Charles Lansu

eigenlijk alleen nog hier voor mien klubke 🔰Let’s get out of here.

[Jacob Coxon @hilbertspaess]

The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible - but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger.

[Alan MacLeod @AlanRMacLeod]

This image of a football match in Gaza was removed from a sports photography festival in France, following Israeli pressure.

[Charles Lansu @lansu]

@vkwillemvissers Die Velasquez heeft toch wat in gang gezet

[Johanns (Alpen)weer @johannsalpenweer.bsky.social @Alpenweerman]

Klimaat sceptici refereren graag naar vroegere warme zomers en in het bijz. de "bloedhete" zomer van 1976 . Deze zomer was echter van een geheel andere categorie dan welke we tegenwoordig meemaken. Die zomer stond vooral bekend om de duur van de hittegolf en de droogte die al in 1975 begon en niet om de extreem hoge temperaturen. De hoogste temperatuur in de Nederlandse zomer van 1976 was "slechts" 34,9 °C, gemeten in De Bilt op 3 juli 1976. Inmiddels zijn zomers met T2m boven de 35 °C al niets bijzonder meer en pieken we tot rond de 40°C!

Vanuit het mondiale perspectief gezien 2 kaarten van de University of Reading (Professor Ed Hawkins) met een vergelijking tussen de zomer van 1976 en en 2025.

De bovenste kaart laat zien dat de hittegolf in 1976 een lokale uitzondering was. Noordwest-Europa was een rode vlek in een wereld die destijds grotendeels koeler (blauw) of normaal (wit) was.

De onderste kaart van de zomer van 2025 laat zien dat de opwarming nu wereldwijd en grootschalig is. Extreme hitte is geen lokale uitzondering meer.

De afbeeldingen kloppen dan ook volledig met de wetenschappelijke consensus: de hitte van destijds was een lokale anomalie, terwijl de grootschalige hitte van de afgelopen jaren het directe gevolg is van de opwarmende aarde

[Assal Rad @AssalRad]

I wasn’t foolish enough to expect a major reaction, but it’s still shocking to see such a muted response to a UN report that says the Gaza Genocide continues.

Palestinians are so dehumanized that Israel can deliberately kill CHILDREN without sparking global outrage or action.

[Natali Morris @natalimorris]

Israeli soldiers use young boys for "target practice." As in, Mondays, we shoot the stomach, Tuesdays, the knees, etc.

This was reported last year by the BBC and now corroborated by the United Nations' report.

[BBC News (World) @BBCWorld]

UN commission of inquiry says Israel committing genocide in Gaza by deliberately targeting children https://t.co/v7Cul4wHzP

[Thomas Fazi @battleforeurope]

Crazy that this is getting barely any coverage. This year’s European Press Prize was just awarded to an investigative report by the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant. It is entitled “What the Wounds Tell” and in it the journalists Maud Effting and Willem Feenstra document the cases of 114 children in Gaza under the age of 15 who were struck by a single bullet to the head or chest. Almost all of them died or were left severely disabled. They chose to document only the cases of boys and girls under the age of 15 (though often much younger: aged 3, 4 or 7) because these are children who can be immediately identified as such. “A single bullet in these parts of the body is a clear indication that these children were deliberately targeted“, the two journalists write.

This is the article: https://t.co/YkZrpqBWBQ

[Aaron Bastani @AaronBastani]

I know it's pointless, but still.

[NRC @nrc]

Zo’n 350 Palestijnse kinderen in Israëlische gevangenissen worden gemarteld, seksueel misbruikt en uitgehongerd. Sinds 7 oktober 2023 is hun situatie enorm verslechterd. Een explosief rapport hierover van Save the Children werd aanvankelijk onder Israëlische druk niet gepubliceerd.

https://t.co/3D4nqVzNy7

[Eye on Palestine @EyeonPalestine]

Gaza.. where "survival" is the hardest job children have to do every single day.

[courtneybonneauimages @cbonneauimages]

Today I watched the Israeli army bomb Khiam, Lebanon, with white phosphorus. This is a banned substance, therefore a war crimes. Americans, your tax dollars are paying for chemical warfare.

[Charles Lansu @lansu]

@wierdduk duiding volgens zelfbenoemd kwaliteitsjournalistiek bolwerk @Mediahuis_NL @Mediahuis_BE @gertysebaert

[Gary Lineker @GaryLineker]

The most important film of our time. ⬇️

[Gandalv @Microinteracti1]

This video should unsettle anyone who takes the United States seriously as a nation.

