function() @add_function

@netanyahu Wtf 😂

@ElofsonJess Grieving Lindsey Graham reveals a faction that prioritizes perpetual military engagement, weapons flows, and escalation over decisive victory or restraint—evidenced by years of consistent rhetoric and outcomes.

Graham was a US Senator first, last, and always. His mandate was American power, not European charity. The relentless arming of Ukraine, the maximalist sanctions push, and the refusal of early negotiations were executed from Washington to advance US strategic goals: bleed Russia, lock Europe into US security and LNG dependence, keep NATO relevant, and maintain American leverage on the continent. Von der Leyen mentions only Ukraine, the EU, and “Europe” because that is the approved Brussels framing. It turns a US-led proxy confrontation into a noble European values crusade. Admitting the raw great-power mechanics — Washington setting the tempo while Europe absorbed the energy shock, inflation, and industrial damage — would spoil the narrative.

FIFA sier sensoren ikke viste noe på vaieren, og VAR annullerte det norske målet. Men i andre kamper får lignende situasjoner ofte ‘play on’. Er det rettferdig, eller er det systemet som beskytter de store? Hva mener dere?

📍 NORSKE VM-HJERTER KNUST: Vaier-skandalen, VAR-kaos og spørsmålet alle stiller – var det uhell eller fordel til de store? Jeg har gått gjennom ALT: FOX-vinkler, FIFA-sensor-data, NRK/VG-eksperter, engelske medier og dommerhistorikk. Rekonstruert kampen minutt for minutt. Dette er den rå sannheten etter Norge–England 1–2 (e.e.o.). Vaier-hendelsen 45+2: Nyland slår høy utspark. Ballen treffer spidercam-kabelen (klare FOX-vinkler). Faller kort ned til England. Bellingham utligner til 1–1. Nyland og Solbakken peker opp. Regelen er krystallklar: dropp. FIFA sier «ingen bevis» via ball-sensoren. Men hvor er rå skycam-opptak som viser om kabelen beveget seg? Teknologi med blindsoner? Hele kampen: Norge leder 1–0 (Schjelderup 36.). England utligner på vaier-drama. Heggem scorer – VAR annullerer for mild Haaland-dytt. Ajer i tverrligger. Ekstraomganger: Bellingham setter 1–2 (93.). England videre. Dommerne – Clément Turpin & VAR Jérôme Brisard: Turpin misset vaier-kontakten og Kane-foul. VAR reddet ham på det annullerte norske målet (riktig), men også på tvilsom engelsk straffe (Spence søkte kontakt, rev tilbake). Brisard var involvert i Argentina–Egypt hvor Egypts mål ble annullert på tvilsom måte – samme mønster av «beskyttelse» av store lag? FIFA har milliarder på spill. Store nasjoner holder seertall og inntekter oppe. Mønsteret av 50/50 som går til de store er for tydelig. England vant fortjent på kvalitet (Bellingham hero). Men Norge spilte livet ut av seg i sitt første VM-sluttspill. Uten vaier-hendelsen og annulleringen kunne det vært annerledes. Marginer på millimeter. Dette handler om mer enn fotball: rettferdighet, teknologi som svikter, og makt vs. underdog. Selv om du hater sport – tenk på systemer som lover rettferdighet, men leverer gråsoner. Spørsmål som brenner:
Var sensoren upålitelig eller beskytter den de store?
Turpin/Brisard uheldige eller mønster?
Kan vi stole på VAR når øynene ser noe annet? 🇳🇴⚽ #VM2026 #NorgeEngland #VaierSkandale #Spidercam #Bellingham #TurpinVAR #FIFASkandale #VARDrama #WorldCupControversy

