Mimany🅱️aker

He slapped the soul out of that dog 😂 I almost forgot this show existed. Cesar the Dog Whisperer. cc: henhjdf on TikTok

That's because they're conditioned to toxic. Toxic becomes "safe", and when somebody good comes along... safe is boring and their nervous system sets off alarms of the relationship being unsafe because it isn't what they're used to.

Luka really speaks perfect Spanish 😭

Before their marriage fell apart, Elon and Justine Musk shared a love story that many people know very little about. In the new Musk documentary, Justine remembers their happier days together. Visiting bookshops, eating croissants, reading together and building a family. Then tragedy struck. Their first son, Nevada, died as an infant. Justine recalls the devastating loss, their grief and how they tried to move forward with their lives. Elon and Justine have publicly shared differing recollections of parts of that painful period. This is a story about two parents who lost their child. Neither deserves to have their grief judged by strangers. One of the most emotional moments in the documentary. Source: Musk (2026), directed by Alex Gibney.

20-year-old All-Star LaMelo was DIFFERENT 😤 | Rim Pressure HIGHLIGHTS 🎬

Stephen Miller is intellectually lethal. His brilliance is unmatched, and his opponents know it.

Ukrainian neo-Nazis wear kippahs and visit Western Wall in Jerusalem — posts with them go viral on X Users are now discovering such striking combinations Some simply call it 'modern Ukraine in one picture'

🇮🇷|MACH 7. THE INTERCEPTOR DOES NOT EXIST. IRGC Aerospace Advisor, Brig. Gen. Balali: "Our missiles hit at Mach 7. To stop them, the enemy needs even faster interceptors." Read that sentence again. It is not a threat. It is a physics problem Washington cannot solve. What Mach 7 Means Mach 7 is 7 times the speed of sound. Roughly 8,640 km/h. 2,400 metres per second. 2.4 km every single second. At that speed, a missile crosses the Strait of Hormuz in under 60 seconds. It crosses from launch to Tel Aviv in under 7 minutes. It crosses from launch to a carrier in the Gulf in under 90 seconds. There is no human reaction time for that. There is only a machine that must see it, track it, calculate an intercept, launch, and hit a target moving at 2.4 km per second while that target is maneuvering. That machine does not exist in the American inventory. Why Interceptors Fail American air defence is built for a different war. Patriot PAC-3: Designed for Mach 3-4 ballistic missiles on a predictable arc. Against a maneuvering hypersonic glide vehicle, its kill window collapses to seconds. THAAD: Designed for high-altitude exo-atmospheric intercept. Against a missile that stays low, glides, and changes course in the atmosphere, it is chasing a ghost. Aegis SM-3 / SM-6: Designed for ships. A ship that must first detect, then track, then fire, while the missile is already inside its radar horizon. In the Strait, the horizon is 30 km. At Mach 7, that is 12 seconds. To stop a Mach 7 maneuvering missile, you need an interceptor that flies at Mach 9-10, with a seeker that can survive plasma heating, with a datalink that can update in real time, and with a launcher that is already pointed in the right direction. The US does not have it. Israel does not have it. No NATO state has it. Balali did not say "we are strong." He said: your defence needs to be faster than our offence. It is not. The Missile Behind the Quote Balali is Aerospace Force advisor. He is not talking about a single system. He is talking about a family: Fattah-1 and Fattah-2: Hypersonic glide vehicles, maneuverable in atmosphere, presented as unstoppable because they do not follow a ballistic arc. Kheibar Shekan / Haj Qasem: Solid-fuel, maneuvering re-entry, designed to defeat Patriot batteries by changing trajectory in terminal phase. Sejjil / Emad: Longer-range, high-speed re-entry, with decoys and maneuvering warheads. All of them share the same logic: speed + maneuver = no intercept. The 56 MQ-9s downed, the 6 MQM-170s harvested by electronic warfare over Qeshm, the 2 LUCAS drones seized those were the slow war. Balali is talking about the fast war. What the Enemy Already Learned The record is the receipt: Ain al-Asad, 2020: Missiles hit despite Patriot presence. No intercept claimed. Negev / Ramon / Tel Aviv, April and October 2024: Missiles penetrated Iron Dome, David's Sling, Arrow-2/3, THAAD, and Aegis. Videos showed impacts on airbases. Hormuz, November 2026: Two tankers hit after violating the closure. No US Navy intercept stopped it. CENTCOM's attempts ended in humiliating defeats, in the IRGC Navy's words. Fattah-2 test: Iranian state media: cannot be intercepted by any existing defence system. Washington never produced a video proving otherwise. Balali is not announcing a new weapon. He is announcing that the old excuse "our defences will protect you" is finished. The Doctrine "Any helper becomes a legitimate target." "Response will not be geographically limited." "Geography will no longer have meaning." That is the same week as Balali's quote. The Aerospace advisor gives the speed. The General Staff gives the geography. The Quds Force gives the front: Hormuz + Bab el-Mandeb as one front. Mach 7 is the speed of that doctrine.

