Search

Carsten Jahn from TEAM HEIMAT wrote that the AfD is under pressure due to partly forged emails. He ironically asked whether this is finally a reason not to vote for the party anymore. At the same time, he accused the left political bubble of not seeing through the situation and wrote that many are going along with it. He described the developments of the past hours as encouraging. https://t.co/O4UjKSbubz #AfD #Politik #Deutschland (translated)

Maurits Vande Reyde wrote that the podcast *Het Wassalon*, for which he claimed 800,000 euros had been allocated, was stopped after 342,619 euros had been spent. He stated that Minister Caro Gennez had initially called the podcast a success because it had reached 1.2 million views, translating that as one in five Flemish people having seen the podcast. According to Vande Reyde, the reach was partly due to 64,000 euros being spent on Meta ads. He argued that views alone said nothing about the impact of a campaign and questioned whether the podcast had actually contributed to the acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals or to the sense of societal acceptance among people with disabilities. He cited an ad that led to an inclusive vocabulary list from Cavaria, featuring terms like “allosexual,” “amatonormativity,” “androphilia,” and “gray asexual.” Vande Reyde criticized the way the government evaluated campaigns, subsidies, and structures like service vouchers, claiming that standards were always found to label such initiatives as successful without determining what had actually changed. Regarding the cessation, he wrote that Gennez attributed it to hate and polarization caused by disinformation, mainly from the parliament, and that she referenced him in that context. Vande Reyde found that reasoning incorrect and stated that Sammy Mahdi, Ben Weyts, Melissa Depraetere, and others in the Flemish podcast world had also criticized the project the previous summer. He argued that the fiasco would yield no lessons and predicted that another useless subsidy would follow. #politiek #socialeimpact #mediaevalutie (translated)

The author agreed to an unspecified statement and wrote that one would quickly be confronted with accusations of misogyny and the VfS ethics committee from this "bubble." He asked where scientific ethics were when scientifically nonsensical statements were disseminated, and whether a doctor who prescribed bloodletting was not also violating ethical principles. #Wissenschaft #Ethik #Genderdebatte #DE (translated)

TW wrote that a group of journalists and politicians he referred to as "woke" repeatedly complains about him on Bluesky while simultaneously publishing posts on Twitter, even though they claim they are not active there. The affected individuals have his phone number and could speak directly with him, he wrote. However, they would have to deal with opposition. #Bluesky #Journalismus #Politik (translated)

BrennpunktUA wrote that the facts have been known in the "Ukraine bubble" for years and have also been confirmed by Girkin and Prigozhin, who provided further details. The account praised Dr. Rainer Kraft for bringing the issue into the AfD and called for supporting Kraft and Schrammi regardless of political differences and sharing their contributions. At the same time, one could disagree with them in other political areas, BrennpunktUA wrote. According to the account, both have stood stable against these positions for years despite pressure from Russian supporters within their party; that deserves respect and support. #Ukraine #Politik #Solidarität (translated)

The author said there was no solid evidence that Russian bot farms had become inactive following strikes on Yandex data centres. They added that Cloudflare charts largely reflected web crawler activity, which they said was largely unrelated to automated posting. #CyberSecurity #RussianBots #DataAnalysis #RU

Hätte nicht gedacht, dass Oliver Pocher so große Eier hat! 😂 Er äußerte sich im Podcast „TOMorrow – Business. Stars. Lifestyle“ zum ÖRR, zu Böhnermann und dem AfD-Framing! Er ist der Meinung rund acht Milliarden Euro Rundfunkbeitrag für ein Angebot, das viele kaum noch nutzen ist nicht in Ordnung. Netflix ist kaum teurer, aber freiwillig. Außerdem hält er Klamroths Beziehung zu Luisa Neubauer für problematisch. Wäre Klamroth mit Alice Weidel liiert, käme er seiner Meinung nach nicht mal mehr ins Studio. Viele Menschen fühlen sich bevormundet und dürfen nur noch sagen, was „en vogue“ ist! Ihm geht das ständige Label „gesichert rechtsextreme AfD“ in Talkshows auf die Nerven! Das Ende von „ZDF Magazin Royale“ nennt er überfällig. Böhmermann hat zuletzt nur noch seine eigene Agenda durchgesetzt, mit der Nazi-Keule gearbeitet und Leute fertiggemacht. Böhnermann hat es einfach übertrieben. Die linke Bubble zerbröselt. In manchen Berichten fällt zusätzlich der Satz: „Ich glaube, Jan Böhmermann wäre ein super Nazi.“​ Na sowas aber auch!... #OliverPocher #Böhmermann #Podcasts

Researchers proved AI has deleted every reason universities exist. Harvard University ran a controlled experiment pitting a custom AI against their own top-tier classrooms. And the results are going to collapse the higher education bubble. They took 194 undergraduates and split them up. One group learned physics in one of Harvard’s best hands-on, active-learning physical classrooms. Group work. Instructor support. The premium university experience. The other group went home and learned the exact same material with an AI tutor. The AI didn't just win. It embarrassed the institution. Students using the AI learned more than twice as much as the students in the elite Harvard classroom. They scored 30% higher on the final assessment. And they did it in less time. Let that sink in. A piece of software sitting on a laptop outperformed a world-class faculty in one of the most elite learning environments on Earth. Universities have always justified their exorbitant tuition with two things: access to elite knowledge and the physical classroom experience. This study just proved both of those moats are gone. When software can teach you complex physics twice as well as a $60,000-a-year institution, the math of higher education breaks permanently. The AI didn't just give the students answers. It used strict pedagogical guardrails. It guided. It questioned. It forced the students to do the cognitive work. It offered perfect, one-to-one tutoring, personalized to the exact moment a student misunderstood a concept. That level of attention is mathematically impossible to scale in a physical lecture hall. For a thousand years, the university was the only place to get a premium education. Now, it’s the bottleneck. If AI can double your learning speed for a fraction of the cost, what exactly are students taking on decades of debt to pay for? https://x.com/thesupermannx/status/2104519995292344521