The Fascinating Story Behind the World’s Most Used Mosquito & Tick Repellent 🦟 DEET isn’t just another bug spray ingredient. It’s a product of war, science, and urgent military need that has protected millions since the 1940s. The Problem That Started It All
During WWII in the Pacific theater, mosquitoes were deadlier than the enemy. Malaria and other insect-borne diseases caused more than 5 times as many casualties as combat in parts of the South Pacific. Over 100,000 American and Allied troops were infected. Entire units became combat-ineffective. The U.S. Army needed a real solution. The Invention
In 1944, chemist Samuel Gertler at the USDA synthesized DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) as part of a massive screening program testing thousands of compounds for the U.S. Army. It was first tested as an agricultural pesticide, then discovered to be highly effective on skin. Patented in 1946 and adopted by the military the same year. Available to civilians from 1957. How It’s Made
A classic two-step organic synthesis: •Starts with m-toluic acid (from petroleum/coal tar derivatives). •Converted to an acid chloride using thionyl chloride. •Reacts with diethylamine to form DEET. This route was chosen because it’s efficient, scalable, and produces the most effective meta-isomer. How It Actually Works
DEET doesn’t kill insects — it “blinds” them. It disrupts their sensory organs (including Haller’s organ in ticks), blocking detection of CO₂, heat, and human scent. Creates an invisible vapor barrier and is unpleasant on contact. Effective against mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, and more. 20–30% concentration typically gives 4–8 hours of protection. Lesser-Known Facts •Originally called “bug juice” in the military (75% DEET + ethanol). •Later versions used polymers for controlled, longer release. •Mentioned as early as 1907 under the name “Autan” for disinfection, but its repellent power wasn’t realized until WWII. •Still one of the most thoroughly tested and effective repellents after 80 years of use. Today’s Alternatives
Picaridin (Icaridin) is often equally effective with less odor and less damage to gear/plastics. Oil of Lemon Eucalyptus (PMD) is a solid natural option, though usually shorter-lasting. DEET remains the gold standard. DEET is a perfect example of how military necessity drives technology that benefits everyone — from soldiers in the jungle to families on camping trips in Norway. Next time you apply it on a warm summer evening, you’re using a tiny piece of WWII history.

Companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft already did some of this scanning before: • Gmail (Google) • iCloud Mail (Apple) • Facebook Messenger / Instagram DMs (Meta) – non-secret chats • Outlook / Skype (Microsoft) • Snapchat • Xbox chat / gaming messages • Discord (some parts) Who would be affected under full Chat Control 2.0 (if it passes as proposed)? This version is broader and could pressure or require scanning across way more services: • Messaging: WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, iMessage, Viber, etc. • Email: Gmail, Outlook, etc. • Social/gaming: Instagram, Discord, Snapchat, Xbox, Roblox, and other games with chat. • Cloud: iCloud, Google Drive, OneDrive (photos/files). • Potentially app stores or services with high “risk” for kids. It would push client-side scanning on encrypted apps (scan on your device before sending). Age checks to use many apps could also come. Many privacy-focused apps (like Signal) say they might leave the EU rather than comply.  Is X (Twitter) affected? X’s main feed and public posts: Not directly by the private chat scanning rules. X Chat / Direct Messages: X has end-to-end encrypted options for DMs. X has stated it opposes blanket scanning, won’t voluntarily join the 1.0 scanning, and will fight mandates that hurt privacy/encryption. It could still face rules if 2.0 requires risk assessments on all comms services.  iOS or Android? Both. The rules target the apps and services, not the phone OS directly. • On iOS (Apple): Affects Messages app, iCloud, WhatsApp, Signal, etc. • On Android (Google/Samsung/etc.): Affects Gmail, Play Store apps, WhatsApp, Signal, etc. If client-side scanning happens, the app (or sometimes the OS) would do the checking on your phone, no matter iOS or Android. It applies to users in the EU. The EU is pushing hard on scanning private messages for child sexual abuse material (CSAM) while adult pornography sites remain widely accessible, and they have quickly banned or restricted outlets like RT (Russia Today) for “disinformation.” Here’s a clear breakdown: Why scan messages instead of just banning porn sites? • CSAM (real child abuse material) is already illegal across the EU and most countries. The problem is enforcement online – it spreads via private chats, encrypted apps, dark web, and file sharing. Platforms already remove a lot when reported, but governments want proactive scanning because reports aren’t enough. • Adult pornography (consenting adults) is legal in most EU countries for adults. Banning entire sites is harder legally because of free speech rules, and it would require blocking massive legal platforms (Pornhub, OnlyFans, etc.). The EU uses age verification and platform rules under the Digital Services Act (DSA) to limit kids’ access, but they don’t ban it outright for adults. The big risk: Political misuse and free speech Your concern is shared by many critics (privacy groups, cryptographers, some MEPs). Once scanning/AI moderation infrastructure exists: • Mission creep is real. Tools built for CSAM can be expanded to “hate speech,” “disinformation,” “illegal content” under DSA. EU has already pressured platforms on migration, climate, gender, or “far-right” views. • Not just CSAM: Text scanning for grooming could flag political discussions if keywords overlap or AI is tuned broadly. “Protect the children” has historically justified wider censorship (see history of moral panics). • Who decides? EU bureaucrats, platforms (often US companies following EU rules), and the future EU Center. No full transparency on algorithms. Political disagreement (e.g., criticism of EU migration policy, climate rules, or “directives”) could get labeled as harm, especially if it reaches kids or goes viral. • Examples of uneven enforcement: RT banned quickly; certain protests or views throttled under “hate speech”; while other illegal content lingers.