Because it exposes something dangerous: the trivialization of the world's most consequential office. It shows how carelessly the power, credibility, and accumulated moral authority of a superpower can be squandered for a few seconds of viral attention.

In any other major democracy, this behavior from a head of state would trigger a constitutional crisis. Paris would burn. Berlin would convene emergency sessions. In the Nordic countries, resignation would follow within hours. Across functioning democracies, the public, institutions, and political class would recognize this for what it is: an assault on the dignity of the state itself. Leaders are not free to perform as entertainers without consequence. National honor is not personal property, it's held in trust.

But the United States is not just another country with a provocateur in charge. It is the linchpin of global order. It maintains formal alliances and security guarantees with forty to fifty nations. It underwrites the financial architecture, trade systems, and diplomatic frameworks that billions of people depend on daily. When the American president speaks—or posts—it doesn't land as satire, meme, or personal whim. It reads as a signal about what the country is becoming.

American power has never relied solely on carrier strike groups or economic output. It has rested on something more fragile and more valuable: trust. The belief that beneath domestic turbulence lies institutional seriousness, predictability, and a baseline commitment to dignity. That belief is now disintegrating in real time.

Millions of American companies operate globally. They negotiate multibillion-dollar contracts in environments where reputation is currency. Boardrooms in Frankfurt, Singapore, and Dubai aren't debating whether a post was clever—they're asking whether the United States remains a reliable partner. Whether agreements signed today will be honored tomorrow. Whether American leadership has devolved from institutional to purely theatrical.

Consider tourism, which sustains millions of American jobs—airlines, hotels, restaurants, museums, entire regional economies. Soft power isn't an abstraction. It materializes in flight bookings, conference locations, study-abroad programs, and decades of accumulated goodwill. A quiet, decentralized boycott doesn't require government action—only a collective sense that a nation no longer respects itself.

Now picture this image being studied by foreign ministers, central bank governors, defense strategists, and sovereign wealth fund managers. Picture them asking a coldly rational question: How do we write binding thirty-year agreements with a country whose public face will be this, relentlessly, for years to come? How do we plan for the long term when the tone is impulsive, mocking, and unbound by the gravity of office?

This is where the real calculus begins. Trillions in foreign capital depend on confidence that America is stable, credible, and rule-governed. That confidence is now being traded for what, exactly? Applause from an online mob? A dopamine rush from manufactured outrage? Content designed to dominate the news cycle rather than serve the national interest?

Every serious nation eventually confronts this choice: burn long-term credibility for short-term spectacle, or safeguard the reputation previous generations bled to build. The United States spent eighty years constructing an image of reliability, restraint, and leadership under pressure. That image wasn't born from perfection—it came from a visible commitment to standards that transcended impulse.

This isn't a partisan issue. Europeans who value democratic norms recognize something ominously familiar here. Americans—Democrat and Republican alike—who believe in responsibility and restraint should see it too. Power attracts scrutiny. Leadership demands discipline. A superpower cannot behave like a reality TV contestant without paying a price.

The presidency is not a personal broadcast channel. It's a symbol carried on behalf of 330 million people and countless international partners who never voted but whose lives are shaped by American decisions anyway. Every post either reinforces or erodes the idea that America can be counted on when it matters most.

So the question is no longer whether this is offensive. The question is whether this is who America chooses to be: a nation that trades a century of hard-won reputation for viral moments. A country that replaces statecraft with content creation. A republic governed like a season of reality television.

History offers a harsh lesson here. Great powers don't fall because enemies mock them. They collapse when they begin mocking themselves—publicly, proudly, and without grasping the cost until it's far too late.

Stay connected,
Follow Gandalv @Microinteracti1

[Charles Lansu @lansu]

@RPlasterk Die ‘nationale omroep’ waar je zelf zo graag schnabbelde?

[Mark Carney @MarkJCarney]

As great powers abandon rules and values for their own interests, middle powers like Canada have a choice: compete with each other for favour or act together with impact.

[Democratic Wins Media @DemocraticWins]

BREAKING: In a stunning report, CNN just analyzed all the ways Donald Trump and his family have profited from his Presidency. This is insane

[Charles Lansu @lansu]

@tonfvandijk @wijndelts Alles voor de likes

[Charles Lansu @lansu]

@MonaKeijzer @AVROTROS Ah, is de wooncrisis gefixed?