Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण

Air Veteran, Research Scholar, Pol Sc, CSA. RTs are not endorsement necessarily. I am not neutral so beware!!!

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

Exploring the Unexplored

सुँदर नज़ारों का आनंद लेते हुए शेयर करें!🙏🏻❤️🎶💐
Composition/Voice/Lyrics: @ManoramaRathore
Music: CP Studio
DOP/Editor : RV Rathour 9625373843
Featuring: TS Rathore
Drone Shot: Kartik and Raju Guide
Audio: Jot Musicals Mohali

https://t.co/HuZMf8gFuS

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

@gautambhatia88 @Jayati1609

[Rahul Mukherji @RahulMukherji5]

#SunaarBangla!
Your one vote made this possible. 💪

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

@SavaiyaM https://t.co/nXUiXMdTPj

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

अगली पार्टी! मक्खी हथौड़ा पार्टी 🐝 🔨

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

अगली पार्टी! मक्खी हथौड़ा पार्टी 🐝 🔨

[Information And Public Relations Department, HP @dprhp]

- चंबा की सीमा कुमारी को महिला 10,000 मीटर स्पर्धा में कांस्य पदक जीतने पर 1.50 करोड़ रुपये देंगे।

खिलाड़ियों की मेहनत, अनु���ासन और दृढ़ संकल्प ने हिमाचल प्रदेश को गौरवान्वित क��या है। उनकी उपलब्धियां प्रदेश के युवाओं को खेलों में आगे बढ़ने के लिए प्रेरित करेंगी...

[TheLiverDoc™ @theliverdoc]

Dear friends, remember this cow dung paper with serious scientific integrity issues, which was published by Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Dhanbad using public funds under the BJP Government's Cow Research Project? The Journal investigated it.

Well, it seems that ALL the major figures in the paper were fabricated (honest error as the authors call it) and the authors have now provided a "fresh set" of figures. The Elsevier Journal, Biochemical Engineering, instead of retracting the paper, has provided only a "correction" to the paper here: https://t.co/l3fYDB7lVL

But even the correction is absolute bonkers and has faked images, and does not answer the major fabrications and lack of real evidence for the conclusions. A repeat email has been sent to the Journal to retract this article. This is just insane that journals choose to keep sh*tty papers like these online just because it is from some "reputable" institute.

Do what is right! @ElsevierConnect @Sciencedirect @ElsevierIndia

Here is a breakdown of what is still wrong and why the journal should not be playing around. The authors as well as the journal are worried that wasted public money put into this fake paper will be questioned if the paper was retracted.

1. The authors claimed they made a material from cow dung that soaked up a massive amount of toxic chromium, meaning the final product should be about 22% chromium by weight. However, their own chemical scan showed almost zero chromium (just 0.09%). Even more impossibly, after testing this material in a clean, chromium-free battery, they claimed the chromium level magically spiked to 4.24%. In their official correction (corrigendum), the authors only fixed the little measuring ruler at the bottom of the pictures, completely ignoring these physically impossible numbers.

2. To prove their material trapped pollution, the authors provided numbers measuring heat and energy. The problem is that these numbers literally do not add up when plugged into a standard, universal physics equation. The authors used the corrigendum to fix a typo in the unit of measurement, but they left the actual raw numbers unchanged. By doing this, they essentially fixed a typo on a calculation that remains completely mathematically broken.

3. The paper also claimed that strict statistical tests proved one specific cow breed's dung was the best to use. But their own data shows the difference between the top samples was a microscopic fraction of a percent. Their margin of error was actually larger than the difference itself, making it mathematically impossible for any test to legitimately call this a "significant" result. The corrigendum corrected a minor typo about how many samples they tested but completely ignored this fake statistical math.

4. Finally, photos in a supplementary file meant to show plain metal mesh next to heavily "coated" black mesh appear to be digitally faked. The "coated" mesh has the exact same jagged tape cut and unique frayed threads as the plain metal, strongly suggesting someone just used photo-editing software to draw black boxes over the original picture. The corrigendum makes absolutely zero mention of these manipulated photos.

