Olivia
Online
WalterWX
@WalterWX
Follow the crisis—it's not over until the debt is purged • Unfollow the surveillance state—'nothing to hide' wont keep it off of you • Stand by & hear Fukumimi
Amsterdam - NL
Joined September 2011
3.8K Following
394 Followers
14.4K Posts
Pinned Tweet
Senza parole
https://t.co/1m3wcSiipy
The human brain is unfit for the brave new world it created, as its memory keeps forgetting.
A team at the University of Melbourne had 51 people watch the same six-episode spy thriller. One group binged all six episodes in a single sitting, another watched just one a week. Right after, the bingers remembered the most. 140 days later, they came in dead last.
The slow watchers remembered the show the longest, and they said they enjoyed it more.
This shows up all over memory research, not just with TV. When your brain takes something in all at once, it builds the memory fast and loses it fast. Spread the same thing over days or weeks, and every gap makes your brain reach back and pull the story up again. That small bit of effort is what makes it stick. A German psychologist named Ebbinghaus measured this back in 1885. Cramming feels productive. It just does not last.
Then there is the problem of watching five similar shows in a row. The closer two memories are, the more they crowd each other out. Binge three crime dramas in a weekend and the detectives, the twists, and the bodies start bleeding together. The newer show writes over the older one. That kind of overwriting is now thought to be the main reason we forget everyday things.
Now add the phone in your hand. Around 83 percent of people keep a second screen going while a show plays. Memories only get saved while you are actually paying attention. If your focus is split between the show and your phone, the memory barely gets saved at all. You cannot forget a plot you never really took in.
The last piece explains your exact feeling. Your brain saves two separate things when you watch a show. One trace is the detail: the names, the faces, who did what to whom. The other is the gist, the general feeling of it, like "fun spy show, I liked it." They sit in different places, and the detail fades far faster than the gist. So you land exactly where you described. The plot is gone. The characters are gone. What stays behind is a small warm flag that says you enjoyed it.
That warm flag is the one piece your brain chose to keep.
Het antwoord blijkt dus alsnog niet eenvoudigweg 42 te zijn, maar HH-KX 942. Dat opent volledig nieuwe vergezichten!
Ik was vandaag jaar oud toen ik ontdekte dat het rode autootje dat op veel oude ansichtkaarten staat, vaak dezelfde auto is.
Een rode Ford Taunus 12M P4 met het kenteken HH-KX 942.
@MiesBee Het grappigste is toch dat dat fortuin uitsluitend zit in het vermaledijde capitalist real estate waar ze totaal hun neus voor ophalen want het enige waarvan zij denken dat ‘t ècht telt & belangrijk is, is Making Art. Maar ja, zodra ze dood zijn gaat al hun Art naar de vuilstort.
Either +we+ see everything upside down or the +Chinese+ do — hard to think of a way to have one’s food both raw and cooked at the same time.
This is one of the funnier cultural differences between China and the West: what we respectively see as "healthy food."
In the West, healthy food tends to be raw, cold, and uncooked - think salads, smoothies, raw soups (gazpachos, etc.), cold-pressed juices, etc.
In China, it's almost the opposite: raw and cold foods are generally to be avoided, especially if you have health issues or a weak constitution.
What is seen as healthy is what we in the West could call comfort food: warm soups, congee (porridge), cooked vegetables, stews - everything soft, warm, and easy to digest.
In fact, I'm probably underselling it: cold food in China, especially if you listen to the older more traditional folks, is seen as almost hazardous.
Personal anecdote on this: one of the closest I ever came to having Child Protective Services (CPS) called on me with my kids was at an airport in China when I gave ice water to my then 2-year old daughter.
I did it in front of a group of older Chinese ladies and I heard a collective gasp when my daughter started drinking, as if something genuinely awful had just happened.
The ladies started lecturing me to the effect of "do you realize what you've just done? Ice water to a little child? This is terrible for her digestion! She'll get sick!" Believe me, this was the last time I gave ice water to my daughters in public in China 😅
Why this belief? It comes from Traditional Chinese Medicine (a subject I happen to know a fair amount about because I studied it and I built the largest TCM information website out there in English: https://t.co/GPeMWZcEoE).
Without going too deep in TCM theory, the belief is that cold/raw foods force your body to work harder for digestion, effectively taxing your system instead of nourishing it. Over time this weakens your digestive system, leading to what TCM calls "dampness" and "phlegm".