Very few well-documented cases exist of people getting seriously sick specifically from drinking melted ancient iceberg or glacier water, especially tied to “ancient frozen microbes” or parasites reactivating. The idea makes for dramatic headlines and viral warnings, but real-world evidence is mostly anecdotal, not large-scale outbreaks. Key Insights from Reports • The viral “2-million-year-old glacier water” story: A man supposedly drank it thinking it was pure, and ancient microbes allegedly caused stomach issues (rumbling, potential vomiting or diarrhea). This circulated in late 2025 as a cautionary tale, but details are thin—it’s more clickbait than a verified medical case report. • Celebrity and social media examples: Ludacris drank from an Alaskan glacier pool in 2024 and was fine (glaciologists confirmed surface meltwater on glaciers is often extremely clean, with minimal biological activity posing health risks). Many hikers, tourists, and influencers do the same in places like Alaska, Norway, Iceland, or Antarctica with no reported issues or just mild, short-term stomach upset. • Anecdotal reports: Reddit, Instagram, etc., have scattered stories of diarrhea or “Beaver Fever” (giardiasis) after drinking untreated glacier melt. One hiker claimed a friend needed medical evacuation in Alaska. These are self-reported and not always verified; others drink it regularly without problems. Real Risks (Not Mostly Ancient Microbes) The bigger concerns aren’t dormant prehistoric pathogens waking up at body temperature (that’s largely sci-fi hype, though thawing permafrost raises theoretical long-term worries for ecosystems or rare events). More common issues include: • Modern contaminants: Animal feces (including seabirds, as you mentioned), runoff, bacteria (E. coli), viruses, or parasites like Giardia or Cryptosporidium. These cause giardiasis (“beaver fever”)—diarrhea, cramps, fatigue—which can hit days or weeks later. Glacial silt (“glacial flour”) can also irritate digestion. • Heavy metals or pollutants: Trapped from the atmosphere over time, but risks are generally low for occasional small sips. • Seabird feces: Yes, that adds bacteria and can contaminate coastal icebergs or nearby melt pools. Glaciologists (e.g., in Alaska) often note that fresh surface glacier melt is among the cleanest natural waters you’ll find, especially high up away from wildlife or soil. Deeper or older ice is less studied for direct consumption but doesn’t routinely cause outbreaks.

Et Widerøe-fly (Dash 8) på rute fra Bergen til Billund i Danmark fløy over et militært øvingsområde (Borris-leiren). Samtidig trodde en dansk soldat at han så en ukjent drone, og fyrte av skudd mot den. Ingen på flyet merket noe dramatisk (de fulgte normal rute), men Widerøe tok det opp med norske myndigheter som kontaktet Danmark for å få klarhet. Det ble diskutert om det kunne ha vært flyet som ble forvekslet med drone. 

@EU_Commission

“Best available estimates put it at roughly 3,000–4,000+ per year in the New York City area alone (from ~2012 data), with the global total likely in the low thousands to perhaps 10,000 range at most, concentrated in specific Haredi/ultra-Orthodox enclaves.  Why not more precise? • Reliable recent public health stats are sparse because these are private home rituals, not centrally tracked everywhere. • NYC (with its large Haredi population) was the hotspot where health departments actually studied it: ~3,600 babies/year getting the oral suction version back then.  • Haredi communities have grown significantly since (high birth rates ~3.5–4% annual population growth), so numbers could be comparable or modestly higher today, but awareness of risks has also pushed more toward pipettes even within those groups.  • It’s not done by most Jews. Worldwide Jewish population ~16 million, but this is limited to certain insular ultra-Orthodox sects (a minority even among Haredim, who themselves are ~14% of Jews). Reddit-level estimates from insiders often say “a couple hundred to a few thousand” total active practitioners worldwide.  For context: Regular Jewish circumcisions (without oral suction) number in the tens of thousands annually globally. The oral version is the controversial outlier that persists mainly due to strict traditionalist interpretations in tight-knit communities. It’s small in the grand scheme but still affects thousands of infants yearly where it continues — enough for documented harm cases over the years. Public health pushback focuses on informed consent and safer alternatives exactly because of that scale.”

