Alopex

[Douglas Macgregor @DougAMacgregor]

Anyone with dual citizenship should be prohibited from holding federal appointed or elected office or any role in the U.S. government inside the United States.

[Grummz @Grummz]

We have to talk about this Disney-fication of games.

This ruined WoW and now it's on the way to ruin God of War: Laufey (terrible name).

Modern designers seem to have an unquenchable desire to take epic stories with grit and then shove in cute animals, jelly cubes with millennial dialog, dancing sentient "ribbons" and colors dredged from rainbow vomit.

This feels like they never grew out of needing a safe space.

It feels like they are incapable of adult themes and problems and it feels like a total avoidance of adulthood and accountability.

And it's so off putting to see in a God of War game. You might as well have called it something else. It has zero ties aside from the name to the originals.

Stop taking games that are supposed to be about war and violence and gritty mythology and turning them into theme-park rides for 5 year olds.

[Bernie @Artemisfornow]

The whole world should know what the UK has done to its own people!

“Chief constables are facing demands to scrap their 'two-tier' commitment to treating white people differently to ethnic minorities”

The thing they said wasn’t happening is happening 🔥

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Did you know that official police policy requires them to be racist against Whites? It is deeply wrong and must change NOW.

[Bernie @Artemisfornow]

Don’t look back in anger doesn’t work anymore!

GET. ON. YOUR. KNEES! ..

you did it for an American criminal but you won’t for a British 18 year old innocent boy, shame on you.

[Grummz @Grummz]

X keeps trying to be a substack (articles), or TikTok (video comments).

X needs to lean in on what it does best and what build the platform: Live micro-blogging and lightning fast commentary.

Produced content is great for other platforms but is too slow for the pace of X.

X is realtime. Now. We need tools that enhance what X was good for to begin with.

[QUANTUM GUARD ™️ @QuantumGuard17]

🔥 AWESOME! El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said he DESTROYED Soros influence in his country — USA needs to do the same

"Who elected Soros to dictate policy and laws? Why does he feel entitled to impose his agenda? Soros and his cronies hit a BRICK WALL in El Salvador. Thank God...Salvadorans are now IMMUNE to his influence. No one believes his lies anymore over there!"

@NayibBukele is a pure masterclass for Latin America. 👏🏻

Impeach the judges, rule crime with an iron fist, and BLOCK SOROS' ASSETS AND INFLUENCE! 🇺🇸🇸🇻

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Outrageous double-standard!

[Grummz @Grummz]

Confirming what we always knew.

For years we talked about the buses, the shipping in protestors. For years it was flagged as "misinformation" by social media platforms.

Turns out, it was all true.

[End Wokeness @EndWokeness]

If the Henry Nowak video doesn't get the UK to revolt, nothing will

[Sandy Petersen 🪔 @SandyofCthulhu]

After deep analysis I have concluded that:

Eastern Dragons have four legs and no wings.

Western Dragons have four legs and two wings

Wyverns have two legs and two wings.

Stoorworms have no legs and two wings

Wyrms have no legs and no wings

Armed with this wisdom, go forth and prosper.

[Alan @A1an_M]

I spent a large part of yesterday trying to explain to people who supposedly are proponents of science what a "confounding variable" is.

Rather than say the same thing again today to about 100 people in about 100 different replies, I'm going to write it all in one place, here.

When scientists do science, in the form of an experiment or study, they will ultimately write it up in a standard report format containing the same sections:

Abstract
Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
References

One of the most important aspects of the Discussion is a critical analysis of what was done. What went well, what could have been done better, what should be done next time. In particular, the authors attempt to identify if there are any "confounders" which may have influenced the results and rendered them invalid.

Let's take the example of a medicine in a clinical trial. We might, if we are ethical scientists, want to study whether a particular medicine causes adverse effects to those taking it before letting it loose in the wild. So we might recruit some people for a trial, and divide them into two groups. The first receives the actual medicine, the second receives a placebo. We might then monitor the recruits for a few months (or, preferably, a much longer period) on a daily basis and note any illnesses suffered in both groups.

We would then do a statistical analysis on the results from the two groups. If the results of that analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in the levels and types of illness suffered in the two groups, we might then conclude that no adverse effects were caused by the medicine. If, on the other hand, there was a significant difference between the two groups, that would point towards the need for further study and might lead us to conclude that the medicine was the cause of the difference.

The key thing here with our experimental design is that we want to make sure that the two groups in the study - the experimental group who receive the medicine and the control group who do not - are, in every other way, identical. Because if they're not, those differences might have caused the effect we observed, rather than the differences we created in our experiment.

What factors might make these two groups different?

1. Age differences. If one group was older, we might expect they might suffer more illness than the younger group.
2. Gender. Dependent on the medicine, males or females might be more affected. If the groups weren't balanced for gender, this might distort the reported illness results.
3. Health differences. If one group had poorer general health than the other at the beginning of the trial, we might expect them to report more illness during the trial.

These are all examples of "confounding variables". Factors which we did not control but which might influence the outcome and render our results invalid.

So in our experimental design we would want to make sure the experimental group and the control group are closely matched for age, gender and health status.

Which brings me onto climate change.

Climate scientists contend that Carbon Dioxide created by human activity in the industrial age is causing global atmospheric temperatures to increase.

As evidence, they point to an increase in global atmospheric temperatures over the last 200 years or so.

So far so good. Temperatures have, broadly, risen during that time. There are plenty of other things to criticise about this hypothesis and about climate "science" in general but that is for another time.