Ironically, still according to TCM, dampness and phlegm are also the primary explanation for obesity. There's a classic saying: 肥人多痰 (féi rén duō tán) - "fat people have much phlegm." Excess weight in TCM is understood largely as accumulated dampness and phlegm that the Spleen was too weak to properly transform and clear.
Now I'm obviously not saying that TCM believes eating salad makes you fat. It does however slow down, essentially, your metabolism - which is the root cause of weight gain. Quite the irony.
What does modern science have to say on this matter? Is TCM correct that eating raw cold foods isn't that good for you, or are we in the West correct they're the healthiest foods out there?
It may surprise you that science supports the TCM intuition on pretty much every count.
And not in a small way: the scientific consensus is basically that one of the single most beneficial things that ever happened to our species nutrition-wise was to learn to cook food.
Take the book "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" by Harvard biological anthropologist Richard Wrangham: he argues that cooking made food dramatically more digestible, allowing our ancestors to grow bigger brains and smaller guts - eventually becoming us.
In other words, what science says is that the most important nutritional breakthrough in the history of our species was for us to stop eating the equivalent of salad.
And there are plenty of detailed studies on individual ingredients that back this up. For instance Wrangham in his book demonstrated that cooked eggs are over 90% digestible, while raw eggs are only 50-60% digestible.
Another very famous study is this one by Cornell University (https://t.co/71DNGoLQ86) on tomatoes that concludes that cooking them considerably increases their nutritional value (more antioxidants like lycopene) directly contradicting the notion that raw veggies is more nutritious (that's the actual conclusion of the study, that it goes "against the notion that processed fruits and vegetables have lower nutritional value than fresh produce").
Or take this 1995 study on the effect of cold drinks on digestion (https://t.co/jom8b6G2H7), published in Gut, one of the world's top gastroenterology journals: cold drinks at 4°C significantly suppressed stomach contractions and disrupted normal digestive motility compared to body-temperature drinks.
So those Chinese grandmothers lecturing me at the airport? Science is actually on their side!
Now to be fair there doesn't seem to be much research on the long-term effects of cold and raw food consumption on metabolism - i.e. TCM's claim that it builds "phlegm" and chronically slows your metabolism down, contributing to weight gain. But I wouldn't be surprised if that one was eventually validated too.
Overall conclusion: next time you're virtuously eating a cold kale salad and notice a Chinese grandma looking at you disapprovingly, maybe put the fork down and ask her what she recommends instead.
Instead of making Sabine think she’s being grumpy, Barontini should have addressed her point +before+ spending probably some millions and, ehm, time to build yet another circular (“time is what a clock measures and a clock is what measures time”) measuring device.
Physicist Successfully Demonstrates the Origin of Time
Giovanni Barontini from the University of Birmingham, UK, has used a cloud of cold atoms to test the origin of time. This is an interesting contribution to the long-standing question of how to define time in a non-circular way (time is what a clock measures and a clock is what measures time). One of the proposed solutions is to define time in quantum physics from the interaction of two different subsystems. This interaction, so the idea, introduces an oscillation that serves as the ‘tick’ of the clock. If that was so, then time would be purely ‘relational’ — an emergent, derived quantity — rather than (as in Einstein’s theory), a fundamental property of the universe.
Barontini used about 24,000 ultracold rubidium atoms in a trap split by a thin light barrier into an observed “bright” part and an unobserved “dark” part. Atoms could move between the two, so the bright part expanded and collapsed in repeated cycles, rather like a toy version of a big bang and big crunch. Barontini then defined an internal “entropic time” from how the entropy of the bright part changed as atoms moved in and out. This internal time ordered the observed events almost as well as laboratory time.
This experiment lends support to the idea that time is not fundamental, but emerges from interactions between parts of a closed system, though one may ask how interactions can change a system if there is not already a time for them to change in, but then maybe that’s just Sabine being grumpy again.
Image: The device, called a ‘trap’, that holds the cloud of cold atoms in place using a combination of lasers and magnetic fields. Credits: Giovanni Barontini/University of Birmingham
Puik stuk over prut stuk:
https://t.co/p5LAkronCv
The future of the individual against the state, or maybe more precisely (still unclear what duo will prevail, I think) of the middle-class masses against the ultra-rich seems extremely bleak. One’s heart bleeds for future generations for whom all resistance will indeed be futile.
The largest theft in history has already happened. The people behind it just cannot open what they stole yet.
