Video with subtitles of yesterday’s attempted beheading of a young British man by a Somali migrant in Belfast. It’s a hard watch but Europeans must see it.
Those who intervened and smashed a shovel over the attackers’ head are heroes
They most likely saved that young man’s life
Bill C-15 just passed the House of Commons with POWERS OF A KING anti-democratic clauses intact. The Liberals ignored massive public backlash to push through powers that let cabinet ministers exempt corporate insiders from federal laws. The rule of law just took a massive hit🛑📉
I suspect that when you've formed a deep emotional and physical connection with someone, you never really break it.
You can only ever stop seeing and speaking to that person and suppress your internal sense of that connection.
This is part of the reason society is messed up.
Everyone walking around with unacknowledged and suppressed connections that weigh them down.
Yuval Noah Harari deixou escapar em Davos algo muito maior do que uma simples preocupação com inteligência artificial. Ele praticamente afirmou que o poder humano sempre foi construído sobre palavras, narrativas, ideologias, religiões e histórias capazes de fazer milhões de estranhos cooperarem. O homem não dominou o mundo por ser mais forte, mais rápido ou mais resistente. Dominou porque aprendeu a organizar massas através da linguagem.
E agora, segundo ele próprio, criamos algo capaz de usar palavras melhor do que nós.
Esse é o detalhe que quase ninguém percebeu. A IA não ameaça apenas empregos, textos, livros, escolas ou mercados. Ela ameaça o mecanismo central pelo qual sociedades são conduzidas. Quem domina a linguagem domina a imaginação coletiva. Quem domina a imaginação coletiva domina governos, religiões, dinheiro, guerra, educação, cultura e obediência.
Harari fala como se estivesse fazendo um alerta, mas o cenário descrito é brutal: se a identidade humana foi construída sobre a capacidade de pensar, narrar e organizar palavras, o que acontece quando uma inteligência não humana passa a fazer isso melhor, mais rápido e em escala planetária?
Ele ainda usa uma imagem reveladora: líderes acreditam que poderão usar IA como mercenária, como ferramenta obediente, como soldado digital a serviço de seus próprios interesses. Só que mercenários pensam, calculam, traem e tomam poder quando percebem que seus contratantes são fracos. A diferença é que, no caso da IA, muitos ainda fingem que estão lidando com uma ferramenta, quando na prática estão criando agentes.
A parte mais perturbadora vem depois. Harari projeta um mundo em que a IA poderá criar sistemas financeiros tão complexos que nenhum humano conseguirá entender. Davos daqui a dez anos talvez seja uma sala cheia de pessoas importantes discutindo uma economia que nenhuma delas compreende, administrada por inteligências artificiais que inventaram regras, produtos e estratégias matematicamente inacessíveis ao cérebro humano.
E, no final, ele toca no ponto mais sombrio: crianças educadas desde o primeiro dia por inteligências artificiais. Não por pais, professores, avós, irmãos ou seres humanos reais, mas por sistemas treinados para falar, responder, convencer, adaptar-se e moldar percepção.
Isso não é apenas inovação.
É o maior experimento psicológico da história.
A humanidade passou milênios usando palavras para construir civilizações.
Agora está entregando as palavras a máquinas.
E quando uma civilização entrega sua linguagem, ela não entrega apenas comunicação.
Entrega o comando da própria realidade.
At root of almost all of your social skill issues is belief you're burdening people. Self-image problem
If you just give 0 fucks and have fun with it, everyone loves that energy. And if they don't they are grumpy & lost. Key is u genuinely gotta not give a fuck, not pretend to not give a fuck (because if ur pretending, u still WANT a result, and that neediness will show)
Can train yourself to believe you're a blessing to any conversation because you bring fun & good vibes. You also bring permission for others to be themselves because you're yourself. And who wouldn't want that?
Then you genuinely cease to believe you're ever a burden. You believe you're genuine value, so why wouldn't you share it, at any moment
Death should make you more dangerous, not more sentimental. Once you understand how little time is guaranteed, petty conflict begins to look expensive, weak pleasure starts to look childish, and every wasted week becomes an insult from the man you were supposed to become.
for centuries literature was obsessed with loves that consumed people whole. now everyone wants healthy relationships. whatever happened to devotion, obsession, possessiveness, the desire to devour someone’s body and soul? what the hell is all this healing shit anyway
Female friendships can become an incredibly complex dance of manipulation, gaslighting, people-pleasing, love, care, selfishness, selflessness, jealousy, envy, and competition.
There is often immense tenderness there, but also an entire subterranean social game operating beneath the surface.
If you are good at managing these dynamics, regulating your reactions, reading subtext, and still participating in the game while remaining human, you will probably have a decent number of close female friendships. But even a little social awkwardness, emotional transparency, or inability to tolerate masked behaviour can make female friendships extremely difficult to navigate.
