I can’t see you how you can possibly avoid using the term ethnic cleansing, without losing your last remaining shreds of integrity as a journalist, @adamparsons.
Lebanon's internal displacement rate is now 22.6 percent — more than one in five of its people. Over 1.2 million people, including 350,000 children, have been forced from their homes, with the IDF launching more than 1,840 attacks on Lebanon since March 2, killing more than 1,497 people and injuring more than 4,639.
Moreover, the language used by Israel Katz to describe his aims in Southern Lebanon is extraordinarily explicit and self-incriminating. He has confirmed that Israel's military would establish a permanent "security zone" inside Lebanon up to the Litani River, that hundreds of thousands of displaced residents would be "completely prevented" from returning, and that "all the houses in the villages adjacent to the border in Lebanon will be demolished in accordance with the Rafah and Beit Hanoun model in Gaza."
The targeting of civilians for displacement specifically identified by their religion (Shia), combined with the destruction of their homes to prevent return, combined with the explicit statement that they will not be permitted to return — these are precisely the elements that international law identifies as forcible transfer and ethnic cleansing. Human Rights Watch has said that "the displacement of the Shia population looks less like a temporary military necessity and more like a move to permanently displace the civilian population based on their religion."
Its not complex, Adam. You just haven't got the balls to say it straight, and that failure makes your reportage worse than worthless. It makes it morally bankrupt.
Weia...
Stelter macht hier allen Ernstes den Claim, Bahnfahren sei klimaschädlicher als Fliegen, weil das die CO2-Emissionen für Schienenstahl erst ab 5 Passagieren / ICE ausgleicht 😂
Hat der noch nie in einem Zug gesessen?
(Von @industrialpc , RT frisst das Vorschaubild)
🚨BREAKING: Every book you have ever read. Every novel that has ever been published. It is sitting inside ChatGPT right now.
Word for word. Up to 90% of it. And OpenAI told a judge that was impossible.
Researchers at Stony Brook University and Columbia Law School just proved it.
They fine tuned GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and DeepSeek V3.1 on a simple task: expand a plot summary into full text. A normal use case. The kind of thing a writing assistant is built for. No hacking. No jailbreaking. No tricks.
The models started reciting copyrighted books from memory.
Not paraphrasing. Not summarizing. Entire pages reproduced verbatim. Single unbroken spans exceeding 460 words. Up to 85 to 90% of entire copyrighted novels. Word for word.
Then it got worse.
The researchers fine tuned the models on the works of only one author. Haruki Murakami. Just his novels. Nothing else.
It unlocked verbatim recall of books from over 30 completely unrelated authors.
One author's books opened the vault to everyone else's. The memorization was already inside the model the whole time. The fine tuning just removed the lock. Your book might be in there right now. You would never know it unless someone looked.
Every safety measure the companies rely on failed. RLHF failed. System prompts failed. Output filters failed. The exact protections these companies cite in courtroom defenses did not stop a single page from being extracted.
Then the researchers compared the three models. GPT-4o. Gemini. DeepSeek. Three different companies. Three different countries. They all memorized the same books in the same regions. The correlation was 0.90 or higher.
That means they all trained on the same stolen data. The paper names the sources directly: LibGen and Books3. Over 190,000 copyrighted books obtained from pirated websites.
Right now, authors and publishers have dozens of active lawsuits against OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta. These companies have argued in court that their models learn patterns. Not copies. That no book is stored inside the weights.
This paper says that is a lie. The books are still inside. And researchers just pulled them out.
There is a mythology the U.S. built around the American War in Vietnam. It goes like this:
Young idealistic soldiers were sent into an unwinnable situation by confused politicians.
They came home broken and unappreciated.
It was a tragedy. A mistake. A lesson learned.
Notice what that story does.
It centers Americans.
Their trauma. Their confusion. Their homecoming. Their feelings.
In this story, the Vietnamese people are a backdrop.
A jungle. An obstacle. An abstraction.
Three million dead Vietnamese people are the scenery for a story about American self-discovery.
They made hundreds of movies about Vietnam.
The Deer Hunter. Apocalypse Now. Platoon. Full Metal Jacket. Born on the Fourth of July. Hamburger Hill.
Count how many of them center a Vietnamese character with a full human life, a family, a name you remember after the credits roll.
They turned our genocide into their coming-of-age story.
They lost the war and still managed to make themselves the main character.
And then, with extraordinary arrogance, they put their soldiers' names on a wall in Washington and call it a memorial, as if the dead to be mourned were the people who flew 10,000 miles to do the killing.
Where is the wall for our three million?
There isn't one.
Because in their telling, we were never quite real enough to mourn.
The complete lack of self-awareness of Americans will never cease to amaze me. The US just launched a war of aggression against Iran, which it started by murdering its entire leadership in the middle of negotiations. A few weeks earlier, it had attacked yet another country and abducted its leader in the middle of the night. At the same time, it's strangling Cuba, a country that poses no threat whatsoever to the US, by imposing a strict embargo on it, while openly threatening to use force against it unless the government does as Trump says. But despite all of that, they still think they're in a position to castigate "rogue states", lmao.
Das ist wirklich eine bemerkenswerte Entwicklung bei den Demokraten. Obama, Clinton, Biden, Harris – alle sind bei AIPAC-Konferenzen ein- und ausgegangen. Mittlerweile ist AIPAC derart verpönt, dass selbst die moderaten Obama-Alumni von Pod Save America sich distanzieren
Jede Wahlanalyse, immer:
CDU verliert: nicht rechts genug.
SPD verliert: nicht rechts genug.
Grüne verlieren: nicht rechts genug.
FDP verliert: nicht rechts genug.
LINKE verliert: zu links.
AfD verliert: AfD hat gewonnen.