Right now, intelligence agencies and criminal groups are quietly copying the world's encrypted data, bank records, medical files, state secrets, private messages, and storing every byte untouched. They cannot read any of it. They are collecting it anyway, because they know the key is about to be invented.
The strategy has a name, harvest now, decrypt later, and in 2026 it stopped being theory. Washington declared this the Year of Quantum Security in January, backed by the FBI, the NSA, and NIST. Canada ordered every federal agency to file a migration plan by April. Europe set its deadline for December. Governments do not impose operational deadlines on a someday problem. They do it when the clock is already running.
Here is what moved the clock. Every password, every transfer, every secret on Earth is protected by one assumption, that a certain math problem is too hard to solve. Quantum computers solve exactly that problem. For years the machine that could do it looked decades away. Then in late 2025 Google's Willow chip cracked the hardest part of building one, and in March 2026 Google's own researchers estimated that breaking the encryption behind Bitcoin might take fewer than 500,000 qubits, down from 20 million, and could run in minutes. The day this becomes real has a name, Q-Day, and the latest estimates place it between 2030 and 2033.
Now make it concrete. Roughly 6.5 million Bitcoin, about a third of every coin that will ever exist, worth close to 500 billion dollars, sit in addresses that have already exposed the very key a quantum computer needs. That includes the coins of Satoshi, the anonymous creator. On Q-Day they become, in the researchers' own word, trivially stealable. It would not look like a crash or a whale selling. It would look like half a trillion dollars of the most secure money ever built simply walking out the door. The asset designed to trust no one and no institution turns out to rest on a single unverified bet, that one math problem stays hard forever.
This is what sits beneath the entire digital world. A bank balance, a Bitcoin, a classified cable, all of it is real only because of a proof you supposedly cannot forge. Quantum breaks the proof. Everything we call secure is true only until someone finally checks, and for the first time the check is visible on the horizon. You cannot know whether your data has already been copied. You cannot know the exact day the key arrives. The trust holding up the digital age is a clock counting down to a zero no one can see.
The honest counter matters. No machine on Earth can break this encryption today, and serious cryptographers still argue the real threat is a decade or more away. The timeline is far from certain. Quantum-safe codes already exist, the migration has started, and Bitcoin can move its coins to safety before Q-Day if it acts in time. The danger is not that everything breaks tomorrow. It is that anything which must stay secret into the 2030s, a state secret, an identity, a private key, is being stolen today and is already on the clock.
The breach is not coming. It is already here, sitting in storage, perfectly encrypted, waiting for a machine that does not exist yet to read it out loud.
Research and opinion, not investment advice.
Perhaps not THE, but clearly in the top 10 –probably even 5– of most unlikely military wins-against-all-odds in history.
Heck, Ukraine, if it wanted & not had Putin on its doorstep, could drone ALL of Europe, overruning any meager resistance. Sure, stretched too thin. But still.
A robot boat with no crew shot down a $50 million fighter jet over the Black Sea. The boat cost a few hundred thousand dollars, and the country that built it had lost almost its whole navy ten years earlier.
Ukraine started the war with seven companies making drones. It now has around 500, building 99% of them at home, in warehouses the size of city blocks, many dug underground to survive missile strikes. The small FPV drones a single soldier flies through a video headset went from a few thousand a year in 2022 to roughly four million in 2025, at $300 to $400 each. They now destroy more Russian tanks and armor than artillery does. The 2026 target is seven million military drones, against roughly a hundred thousand a year for the entire United States.
The naval side keeps breaking records. In February 2024, Ukrainian sea drones became the first uncrewed boats to sink a warship in combat. Within a year they had sunk eight Russian ships and damaged six more, pushing the Black Sea Fleet out of Crimea and back to a port on the Russian mainland. In 2025 one of those boats, carrying a missile that can hit aircraft, shot down two fighter jets. No navy had ever done that with a robot.
The hardware is only half of it. The part that matters most is speed. Ukraine built a system called Delta that ties drone feeds, sensors, and artillery into one live map, plus a marketplace called Brave1 where frontline units order drones straight from the makers and pay with points they earn for confirmed hits. What takes a Western defense company years can happen here in weeks, because the soldier flying the drone is the one telling the factory what to fix. More than 70 AI camera systems already run on the front, trained on millions of frames of battlefield video.