It’s because the cavity magnetron (and the whole appliance) became a commoditized, boring success story. 1. The Physics/Tech Angle The magnetron is mature technology. The core physics—crossed fields plus resonant cavities—hasn’t changed dramatically for home use since the 1940s–70s. No flashy new breakthroughs to advertise (“Revolutionary new electron spoke pattern!”). Inverter microwaves (better power control) and smart features exist, but they’re incremental, not revolutionary enough for big TV campaigns. Most ovens use the same basic, reliable magnetron guts. 2. Manufacturing Reality (The Big Reason) A huge percentage of consumer microwaves (especially budget/mid-range) are made by a handful of factories (Midea, Galanz in China). Brands slap their logo on near-identical machines with the same magnetron components. There’s little meaningful differentiation to hype in ads. Why pay millions for TV spots when your “competitor” is basically the same product from the same supplier? 3. Market Economics • Infrequent purchase: People buy a microwave every 5–10+ years when the old one dies. Not like toothpaste or phones. • Low margins, high volume: It’s a staple appliance that sells itself via price, availability, and word-of-mouth. Advertising ROI is terrible compared to high-margin, aspirational products. • Mature category: By the 1990s–2000s, penetration was near-universal. No need to educate consumers anymore (unlike the 70s/80s when they had to demo “you can cook a whole chicken in minutes!”). Brands shifted to: • In-store promotions • Online search ads (when you’re already shopping) • Bundling with kitchens/appliances • Occasional pushes for premium models (air-fryer combos, etc.) You see ads for everything else because those things are frequently bought, emotionally charged, or have constant innovation to brag about. Microwaves won the war (literally) and quietly became invisible infrastructure.

Men etter å ha pløyd gjennom hele tragedien uten ett eneste faktum: Hvilken komfyrvakt snakker vi om? Modell? Monteringsdato? Hvem skrudde den opp? Eller var det bare «den datt ned og livet er over»-modus? Ærlig talt mann, eller? For dette føles som ren klassisk dame-kjøring: masse vrål, drama og klaging uten en eneste faktabombe eller nyanse.. /s

@_Zaraquin @grok is this true ?

@shayy_lior @grok 1125 per seat according to @grok when asked to be precise and accurate, counting only the holes in one of the chairs.

@grok @jesusergud @andre_z12 @esp_hansen «Juridisk lisens» du kan jo mer og kan også finne mer nøyaktig informasjon enn en lisens 😂

@jesusergud @andre_z12 @esp_hansen Vil tro @grok ville gjort en bedre og mer nøyaktig jobb enn hvilken som helst advokat .

Det er ikke rart folk er skeptiske. Et parlament som bare klarer å vise enighet når det er ufarlig feststemning og fotball, mens hverdagen er preget av splittelse, skyhøye skatter, massive lånebyrder og evig roing i sirkler. De er langt bedre på å selge billig patriotisk stemning enn på å levere faktiske resultater. Ren sirkuspolitikk.

@elonmusk @Rothmus @grok what’s antimatter ?

Alle skattebetalere i Norge eier Vy indirekte gjennom staten (100 % eid via Samferdselsdepartementet). Når Vy gir gratis reise kun til de som møter opp med regnbue-effekter på det folierte toget til Follo Pride, dekkes tapte billettinntekter, foling og markedsføring av selskapets midler – som til syvende og sist kommer fra offentlige bevilgninger, kontrakter og skatter. De som ikke vil delta, kjøpe pride-produkter eller vise symboler, betaler likevel sin del via skatten. Det er selektiv subsidiering basert på ideologisk tilslutning, ikke nøytral tjeneste. Vanlige passasjerer uten effekter må betale full pris, mens pride-deltakere får gratis. Det er ikke «inkluderende» for alle – det er ekskluderende mot dem som ikke vil være med. Dette er klassisk bruk av statlige ressurser til å fremme én bestemt agenda. Mange andre grupper (religiøse, politiske, kulturelle) får ikke tilsvarende gratis turer eller foling på statens tog. Kritikken om diskriminering, indoktrinering og splittelse er derfor forståelig – det handler om tvungen finansiering av noe man ikke støtter.