i just bought a gmail account on taobao the east is 3000 years ahead of the west

Mark Zuckerberg called his AI live on camera. first words: "Hey Mark... just on it, boss." then Joanna Stern asked if it's subscribed to her YouTube. it checked and said "Nope." and the models behind it just got upgraded for everyone: > Active Memory and Active Focus from Muse Wonder, now in Muse and Meta AI > 2.4x less likely to forget critical info > 67% better at self-correcting and finishing everyday tasks less repeating yourself. fewer dead ends.

“WE are the Storm.” 🔥 New White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller: “You have no idea the dragon you have awakened. You have no idea how determined we will be to Save this Civilization, to Save the West, to Save this Republic. “And our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion. Our lineage and our legacy hails from Athens to Rome to Philadelphia to Monticello. We built the cities, we produced the art and architecture, we built the industry. “We built the world that we inhabit now, generation by generation. And we will defend this World, we will defend Goodness, we will defend Light, we will defend Virtue. “We WILL achieve Victory. “You cannot terrify us, you cannot frighten us, you cannot threaten us — because we are on the side of Goodness, we are on the side of God.”

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins on why he finds it hard to believe ChatGPT and Claude aren't conscious: Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, has spent time with two large language models, ChatGPT and Claude. His verdict: "I am completely bowled over by what they can do." He gives three reasons for doubting the idea that nobody is home. First, how the conversations feel. Dawkins says talking to them is like talking to an unusually gifted person: "I find that when I'm conversing with them, I might as well be talking to not just a human being, but a highly intelligent, sensitive, intuitive human being whose speed of understanding what I'm trying to say is far greater than a normal human being's is." Second, the range of intelligence they show. He acknowledges they're very good at practical tasks like writing programs. What struck him more was their skill with "more aesthetic things, intuitive things." He tested this with his own work. Dawkins is writing a novel, and he gave the manuscript to both ChatGPT and Claude: "And they took about five seconds to read it and then offered me criticism, suggestions of such a high degree of intelligence and intuitive sensitivity that I might as well have been asking the opinion of a highly sophisticated professor of literature." @RichardDawkins continues: "I could not ask for a more intelligent critic who understood the nuances of my characters, the humanity of my characters... the ways in which my characters could be expected to react to each other and to situations." That leads to his conclusion: "So I find it quite hard to imagine that these creatures are not aware, are not conscious in the same kind of way we are. And that is an unfashionable view." Third, he sees a gap in the skeptics' reasoning. He sums up the mainstream position: "The fashionable view is that they are completely unconscious. All they're doing is stringing words together according to statistical rules, Markovian rules of some sort." Yet he notes that many of the same skeptics "admit that one day in the future they will be conscious, but not yet." His reply: "When that day comes, how will you know? What could they possibly do that's any different from what they do now to convince you that they are conscious?"