The jamming problem got solved with a spool of glass. Fiber-optic drones trail a hair-thin cable as they fly, so there is no radio signal to block. They are nearly impossible to jam, and Ukraine treats them as its biggest edge against Russian jamming.
Four years ago this was seven workshops. Today it is the most battle-tested weapons lab on earth, and it just started selling.
About gold. And about not paper gold.
China's central bank has now bought gold for 19 months straight, the largest official buyer on earth. And this week, as gold broke 4,000 dollars, China's biggest banks moved to push ordinary Chinese out of leveraged gold trading, with at least one warning it will liquidate any position not closed by month-end. Both are true at once, and together they explain what this crash really is.
Start with what is being banned, because the words matter. ICBC and a string of other banks are shutting down retail trading in what the Chinese themselves call paper gold, the margined, leveraged contracts where you bet on the price without ever owning a bar. Some banks lifted the margin requirement to 140 percent to choke the leverage off before closing the products outright. Physical gold, meanwhile, stays wide open. Coins, bars, savings plans, ETFs, all fine. It is only the paper, the leverage, the casino, that is being shut, the last step in a five-year retreat that the crash just finished.
Officially this is about protecting small investors, and that part is real. The same kind of leverage wiped out a wave of Chinese retail in a 2020 commodity blowup. But set the ban beside what the state is doing and something larger comes into view. While its citizens are pushed out of the paper, the People's Bank of China has spent those same 19 months buying the physical metal, more than two thousand three hundred tonnes of it now, accumulating straight through a 28 percent crash that scared everyone else out. Beijing is not trading gold. It is hoarding it.
That is the strategy in one frame. China looked at the two things both called gold, the paper bet and the physical bar, and made a choice no Western government would make. It is taking the metal for the state and closing the casino for everyone else.
The reason sits in a single date. 2022, when Russia's reserves were frozen with a keystroke. That taught every country outside the Western system one lesson: dollars in an account can be switched off, gold in your own vault cannot. So China is building its monetary independence out of the one asset nobody can freeze, and it does not want that foundation in the hands of leveraged traders who panic-sell in a crash, or priced by a paper market it does not control.
Watch this month and the two worlds split in real time. Western investors were forced out of their gold by margin calls and a rate scare. China's central bank bought that exact dip with both hands. One side treats gold as a trade. The other treats it as the floor under a currency.
The West is selling paper gold and calling it a crash. China is buying physical gold and calling it a foundation. In ten years, only one of them will look like it understood what gold was for. The metal is already moving to that side.
There must be SOOO many more widely UNknown government mess-ups throughout Europe just like this. And still the UK isn’t even EU anymore — which in itself was pretty stupid regardless and doesn’t exactly favor citizens themselves voting either…
Jeremy Clarkson’s Farm show on Amazon is the most radicalizing piece of mainstream media I’ve ever seen
Just one example (bear with me):
Badgers became a protected species in Britain 40+ years ago.
The population has exploded and now frequently transmits tuberculosis to cows
But farmers can’t cull the badger population to protect their cattle because the government still considers them to be endangered
Instead of addressing the root cause, the UK has the most batshit testing regime for cattle
There’s no TB vaccine. So the cattle have to get tested. The vets administering the test have to measure welts on the cows neck. Whether a cow lives or dies comes down to a vet trying to discern 1mm on a caliper (reactive vs non reactive).
If a cow tests positive, the farm (already running on super thin margins) is quarantined and starts hemorrhaging money.
Jeremy Clarkson’s cow (pregnant with twins) has an inconclusive test so it’s separated from the herd. It receives a second inconclusive test so they have to kill it (before it can give birth to the twins).
Now here’s the kicker: the autopsy reveals no sign of TB. It was a healthy cow needlessly killed
So - silver lining the farm should be removed from quarantine, right? WRONG - it’s still under quarantine and has to keep testing and can’t sell its beef
Kafkaesque doesn’t even begin to describe how f’d up it is for British farmers
Amazing how Hans Zimmer’s score for Interstellar seamlessly fits with and brings depth to so many different stories:
This is real footage of Italy from 130 years ago
Venice in 1896
‘Wim is weg’ — Dit was ‘m:
Bedankt Wim T. Schippers.
Voor alles.
There’s MUCH more reality than meets, well, just about anything:
A Pulitzer Prize-winning science journalist spent years interviewing researchers across a dozen countries, and the book he wrote accidentally proved that everything you think you know about reality is a lie your nervous system constructed for you.