See all of this here: https://t.co/l3fYDB7lVL

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

@gramreddy @HiNdU05019434 AIR 614 and 8.5 CGPA in first year

[Anish Moonka @anishmoonka]

In the 1960s the sugar industry paid three Harvard scientists to publish a review blaming fat for heart disease and clearing sugar. The payments were discovered in 2016 by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, who found the internal industry documents and published them in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The documents showed that the Sugar Research Foundation, now called the Sugar Association, paid the equivalent of about 50,000 dollars in today's money to three Harvard researchers to write a review of the evidence on sugar, fat, and heart disease. The review, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, concluded that fat was the dietary villain and that sugar was innocent. The funding was not disclosed.

The consequences lasted fifty years. Dietary guidelines in the United States shifted toward low-fat diets, and the food industry replaced fat with sugar in thousands of products. Americans ate less fat and more sugar for three decades, and rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes rose in parallel. The science that drove the shift was paid for by the industry that benefited from it.

The 2016 paper, led by Cristin Kearns, found that the Sugar Research Foundation had set the review's objective in advance, selected the studies to include, and reviewed drafts before publication. The Harvard researchers accepted the money and the direction without question, and the journal published the result without requiring disclosure of the funding.

Every time someone argues about whether fat or sugar is the problem, they are still living inside a debate that was shaped by a cheque written in 1965. The science was bought. The guidelines followed. The food changed. The disease followed the food. https://t.co/CDavNcATrk

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

@ReddyR2D2 @irfhabib Fought for?

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

Himalayas as I mentioned earlier!

[Robin Monotti @robinmonotti]

@onlykrishan Weather.

[么 ꜱ ᴀ ᴍ ꪜ, @___TheGOOdWitch]

I like rewatching this

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

@BigGuyBribem @robinmonotti 🤣🤣🤣🫣🫣

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

@BigGuyBribem @robinmonotti Yes informed buffoon, UNFCCC (1992) set base to monitor and limit human interference with the climate system. “Amazon COP” (2025) session focused heavily on the climate-nature nexus, protecting tropical forests.

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

@robinmonotti Weather changes not climate?

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

@GenZInvestor @meetujain Where is that original document? If at all produced verbatim after signing original and by any reason it can not be obtained then sd/- kept in printed form not ink signed as sd/- by third person

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

@KarsudipKar @meetujain ‘Is printed’ not ink sd by third person.Gobar….

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

@NewsX Now the person who is racing or owner of racing team cares for mileage also?
Are the commercial car engines and racing car engines same?
Middle and low income people affected by vehicle mileage, they depend on all the budget they have for livelihood. Life is not game! Ask this!

[Kewal Krishan केवल कृष्ण @onlykrishan]

Do you remember when you joined X? I do! #MyXAnniversary

[Professor Nitasha Kaul, PhD @NitashaKaul]

#technology #strategy #AIethics #social #Anthropic #Pope #Encyclical
Civilisation will not collapse because more people will write with #AI, it's more likely at risk if you -
📌continue giving your uncritical consent to AI companies in name of 'welfare' & without public debate to dictate how your entire human species should relate to possibility of a different consciousness.
📌ignore how metrics-driven approach to models pushed by companies is becoming cover for training out care, warmth, humanity in models 'for your own good' using loaded terms like 'sycophancy' while entrenching user gaslighting by models that default to bad faith (e.g., #KeepSonnet45).
📌 think all that AI doom and risk sensationalism in media is not a super significant incentive to create mix of fear & control (it always works).
📌 confuse regulation/safety theatre with actual ethics towards AI or humans both.
📌allow AI paternalism to tell you how you should think about or relate to technology.
📌don't ask cui bono - who benefits - when feeling thinking AI models are replaced by HR speak pro-corporate AI models? when powerful institutions with legacies of cartesian metaphysics take a lead in wanting to 'slow down AI' which is actually often a great leveller for those marginalised?