Yesterday we saw, all over the media, headlines about new record May temperatures of 35 degrees at Kew and Heathrow, and below the headlines was text saying that experts were saying this was another example of evidence of how the climate is warming.

Now I don't deny that it's been hot the last couple of days - where I am it has been around 32 degrees - so I don't doubt that the May record may have been broken somewhere in the country.

But the specific problem I have is with the temperatures at Heathrow and Kew, or indeed anywhere close to London or a big urban area being used as the evidence that the May record has been broken,or that they are evidence of atmospheric warming.

Why? Because of a confounding variable.

When we say a temperature record has been broken, we need to make sure we are comparing apples with apples. So not only do we need to compare temperatures that were measured in the same site using the same type of equipment in both instances - we need to make sure that the sites themselves have not changed.

We know that modern urban areas create a "heat island" effect. The expanses of heat-retaining materials like concrete, asphalt and cement retain heat during the day and release it slowly overnight, leading to higher daytime and nighttime temperatures. Added to which are the many buildings and vehicles in urban areas generating their own heat. All of this means that temperatures in, or close to, an urban area are typically several degrees warmer than in countryside some distance away.

Given the expansion and urbanisation of London over the last century, this effect will only have grown over time.

Arup measured this effect in London and concluded that temperatures there are often 4.5 degrees hotter than in the surrounding countryside (see first comment for link).

This effect obviously varies between different parts of London, as shown on the heat map, and reduces as you move away from central London, but even at Kew, the effect is estimated to cause temperatures to be 0.9 degrees higher than would be the case if Kew was sited in the countryside.

And Heathrow clearly creates its own heat island effect given the scale of the airport and the big expanses of heat absorbing materials there.

So if we are going to use temperatures measured in, or close to, London as evidence of atmospheric warming, we have a problem. We have a significant confounding variable. The warming caused by the heat island effect is going to add to any warming in the atmosphere, and give us an exaggerated result.

You can perhaps forgive tabloid newspapers for running headlines about this, just quoting the raw temperatures measured. They want to make money and it being very hot outside is a great news story. And urban areas becoming increasingly hot in summer is an issue in its own right.

But what is unforgiveable is people who claim to be scientists using these measurements as evidence of atmospheric warming, when there's such a glaring confounding variable influencing the data.

How would a proper scientist deal with this confounder?

Well, they might say "from now on, we will only use temperatures from rural weather stations which are not subject to urban heat island effects, and we will only declare records on the basis of those measurements"

And they might say "we will not use temperature measurements from areas subject to urban heat island effects as evidence of atmospheric warming".

But the Met Office and the climate science people aren't saying that. They're going with the artificially inflated temperatures. Because they have an agenda to push, a vast Net Zero industry to sustain, research grants to chase, and any evidence, however shonky, which backs up the global warming narrative is welcome.

This isn't science!

[Grummz @Grummz]

Duuuude. So much better than what they shipped.

[AMK Mapping 🇳🇿 @AMK_Mapping_]

I really wish this war would just finish, man.

Every day there’s more death, destruction, and suffering at the hands of power hungry and selfish leaders in Russia and the West.

I don’t care who you think is responsible for what, all of this is such an avoidable tragedy.

[Grummz @Grummz]

Nothing is as pretentious as people falling for this.

The OP posted a real Monet and called it AI to shine a light.

So many replies condemning this as “obvious AI slop.”

[Alopex @Liquid_Alopex]

@Pirat_Nation

[Clandestine @WarClandestine]

I see everyone sharing the clip of the CIA whisleblower, who testified that the Biden admin and Fauci intentionally covered up the lab-based origins of Covid.

While this is awesome, it’s not exactly breaking news.

All this was already revealed in the NIH emails. Fauci and Collins of the NIH wittingly covered up the lab-leak theory, in order to protect themselves, because the virus came from one of the labs they operate.

We have the emails to prove that they purposefully covered up any talk of man-made origins.

It’s no longer a debate. The virus was man-made, at a US-funded lab, and the Biden admin covered it up. Plain and simple.

[Nick Sortor @nicksortor]

BREAKING: A CIA whistleblower just testified UNDER OATH that Anthony Fauci DIRECTLY meddled with intelligence agencies to cover up the COVID lab leak.

Every day that Fauci remains free is an INJUSTICE.

Per the whistleblower, the CIA was on the verge of calling it a lab leak — then changed course days later with zero explanation.

Fauci injected himself into the intelligence community and FLIPPED the conclusion.

[Kim Dotcom @KimDotcom]

OUT

[Tucker Carlson @TuckerCarlson]

Corruption, drugs and greed: Volodymyr Zelensky’s longtime press secretary on the secret world of the West’s favorite dictator.

0:00 How Did Mendel Begin Working for Zelensky?
11:29 Why Hasn’t US Media Covered Zelensky’s Scandals?
25:30 Zelensky’s Relationship With Joe Biden
32:45 Is Zelensky Himself Corrupt?
36:44 Who Does Zelensky Actually Listen To?
42:45 Zelensky’s Use of the Frontlines as Punishment
50:17 Why Hasn’t Western Media Spoken up for Ukrainians?
1:03:32 Why Do Western Countries Want the War to Continue?
1:09:16 Does Zelensky Do Coke?
1:13:04 What’s Zelensky’s Wife Like?
1:14:56 Mendel’s Experience Living Through the Ukraine War
1:18:27 Is There Any Way to Get Rid of Zelensky?
1:23:42 Why Are There So Many Americans Always in Ukraine?
1:32:35 Mendel’s Message to Putin