His name is Ed Yong. The book is called An Immense World.
I read it over two nights and it genuinely scared me. Not in a horror movie way. But In the way that happens when you realize something true that you cannot unfeel.
Here is the idea that broke my brain.
There is a German word called Umwelt. It was coined in 1909 by an Estonian-German zoologist named Jakob von Uexküll. It means the perceptual world of a specific animal. The slice of reality that animal can sense, experience, and respond to.
Every animal has one. Including you.
Your Umwelt is shaped by your eyes, ears, nose, skin, and tongue. Those organs evolved over millions of years to detect the specific information your ancestors needed to survive. Not reality as it is. Reality as it was useful to perceive.
That is the part nobody tells you.
You did not evolve to see the world accurately. You evolved to see enough of it to not die.
The rest of reality is just out there. Running constantly. Invisible to you.
Here is what that actually looks like.
A dog lives in a world of smell the way you live in a world of sight. When your dog walks into a room, it does not just detect that food is present. It reads who cooked it, when it was touched, who has been in the room, what emotional state they were in, and whether any of them are sick. A dog's nose has 300 million olfactory receptors. You have 6 million. Your dog is not smelling the world. It is reading it.
Birds are even more disorienting.
Most birds are tetrachromats. They have four types of color receptors where you have three. This does not mean they see slightly more color. It means they perceive an entire dimension of color that you have no sensory apparatus to access. There is no human experience that captures what they see. The feathers of a bird that look brown to you are likely a riot of ultraviolet patterns visible only to other birds. Flowers that look plain to you have ultraviolet landing strips pointing insects directly to the pollen. You walk through a world covered in signals you cannot read.
The mantis shrimp is the one that finished me.
It has 16 types of photoreceptors. You have 3. Scientists initially assumed this meant mantis shrimp saw an almost incomprehensible number of colors. Then they tested it. The mantis shrimp does not compare colors the way we do. Its visual system processes color more like a barcode scanner, running a quick yes or no against each receptor rather than mixing them into rich experience. It has 16 channels, but it likely perceives the world in a completely alien way that we have no framework to describe or imagine.
There is no human word for what the mantis shrimp sees. Our vocabulary for visual experience was built by creatures with three receptors. It does not reach.
But here is the part of the book that stayed with me longest.
Yong writes about a tick. A tiny bloodsucking parasite that can live for up to 18 years without eating. Its entire Umwelt consists of three signals. Temperature. The smell of butyric acid from mammal skin. The touch of hair. That is the entire perceptual universe of a tick. Warmth, one smell, one texture. It waits for those three signals. When they arrive, it falls and feeds. Then it waits again.
For 18 years sometimes.
Inside an Umwelt that contains almost nothing.
The tick is not suffering. The tick has no concept of what it is missing. It has exactly the sensory equipment it needs to survive, and nothing else. It perceives the world it evolved to survive in, and it cannot imagine a larger one.
And this is where Yong does the thing that made me put the book down at 2am and stare at the ceiling.
He points out, quietly, that the same logic applies to you.
You have exactly the sensory equipment your ancestors needed to survive on the African savanna. You see the wavelengths of light that bounced off fruit and predators. You hear the frequencies of human voices and snapping branches. You smell and taste at ranges that kept you fed and kept you away from rot and poison.
Everything outside those ranges is simply not there for you.
Electric fields. Magnetic fields. Ultraviolet light. Infrared signatures. Vibrations moving through the ground. The low-frequency calls of elephants traveling 10 kilometers through soil. The echolocation pulses of bats painting a sonic picture of the world in real time.
All of it happening. Constantly. In the exact room you are sitting in right now. And you perceive none of it.
The world is not what you see. The world is what exists. Your brain built a model of the relevant parts and handed it to you and called it reality.
Yong's most important line is not a dramatic one. It comes near the end, almost as a quiet admission.
He says we are the only animal that can try to understand the Umwelten of others. We cannot experience them. But we can study them, build instruments to detect what we cannot sense, and use our imagination to extend our perception beyond what evolution gave us.
That is not just a line about biology.
It is the best argument for curiosity I have ever read.
Every field of science is, at its core, a tool for extending the human Umwelt. The telescope. The microscope. The spectrometer. The fMRI. Every instrument humans have ever built is an attempt to perceive a slice of reality that our biology locked us out of.
We have been building prosthetic senses since the first person held a lens to their eye.