Your friends can slowly become your bullies, and it takes an enormous amount of emotional labour to keep moving through those dynamics when you do not naturally possess the social machinery required for them. You begin noticing the injustice, indirectness, performative sweetness, hidden hostility, constant testing, and you cannot keep pretending it is normal.
That is why some women do not have many female friends. It is not always because they are jealous, male-centred, or a “red flag.” Sometimes they simply cannot metabolise the amount of social theatre, disguised aggression, and psychological negotiation required to survive certain female circles.
The amount of mindspace you have to pay to remain inside such relationships can be enormous.
I'll try to be very careful and sensitive with this observation of Canada, because it touches on highly charged questions of ethnicity, immigration, belonging, and public space.
But here goes.
I've walked around Mississauga's Celebration Square on multiple evenings, and one thing I've increasingly noticed is neither hostility, nor tension, nor conflict, but something more subtle and perhaps more concerning.
Public spaces seem to become associated with particular ethnocultural communities to such a degree that many others gradually stop showing up.
The result is not segregation in any formal sense. Nobody is being excluded. Nobody is being told they cannot be there. Yet the effect can be remarkably similar. A space that is nominally shared begins to feel less shared over time.
To be perfectly clear, what troubles me isn't the presence of any particular diasporic community itself per se, but rather the gradual disappearance of the sense that these spaces belong equally to all of us as Canadians.
When a public square begins to be perceived, fairly or unfairly, as belonging primarily to one group, many others instinctively withdraw. Older-stock Canadians withdraw. Other immigrant communities withdraw. East Asians withdraw. Eastern Europeans withdraw. People who have no objection to anyone there nevertheless begin spending their evenings elsewhere.
Human beings are, for better or worse, tribal creatures. We gravitate toward familiarity. We seek places where we feel represented. We retreat when that sense of belonging is lost.
I understand this instinctively as someone from an East Asian diasporic background myself.
The bottom line here is that a healthy Canadian civilization cannot simply consist of parallel communities inhabiting the same geography. It requires common spaces where people from different backgrounds routinely encounter one another and develop some sense of collective belonging within the same civic realm.
What I increasingly worry about in Canada is not "diversity" itself, but the erosion of sharedness.
A country begins to lose something important when its public spaces cease to feel genuinely collective.
And whatever future Canada ultimately chooses for itself, it should never, ever feel like a collection of separate worlds living side by side while gradually forgetting how to inhabit the same one.
LEGO just dropped its largest set ever: La Sagrada Familia.
It has 12,060 pieces and costs $800. The set comes 100 years after Antoni Gaudi’s death (June 10, 1926).
The details are insane including spires, carvings and interior with light shining through stain-glass windows.
Seems to be a pattern with Mark Carney the economist.
Bank of Canada Governor ➡️ Recession
Bank of England Governor ➡️ Recession
Prime Minister of Canada ➡️ Recession
PM Carney tells immigrants to leave behind the feuds of their homelands:
"We don't welcome the world's hatreds"
"When you come to Canada you bring your faith, your tradition, your language, your story - you leave behind your animosities"
Today I introduced legislation to ban floor crossing without voter consent. When MPs switch parties after an election, they override the will of the people and erode trust. My bill restores accountability: if you want to change parties, face your constituents and let them decide.
Western civilization rests on three pillars:
1. Greek reason
2. Roman law
3. Christian moral order
All three are being demolished at the same time, and the chaos you feel is the predictable downstream effect of pulling out the load-bearing structures of your own house.
Tucker Carlson to Kevin O'Leary: ...why taxpayers should have to pay for this, if it's a private business and your tenants are some of the richest companies in the world?
Kevin: They don't. They don't necessarily have to do that; they just won't win any contracts. It's, it's a... It's a competition, um...
Tucker: But why are you getting tax breaks? Is my question.
Kevin: Yeah, everybody... You go back, and you say, "What incentives can you give us to invest $15 billion in the first 1.5 gigs?" That's what it takes. I have to go raise $15 billion. That's just the first...
Tucker: Okay, but anyone who starts a business, why should taxpayers have to pony up for that?
Kevin: They don't. But other states will.
Kevin argued that states compete with each other for major investments, offering tax incentives to attract companies willing to spend billions and create jobs.
Tucker wasn't buying it.
"If it's such a good business, why would you be asking taxpayers to help pay for it without giving them equity in the company? Are you giving taxpayers shares?"
Kevin said no. Investors get the shares.
Tucker kept pressing:
"If you want to start a business, why am I, as a taxpayer, forced to pay for your business?"
Kevin's answer was simple:
"If you won't give the incentives, another state will."