Someone should edit all this and change "antifa" to "the bogeyman".

LLMs absolutely do incredible amazing and useful things...

Just not any of the things that the corporations are promising.

"I'd like to pretend to do a spot on your show but actually just have it be an ad for my soul destroying product that literally does not do what we claim."

Jimmy Fallon: "Fantastic!"

This failure to "update" this article is possibly because because Nasser passed away, and therefore can't be freed from prison, so there is no need for an information campaign to whitewash his role in terrorism.

He is particularly notable because it was Nasser in 2002 who specifically said that Barghouti was a founder of the Al Aqsa Martyr's brigade, and that Barghouti was one of their primary sources of funding.

Interesting addendum. The information war has apparently missed the article for Nasser Abu Hamid. It still acknowledges him as a leader of Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, and still describes him as Barghouti's right hand man.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasser_...

So if you want to know how so many public figures can be so easily duped into believing that Barghouti is a persecuted political figure, rather than a terrorist leader, just know that those who checked before signing probably looked no further than Wikipedia (without looking at the edit history).

And if you look at the history, you find almost four pages of edits in the last two years to make this dramatic shift. Compare that with the next four pages of edits, which covers a full decade.

Also note the removal of the note that this is a controversial article.

"Hi" is probably better than "hey". Acknowledges that you are aquainted with less risk of sounding flippant.

Whatever happened to Jack Hanick? He was reported arrested in early 2022 in the UK, and was awaiting extradition. But I find no follow ups on his whereabouts or the status of that case (other than a superseding indictment in early 2024).

There's a catch 22. If he didn't have possession, the location of his foot doesn't matter.

In order to overturn, the refs needed solid video evidence that the ball (not his foot) was out of bounds before he regained control.

They didn't have that evidence.

But if he didn't have possession then the location of his foot doesn't determine whether or not the ball is out of bounds.

To overturn the call the refs would have to have solid video evidence that the ball was out of bounds, not his foot.

And are you sure the player has to be in bounds to recover? The BALL has to go out of bounds for a touchback. There's a catch 22 there that if you're arguing that the player made the ball go out of bounds by being out of bounds when he recovered it, then you're arguing that he recovered it.

He was leaning to his left into the end zone. You can't tell where the football was and neither could the refs. So they couldn't overturn because they didn't have the evidence.

If you're arguing that the location of his foot matters, then you're arguing that he still had control at that point. If he didn't have control, the only thing that matters is whether or not the ball was out of bounds, not his foot.

bsky.app/profile/thom...

If he didn't have control, it doesn't matter where his foot was. It only matters where the ball was. For the refs to overturn, they would have to have firm evidence that the ball was out of bounds before he regained control. His foot doesn't matter.