AI is massively dangerous on multiple levels. Donald Trump is the only one denying this and we know why. Needs to keep the tech bubble around it inflated, to keep the markets over-inflated, so he and his mates make a lot more money. Playing with fire by now. #AI #Trump #DangersOfTech #US

The Return to Feudalism in 21st Century Garb A simple observer's viewpoint, with no claim to hold any absolute truth. The Veneer Cracks There is something strangely archaic about the world unfolding before our eyes, despite its satellites, artificial intelligence, and promises of infinite progress. Here and there, we witness heads of state behaving like feudal lords of another age, patiently nibbling away at the neighboring territory, redrawing borders through force rather than law, as if governing a nation mattered less than expanding one's fiefdom. No names need be mentioned here: current events provide plenty of illustration, and each reader will recognize, according to their own geography and moment of reading, the faces that embody this observation. But this return to the archaic is not confined to grand geopolitical stages. It also permeates the most ordinary daily life—that of social media, where anyone can pour out venom against another without filter, without form, and often without the slightest argument. The verbal jousting of yesteryear, with its codes, its rhetoric, its tacit limits, has given way to raw invective, snap judgment, instant condemnation. We no longer debate: we execute, verbally—and sometimes it doesn't stop at words. The Vanished Inhibition What strikes one, in this dual observation—macro-political and micro-social—is the lifting of an inhibition we thought firmly anchored. Centuries of cultural construction, education, philosophy, sometimes religion, had patiently shaped mechanisms of restraint: politeness as social ritual, argumentation as a mode of resolving disagreement, respect for one's opponent as the very foundation of democratic debate. This civilizational veneer, however fragile it always was, seemed to hold. Today it is cracking, and the question—which for me remains a simple hypothesis, not a certainty—is why. A convenient explanation would blame social media: anonymity, the distance of the screen, the instantaneousness of publication would favor verbal acting-out without the usual mediation of reflection. This is probably true, but likely insufficient. For technology here is only an accelerant, an amplifier—not necessarily a root cause. A Poorly Formatted Neocortex? The more unsettling hypothesis—and I frame it explicitly as hypothesis, not scientifically established fact—is that of a failure in the formation of moral judgment and tolerance toward otherness. The human brain possesses the neural structures enabling empathy, the distancing of impulsive reaction, the acceptance of difference—but these capacities are not innate in their full exercise: they must be built, educated, cultivated, like a muscle that needs patient training from childhood onward. If this education in otherness, nuance, and tolerance of disagreement erodes—for multiple and undoubtedly complex reasons that are not mine to settle here—then older reflexes resurface: instinctive distrust of the stranger outside the clan, the law of the strongest, the logic of territorial or symbolic predation. The other ceases to be a possible interlocutor and becomes once again a potential threat, unless they belong to my tribe, my clan, my party, my digital bubble. Two Scales, One Logic What is striking, in this deliberately provocative reading, is the structural similarity between these two scales. The leader who invades a neighbor in the name of a rediscovered greatness or a reinvented historical right, and the anonymous internet user who insults a stranger in the name of an unnegotiable conviction, may obey the same underlying grammar: that of territory to defend, clan to protect, the other to subdue or exclude rather than understand. The form has changed—satellites instead of horses, tweets instead of heralds—but the substance, in this reading that remains mine alone and commits no one else, seems strangely identical to that of feudal rivalries: the absence of a recognized third party, of an accepted common rule, of a respected arbitrating authority. Everyone becomes judge and party, lord of their own digital or territorial fiefdom. A Civilization on a Knife's Edge Norbert Elias, in his Civilizing Process, showed how Western societies had historically built, with remarkable slowness, an increasing control over impulses and direct violence, in favor of more sublimated forms of social regulation. What we may be observing today—and I stress again the conditional—is a form of regression in this process, or at least a fragilization of the veneer it had patiently laid down. Should we see this as an effect of great technological accelerations, which shake up our cognitive rhythms without leaving education time to adapt? A deeper crisis of the institutions tasked with transmitting these values of tolerance—school, family, religion, the rule of law? Or simply a cyclical movement of human history, where phases of policed civilization alternate with darker backlashes? I have no certain answer, and I would be wary of anyone claiming to hold one. In Conclusion, a Shared Concern This text is only a viewpoint, necessarily partial and subjective, on a world that sometimes seems to replay ancient logics in new clothing. Perhaps I am wrong to perceive a continuity between the feudal lord and the contemporary dictator, between the anonymous online insult and the absence of education in nuance. Perhaps these phenomena are unrelated, or too complex to be thus summarized. But if this reading, even partially, hits the mark, then the question that arises is less one of technological regulation—though necessary—than the far more arduous question of how to rebuild, generation after generation, this capacity to accept the other in their difference, to debate without destroying, to coexist without necessarily dominating. This undertaking, if it exists, will not be resolved by an algorithm nor by an international treaty. It plays out, patiently, in the most elementary education—the one that teaches a child that the other is not a threat, but a possibility. Bibliography Elias, N. (1939). Über den Prozess der Zivilisation [The Civilizing Process]. Oxford: Blackwell (Eng. trans. 1978-1982). Lorenz, K. (1963). Das sogenannte Böse [On Aggression]. London: Methuen (Eng. trans. 1966). Arendt, H. (1970). On Violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Han, B.-C. (2013). Im Schwarm [In the Swarm: Digital Prospects]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Eng. trans. 2017).