The book scared me more than anything I have read this year, because it is true. The world is immense. You are perceiving a very thin slice of it, assembled by evolution to keep you alive, not to show you everything.
The tick survives on three signals. You survive on five senses. The difference is enormous and also, when you look out at the full spectrum of what exists, not as large as you thought.
What is one sense or ability from the animal world that you would want to experience for just one day, and what do you think it would change about how you see your own life?
Bottom line: no family or clan can remain-on-top for +centuries+ without ALSO providing significant contributions to the community they’re part of.
In 2526, the Kim family will have vanished+forgotten in Korea — but the Wittelsbach family will still be influential in Bavaria.
The beauty of this shines SO brightly through the ages.
I’m not at all that wealthy myself (relatively, of course) but not poor by any standard. Still, imo anyone who seriously thinks these families should be or should have been cut/taxed down, should have their head examined.>
A wealthy family is supposed to lose its fortune over time, and the reason is pure math. Every generation splits the money among more children. Run that for 600 years and a single rich family from 1427 should have its wealth scattered across hundreds of thousands of descendants by now, each holding a sliver of nothing. That is how dynasties are supposed to die. Slowly, by division.
Florence is where it did not happen. The same surnames that sat at the top of the city's tax records in 1427 are still sitting at the top today. Two Bank of Italy economists proved it by lining up the 1427 census, a ledger the city only created because it was nearly bankrupt from a war with Milan, against Florence's 2011 tax records. Roughly 20 generations apart. The rich names never moved.
Then they measured how strong the pull was. Long-run earnings elasticity of 0.04. That sounds like nothing until you remember what standard models predict after 20 generations. Zero. An advantage was supposed to fade inside three generations. This one was still showing up after twenty.
Wealth held even tighter than income. Start at the bottom of the 1427 distribution versus the top, and the gap between them is still 12% today, six centuries later.
Here is the part that should bother you. When economists track mobility one generation at a time, they measure an elasticity around 0.3 to 0.5 and conclude advantages fade fast. But a single generation of income is noisy. A rich kid has a bad decade, a lazy heir, a plumber next door who gets lucky. Strip that noise out by following the same bloodline across centuries and the real number jumps to about 0.75. Gregory Clark found that same 0.75 in England, Sweden, China, and India. Different countries, different centuries, one stubborn constant.
At 0.75 per generation, an elite family does not return to average in three generations. It takes ten to fifteen. Three hundred years and up. The exponential math of the family tree should have buried these fortunes a dozen times over. It did not even dent them.
Barone and Mocetti gave the force a name. The glass floor. The children of the rich do not fall through it, and 600 years of tax records are the receipt.
Apple and AI. This is a big improvement, but also makes it abundantly clear Apple has completely missed the boat on whatever-AI-of-its-own.
Breaking: Your iPhone is no longer stuck with Siri.
iOS 27 lets you swap in ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini as the AI that runs everything.
Save this. Here is how to switch:
It cannot possibly be a coincidence that this map has, basically, the early contours of ancient Britain.
What an amazing way to visualize early human migration. Lovely map by @HarvardCGA. A great colour scheme and an appropriate map projection! Source: https://t.co/aD8kct1ucD
Maar, voorzichtig chapeau voor De Volkskrant, Withuis lijkt (12jun) te mogen blijven — wel nog afwachten hoe de lezersbrieven erover blijken te denken. En of de redactie die druk vervolgens wil+durft te weerstaan. Maar ja, ALS ze Withuis eruit gooien bewijst dat exact haar punt…
Hier de krachtige column van Jolande Withuis. Lees ook haar oordeel over Bluesky.
Deze spot-on column van Withuis in de Volkskrant had ik gemist:
‘ Hamas is vrouwenhaat. Maar wie dat weten wil, wist het al.' Jolande Withuis. 🎯
Daarna -tjee, verrassing!- gingen de handschoenen, of nou ja tegenwoordig de lezersbrieven, af bij De Volkskrant, want Withuis’ verhaal kunnen die lezertjes niet aan:
Hier de giftige lezersbrieven in de Volkskrant over de column van Jolande Withuis zonder betaalmuur.
https://t.co/xKR100rwM4
Een fraaie weerspiegeling van de bloedsprookjes die tegenwoordig kritiekloos worden geplaatst in 'kwaliteitskranten'.
De Volkskrant toont haar ware aard.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.6M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.5M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.6M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.9M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.6M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.5M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
69.8M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.6M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.7M followers