio: "Either, what [Grusch] is saying is partially true or entirely true, or...we have some really smart, educated people with high clearances and very important positions in our government, who are crazy, and are leading us on a goose chase." ~Senator Marco Rubio Full interview transcript: (What does Rounds think about Grusch or the other folks Grusch says have gone to the IG and who allegedly have hands-on experience with these NHI craft? Has Rounds heard form them?) ~ Rounds: "Also, the second part of it is, is we don't know if there was something out there, was it actually disclosed to some members of Congress who have continued to keep it quiet based upon their concerns about the release? We don't know it." (In 2002, Admiral Wilson told Dr. Eric Davis that politicians were NOT on the list of folks who were read in, or given access, to the alleged crash retrieval program. If that has changed, and certain members of Congress HAVE been read in, that doesn't change the fact that THE WORLD DESERVES TO KNOW if we share this planet with another intelligence. Stop using the, "It might be our tech" excuse.) Rounds: "So it really is a series of hypotheticals that you're asking me." (We all know that. That's why Ross phrased the question like that.) Rounds: "But let me continue on, because I think really, if I could put it in a simpler way... Let's just say that there had been a meeting or a contact with something that we didn't believe was from this world. Whether, you know, from another country, or from our own resources. At that point, you know, I think there's gonna come a time here in which the American public and people from around the world are gonna look at it and say, 'You know, it really would be crazy for us to believe that we really were alone in the world, or in the Universe, and that there is no other intelligent life form out there." (If what we're dealing with are extraterrestrials from another planet, I agree that the masses could say, "No shit! Not a surprise!' But what if it's something that doesn't have a physical body? As George Knapp has asked : What if they can see us but we can't see them, and they can watch us when we're in the bathroom or taking a shower? How would people handle that? Or, if they're time travelers from our future, back here to save us from some sort of cataclysm? Would that cause panic? Or, even if they were "just" extraterrestrials. Would people be able to handle Reptilians who might find human meat a delicacy, or Mantid beings who look like giant bugs? As Christopher K. Mellon said in 2015: "John Podesta said publicly, the American people can handle the truth. My question would be…if you don’t know what the truth is, how do you know they can handle it? What if they’re flesh-eating arachnids or something? Doesn’t seem to make sense to me” ~Mellon ~ Rounds: "But it would be a matter of how you would disclose it correctly, and in what would be one of the greatest announcements in the history of mankind, that we are not alone." (Is it the job of politicians or governments to withhold information until they figure out the proper way to disclose it? What if the information is scary and could cause panic? Would any government have a right to withhold that information from the people? I say, hell no.) Rounds: "I really don't believe that that is necessarily what's happened here. But, we do know - and this is the part that is so sensitive to us - there are some things that we can't explain out there." (Seems like we're back to square one. Holy shit.) Rounds "And that's the reason why I really got involved in this in the first place, is, if we know that there are technologies there that appear to do things that physically, we're just not sure how it's getting done. Biggest concern I had was, is it ours? Or does it belong to somebody else on this earth, one of our adversaries? Or is it really something that is out of this world? But in any of those events, two of the three would be very serious if we disclosed it to the American public because it would mean national defense issues are being broached. And that would be, it would be one of our adversaries' capabilities, or one of our own capabilities." (In other words, it may appear to be a technology from a non-human intelligence but we have to make triple sure it's not from an adversary or our own tech!!! There's always that chance! OMG! It seems like that will always be the excuse for not disclosing.) Rounds: "The third alternative, which I wouldn't be afraid of seeing some day... (Some day? That sounds far away. When? 2040? 2050?) Rounds: "But it can't. It can't. We haven't seen that yet. It's not something that any of us have been able to, that I've been able to identify. I'm not aware of any of it. But I know that there are things that we don't know how to identify today. Does that help?" (We've known that for a long time.) Ross: "It does, sir, it does." (It doesn't really help.)

Joe Murgia

25,861 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce