Fave jackson

agent of X

[Melius 😈 @melius4cier]

Over $6 BILLION in crypto reportedly stolen from Binance in just 20 minutes. And the attack may have started with one employee clicking a fake Zoom or Teams link.

According to cybersecurity expert Jake Moore, hackers are increasingly posing as recruiters on LinkedIn, targeting employees and tricking them into downloading malware that gives attackers access to their devices.

The reported breach sent shockwaves through crypto markets, with Bitcoin and Ether falling sharply.

But here’s the frightening part: one compromised laptop could open the door to a massive financial disaster.

How did the hackers pull it off, and how can crypto investors protect their money?

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

Cheesecake factory is a hit joke 😀😀

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

Cheesecake factory is a hit joke 😀😀

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

OBAMA MOCKS TRUMP’S GOLD-COVERED WHITE HOUSE — COMPARES IT TO SADDAM HUSSEIN’S PALACE! FOX NEWS ERUPTS OVER HIS CHEESECAKE FACTORY JOKE, AND THE REACTION GETS EVEN MORE ABSURD!

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

Sarah Paine Explains Why the World Could Be Sleepwalking Into Another World War — Then Delivers A Brutal Verdict On The Iran War! The military historian argues that preventing disasters is often more important than winning battles, but says the Iran war has done the opposite: hurting the U.S. economy, weakening its alliances, and threatening the global economy. Her conclusion? “That's breathtakingly incompetent.”

Interviewer: Are you concerned about the next generation?

Sarah Paine: Yeah.

Interviewer: Why?

Sarah Paine: We're potentially barreling our way into a World War. We have reckless people running some very large and important countries. And as you've noticed, once wars start, they're easy to begin but incredibly hard to end. Whoever's losing doesn't want to lose, so they keep doubling down long after they've lost.

Interviewer: People have probably been saying we're heading towards a World War every year since World War II. Is there something different about this moment?

Sarah Paine: Do you understand the difference between positive and negative objectives?

Interviewer: Here we go. Positive and negative objectives.

Sarah Paine: A positive objective is making something happen. For example, if you want to snatch Maduro and put him in a New York prison, you can verify that he's there. That's a positive objective.

A negative objective is preventing something from happening. But how can you prove how many times a World War was avoided over the years? You can't.

Interviewer: And deterrence is controversial for that reason. You can claim you've invested in something and deterred everyone, but it's difficult to prove.

Sarah Paine: Exactly. But negative objectives are incredibly important. As a parent, you hold a little child's hand to prevent them from running into traffic. How many times in a day did you save that child's life simply by holding their hand? You can't count it.

I believe governments are primarily about negative objectives: preventing disasters. That includes preventing foreign invasions, bridges from collapsing, professional malpractice, and illiteracy.

Governments often don't get credit for what they do because, on a normal day, everything simply works. People start thinking, "My government hasn't done anything for me lately."

Interviewer: So, is there particular writing on the wall at this moment?

Sarah Paine: What's the writing on the wall?

Interviewer: The Iran war is probably one of the most incompetent wars in human history.

Interviewer: Was that a mistake?

Sarah Paine: Let's look at how to analyse it. In a war, if you really must fight one, you should put as many costs as possible on the person you're fighting while minimising the costs to yourself.

But this war has trashed the U.S. economy and blown apart the U.S. alliance system. Yes, Iran is hurting, without a doubt. But there's also the collateral damage of taking down the world's economy.

This transforms the United States from an annoyance into a primary adversary for just about everyone whose economy it threatens. That's breathtakingly incompetent.

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

@ thediaryofaceo

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

Sarah Paine Explains Why the World Could Be Sleepwalking Into Another World War — Then Delivers A Brutal Verdict On The Iran War! The military historian argues that preventing disasters is often more important than winning battles, but says the Iran war has done the opposite: hurting the U.S. economy, weakening its alliances, and threatening the global economy. Her conclusion? “That's breathtakingly incompetent.”

Interviewer: Are you concerned about the next generation?

Sarah Paine: Yeah.

Interviewer: Why?

Sarah Paine: We're potentially barreling our way into a World War. We have reckless people running some very large and important countries. And as you've noticed, once wars start, they're easy to begin but incredibly hard to end. Whoever's losing doesn't want to lose, so they keep doubling down long after they've lost.

Interviewer: People have probably been saying we're heading towards a World War every year since World War II. Is there something different about this moment?

Sarah Paine: Do you understand the difference between positive and negative objectives?

Interviewer: Here we go. Positive and negative objectives.

Sarah Paine: A positive objective is making something happen. For example, if you want to snatch Maduro and put him in a New York prison, you can verify that he's there. That's a positive objective.

A negative objective is preventing something from happening. But how can you prove how many times a World War was avoided over the years? You can't.

Interviewer: And deterrence is controversial for that reason. You can claim you've invested in something and deterred everyone, but it's difficult to prove.

Sarah Paine: Exactly. But negative objectives are incredibly important. As a parent, you hold a little child's hand to prevent them from running into traffic. How many times in a day did you save that child's life simply by holding their hand? You can't count it.

I believe governments are primarily about negative objectives: preventing disasters. That includes preventing foreign invasions, bridges from collapsing, professional malpractice, and illiteracy.

Governments often don't get credit for what they do because, on a normal day, everything simply works. People start thinking, "My government hasn't done anything for me lately."

Interviewer: So, is there particular writing on the wall at this moment?

Sarah Paine: What's the writing on the wall?

Interviewer: The Iran war is probably one of the most incompetent wars in human history.

Interviewer: Was that a mistake?

Sarah Paine: Let's look at how to analyse it. In a war, if you really must fight one, you should put as many costs as possible on the person you're fighting while minimising the costs to yourself.

But this war has trashed the U.S. economy and blown apart the U.S. alliance system. Yes, Iran is hurting, without a doubt. But there's also the collateral damage of taking down the world's economy.

This transforms the United States from an annoyance into a primary adversary for just about everyone whose economy it threatens. That's breathtakingly incompetent.

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

A leading military historian warns that the world could be heading towards World War III — accusing powerful world leaders of reckless decisions, dishonesty, and dragging the global economy towards disaster! Sarah Paine says Putin's invasion of Ukraine and Trump's war in Iran have created a dangerous international crisis, and delivers one chilling warning: once major wars begin, stopping them becomes extremely difficult.

Sarah Paine: We're potentially barreling our way into a World War.

Interviewer: It looks like World War III.

Sarah Paine: And once wars start, they're incredibly difficult to stop. We have reckless people running some of the world's most powerful countries, and they're all lying about what's happening.

The Soviet Union collapsed partly because it was built on lies. That's the danger of normalising dishonesty.

Interviewer: You might be one of the most knowledgeable people I've spoken to about World War III, but I honestly don't know what the hell is going on.

Sarah Paine: History is moving incredibly fast. It's like a logjam has broken, and we don't know which direction things are going. It's tremendously frightening.

Putin kicked over the chessboard by invading Ukraine. Donald Trump decided to get involved in what I would call a recreational war in Iran.

That war has damaged the U.S. economy, undermined America's alliance system, and created collateral damage for the global economy.

This is the problem with having dark personalities running countries. Putin doesn't care how many people he kills. These people are historically unqualified.

Interviewer: Trump has made a deal with Putin for diesel exports.

Sarah Paine: That's disinformation. Russia doesn't have the capacity to export enough diesel to make any meaningful difference. As usual, he's lying.

Interviewer: Trump doesn't seem likely to back out of Iran, and Putin doesn't seem likely to back out of Ukraine. These conflicts could go on indefinitely.

If we continue in this direction, what does the future look like?

Sarah Paine: You have to prevent these things from breaking out in the first place. Once they do, things become much harder to control. So I can give you some concepts...

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

@thediaryofaceo1

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

A leading military historian warns that the world could be heading towards World War III — accusing powerful world leaders of reckless decisions, dishonesty, and dragging the global economy towards disaster! Sarah Paine says Putin's invasion of Ukraine and Trump's war in Iran have created a dangerous international crisis, and delivers one chilling warning: once major wars begin, stopping them becomes extremely difficult.

Sarah Paine: We're potentially barreling our way into a World War.

Interviewer: It looks like World War III.

Sarah Paine: And once wars start, they're incredibly difficult to stop. We have reckless people running some of the world's most powerful countries, and they're all lying about what's happening.

The Soviet Union collapsed partly because it was built on lies. That's the danger of normalising dishonesty.

Interviewer: You might be one of the most knowledgeable people I've spoken to about World War III, but I honestly don't know what the hell is going on.

Sarah Paine: History is moving incredibly fast. It's like a logjam has broken, and we don't know which direction things are going. It's tremendously frightening.

Putin kicked over the chessboard by invading Ukraine. Donald Trump decided to get involved in what I would call a recreational war in Iran.

That war has damaged the U.S. economy, undermined America's alliance system, and created collateral damage for the global economy.

This is the problem with having dark personalities running countries. Putin doesn't care how many people he kills. These people are historically unqualified.

Interviewer: Trump has made a deal with Putin for diesel exports.

Sarah Paine: That's disinformation. Russia doesn't have the capacity to export enough diesel to make any meaningful difference. As usual, he's lying.

Interviewer: Trump doesn't seem likely to back out of Iran, and Putin doesn't seem likely to back out of Ukraine. These conflicts could go on indefinitely.

If we continue in this direction, what does the future look like?

Sarah Paine: You have to prevent these things from breaking out in the first place. Once they do, things become much harder to control. So I can give you some concepts...

[Rooji @rajees011]

Are the world's biggest powers moving towards a wider global conflict, or can diplomacy still prevent another major war?

[Sa'ad @hesis_saad]

Tina Fey Calls Out Rich Celebrities With $200 Million Who Still Need More Side Hustles — “I Have a Problem With That”

Tina Fey: “I don’t get excited about money. If I’m safe and I have enough money to live, I have a problem with rich people having a side hustle.”

Amy Poehler: “Yeah, you mean like a podcast or something?”

Tina Fey: “No, that is you’re doing work. I’m saying, if you sold, like… where would my line be for you? Where would I draw the line?”

Amy Poehler: “Yeah, I know what you mean. Like if I had a rosé.”

Tina Fey: “If you already have, like, $200 million and you’re like, ‘Also, I need you to…’”

Amy Poehler: “But Tina, this is where you have to learn from Gen Z. I’m sorry, and we have to.”

Tina Fey: “They don’t care. They don’t judge it. They don’t judge it.”

[Sa'ad @hesis_saad]

Jordan Peterson’s Auschwitz Comparison Sparks Outrage on Piers Morgan’s Show — Then the Debate Turns to Women’s Safety

Piers Morgan: Jordan Peterson has described Pride as a sexually narcissistic movement taken over by the radical trans lobby. Let’s take a look.

Jordan Peterson: I think the gender-affirming care movement is Nazi Auschwitz-level awful.

James Barr: How dare he say that about Auschwitz? Gay people were killed alongside Jewish people and disabled people in the Holocaust. That is disgusting, Piers.

Esther Krakue: Comparing it to Auschwitz is extreme. But he does make a valid point about gender-affirming care. It doesn’t have to be compared to Auschwitz.

James Barr: Women’s safety is important, and what happened to Riley is an important story we should listen to.

But one in three women in America are abused by men. You haven’t commented on that, abortion, or Trump’s comment about grabbing women.

There are only 700,000 trans women in America. They can’t all be abusing women.

Ernest Owens: There’s also a far-right agenda fixated on coming after people of colour and queer people.

Esther Krakue: Define far right. What’s the definition?

Ernest Owens: People pushing homophobic and transphobic views.

Esther Krakue: That’s not a definition. That’s just people you disagree with.

Riley Gaines: Saying men can identify as women, and lesbians who don’t want to date them are homophobic, is using lesbians as your political pawn. That’s sick

[Jeff @_Jeffery0]

James Barr ERUPTS at Jordan Peterson’s Auschwitz Comparison — Riley Gaines Fires Back With a Challenge on Lesbian Rights

Piers Morgan: Jordan Peterson has described Pride as a sexually narcissistic movement taken over by the radical trans lobby. Let’s take a look.

Jordan Peterson: I think the gender-affirming care movement is Nazi Auschwitz-level awful.

James Barr: How dare he say that about Auschwitz? Gay people were killed alongside Jewish people and disabled people in the Holocaust. That is disgusting, Piers.

Esther Krakue: Comparing it to Auschwitz is extreme. But he does make a valid point about gender-affirming care. It doesn’t have to be compared to Auschwitz.

James Barr: Women’s safety is important, and what happened to Riley is an important story we should listen to. But one in three women in America are abused by men. You haven’t commented on that, abortion, or Trump’s comment about grabbing women.

There are only 700,000 trans women in America. They can’t all be abusing women.

Ernest Owens: There’s also a far-right agenda fixated on coming after people of colour and queer people.

Esther Krakue: Define far right. What’s the definition?

Ernest Owens: People pushing homophobic and transphobic views.

Esther Krakue: That’s not a definition. That’s just people you disagree with.

Riley Gaines: Saying men can identify as women, and lesbians who don’t want to date them are homophobic, is using lesbians as your political pawn. That’s sick.

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

Piers Morgan warns that violent and degrading online pornography could be shaping how young men view real relationships — but the panel's discussion quickly explodes into a bigger debate about smartphone restrictions, online censorship, and free speech! One side calls for stronger safeguards to protect young people, while another argues that censorship is never the answer.

Piers Morgan: James, there's pretty much unrestricted pornography available online, including violent and degrading sexual content. None of that can help an impressionable young man trying to understand how to build a real relationship with a woman.

Participant: I think it's important not to say "young male mind." It's any person's mind. We shouldn't single out men.

But yes, it's awful. I genuinely don't think people should have phones before they're 16, and they certainly shouldn't have unrestricted access to social media.

Piers Morgan: Australia has introduced a social media restriction for under-16s. I'm not against it.

Participant: Why not? You can't go on television and say absolutely anything you want. I know you call this show Uncensored, but you couldn't sit here and say literally whatever you wanted.

Piers Morgan: If I said something that incited hatred, racism, or a terror attack, I could be arrested.

Participant: Exactly. There's accountability when you're broadcasting to millions of people. But online, many people don't have that same barrier. They can broadcast horrendous things to huge audiences, and there should be systems to stop that.

Piers Morgan: Toby Young, the British journalist and director of the Free Speech Union, has described the teen drama Adolescence as pro-censorship propaganda partly funded by the state. Some politicians are now using it as evidence that we need more online censorship.

The danger is that the pendulum swings too far and we end up with excessive censorship, which creates its own problems.

Participant: I agree with Shawn on this. I think parenting has far more to do with this than we sometimes realise.

You can watch horrible things online and hear people say terrible things, but a strong foundation at home can give young people the guidance and support to navigate what they see.

I also don't believe censorship is ever the answer. More speech is the answer to speech you don't like.

As much as I disagree with certain people online, including the Tate brothers, I believe they should have the right to express their views — and people like us should have the right to challenge them.

That's the healthiest way to create a public space where we can debate ideas through conversation. Censorship is never the answer.

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

@PiersUncensored

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

Piers Morgan warns that violent and degrading online pornography could be shaping how young men view real relationships — but the panel's discussion quickly explodes into a bigger debate about smartphone restrictions, online censorship, and free speech! One side calls for stronger safeguards to protect young people, while another argues that censorship is never the answer.

Piers Morgan: James, there's pretty much unrestricted pornography available online, including violent and degrading sexual content. None of that can help an impressionable young man trying to understand how to build a real relationship with a woman.

Participant: I think it's important not to say "young male mind." It's any person's mind. We shouldn't single out men.

But yes, it's awful. I genuinely don't think people should have phones before they're 16, and they certainly shouldn't have unrestricted access to social media.

Piers Morgan: Australia has introduced a social media restriction for under-16s. I'm not against it.

Participant: Why not? You can't go on television and say absolutely anything you want. I know you call this show Uncensored, but you couldn't sit here and say literally whatever you wanted.

Piers Morgan: If I said something that incited hatred, racism, or a terror attack, I could be arrested.

Participant: Exactly. There's accountability when you're broadcasting to millions of people. But online, many people don't have that same barrier. They can broadcast horrendous things to huge audiences, and there should be systems to stop that.

Piers Morgan: Toby Young, the British journalist and director of the Free Speech Union, has described the teen drama Adolescence as pro-censorship propaganda partly funded by the state. Some politicians are now using it as evidence that we need more online censorship.

The danger is that the pendulum swings too far and we end up with excessive censorship, which creates its own problems.

Participant: I agree with Shawn on this. I think parenting has far more to do with this than we sometimes realise.

You can watch horrible things online and hear people say terrible things, but a strong foundation at home can give young people the guidance and support to navigate what they see.

I also don't believe censorship is ever the answer. More speech is the answer to speech you don't like.

As much as I disagree with certain people online, including the Tate brothers, I believe they should have the right to express their views — and people like us should have the right to challenge them.

That's the healthiest way to create a public space where we can debate ideas through conversation. Censorship is never the answer.

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

Are young men being pressured to cry to prove they're emotionally mature — or pressured to hide their feelings to prove they're masculine? Piers Morgan challenges the idea that men must constantly express their emotions, while Tommy argues that both extremes are damaging and that men should be allowed to find a balance without being told how to feel.

Piers Morgan: I want to show you a clip from BBC Newsnight, where Victoria Derbyshire asked a panel of young men: "When was the last time you cried?" Let's watch.

Young man (Newsnight): Honestly, I couldn't tell you the last time I cried.

Another young man: Same here. I can't really remember the last time I cried.

Young man (Newsnight): A lot of times I feel emotion and wonder, "Why can't I cry?" We're told to suppress our emotions.

Another young man: I think men are brought up to believe they have to be extremely strong, upfront, and composed at all times.

Piers Morgan: I've got a slight issue with this, Tommy. One of the most devastating moments for me as a movie watcher was watching James Bond blubber in the last Bond movie.

I don't think you have to be sobbing all the time to prove you're a modern man. I can't remember the last time I cried, but that doesn't make me less of a man or less empathetic.

I think we're now persuading young men that if they're not constantly expressing emotion, they're being suppressed. I actually think the British "stiff upper lip" gets a bad reputation. It's not necessarily a bad thing to avoid over-emoting. Your thoughts?

Tommy: I don't disagree with you, Piers. I don't think men should be trained to be overly emotional or that constantly showing emotion should now be considered a sign of maturity.

That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with men crying in certain circumstances. Everyone has a different journey, and it's not my place to tell a man when he can or cannot cry.

I personally prefer the men in my life not to be overly emotional, but that's just my preference. Who am I to tell a man how he should express his emotions?

I think both sides have become too extreme. One side wants men to be feminine, cry, show emotion, and be weak. The other says men must never cry, must always be strong, and should look at women as objects.

There has to be a happy medium. I wish we could reach a place where people could simply be human beings, have gender roles if they choose, but not be completely restricted by them.

Piers Morgan: Yeah.

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

@PiersUncensored

[Fave jackson @favestar_]

Are young men being pressured to cry to prove they're emotionally mature — or pressured to hide their feelings to prove they're masculine? Piers Morgan challenges the idea that men must constantly express their emotions, while Tommy argues that both extremes are damaging and that men should be allowed to find a balance without being told how to feel.

Piers Morgan: I want to show you a clip from BBC Newsnight, where Victoria Derbyshire asked a panel of young men: "When was the last time you cried?" Let's watch.

Young man (Newsnight): Honestly, I couldn't tell you the last time I cried.

Another young man: Same here. I can't really remember the last time I cried.

Young man (Newsnight): A lot of times I feel emotion and wonder, "Why can't I cry?" We're told to suppress our emotions.

Another young man: I think men are brought up to believe they have to be extremely strong, upfront, and composed at all times.

Piers Morgan: I've got a slight issue with this, Tommy. One of the most devastating moments for me as a movie watcher was watching James Bond blubber in the last Bond movie.

I don't think you have to be sobbing all the time to prove you're a modern man. I can't remember the last time I cried, but that doesn't make me less of a man or less empathetic.

I think we're now persuading young men that if they're not constantly expressing emotion, they're being suppressed. I actually think the British "stiff upper lip" gets a bad reputation. It's not necessarily a bad thing to avoid over-emoting. Your thoughts?

Tommy: I don't disagree with you, Piers. I don't think men should be trained to be overly emotional or that constantly showing emotion should now be considered a sign of maturity.

That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with men crying in certain circumstances. Everyone has a different journey, and it's not my place to tell a man when he can or cannot cry.

I personally prefer the men in my life not to be overly emotional, but that's just my preference. Who am I to tell a man how he should express his emotions?

I think both sides have become too extreme. One side wants men to be feminine, cry, show emotion, and be weak. The other says men must never cry, must always be strong, and should look at women as objects.

There has to be a happy medium. I wish we could reach a place where people could simply be human beings, have gender roles if they choose, but not be completely restricted by them.

Piers Morgan: Yeah.

[Jeff @_Jeffery0]

TPUSA Student Challenges JD Vance on Starting a Family When Homes Cost Over $415,000

Kate White: I’m a senior at TCU and vice president of our TPUSA chapter.

A constant message my generation hears from the right is to get married young, have kids young, and have as many kids as possible.

But what the right often ignores is the cost of owning a home and raising a family.

How do you expect us to start families young when the average home in America now costs more than $415,000? That feels out of reach for us.

JD Vance: First of all, thank you for the question and for the support.

I want to point out that I think I’ve been asked four or maybe five questions by my count.

I’ve only been asked one question about John Houston’s ass, and it was by Jesse Watters.