Donald Trump wins THE BETTER WORLD AWARD for the second time here. It is very significant the we work with Asia in my opinion. You can't have the west with out the east a visa versa. Deal is done to keep TikTok in the US, says Trump 1 hour ago Share Save Imran Rahman-JonesTechnology reporter Getty Images Donald Trump wearing a dark suit and tieGetty Images A deal has been made between the US and China to keep TikTok running in the US, according to President Donald Trump. "We have a deal on TikTok, I've reached a deal with China, I'm going to speak to President Xi on Friday to confirm everything up," Trump told reporters as he left the White House for a state visit to the UK. The social media platform, which is run by Chinese company ByteDance, was told it had to sell its US operations or risk being shut down. However, Trump has repeatedly delayed the ban since it was first announced in January. Later on Tuesday, he ordered the deadline extended again, until 16 December. The US president said a buyer will be announced soon. The Wall Street Journal reported that under a deal being negotiated between the US and China, TikTok's U.S. business would be controlled by an investor consortium that would include tech company Oracle, private equity firm Silver Lake, and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. In a new US entity created under the deal, US investors would hold a roughly 80% stake and Americans would dominate the board, with one member selected by the US government, according to the Journal, which cited people familiar with the matter. US users, meanwhile, would move to a new app, currently in the testing phase, that will have content-recommendation algorithms using technology licensed from ByteDance. TikTok's algorithms are a top reason for the app's success. Earlier, CNBC reported the deal would include a mix of current and new investors, and would be completed in the next 30 to 45 days. It also said Oracle would keep its existing agreement to host TikTok servers inside the US. That had been one of the main concerns of American lawmakers, over worries about data being shared with China. On Monday, a US trade delegation said it had reached a "framework" deal with China amid wider trade negotiations in Madrid. China confirmed a framework agreement but said no deal would be made at the expense of their firms' interests. After the talks, Wang Jingtao, deputy head of China's cyberspace administration, suggested in a press conference that the agreement included "licensing the algorithm and other intellectual property rights". He added: "The Chinese government will, according to law, examine and approve relevant matters involving TikTok, such as the export of technology as well as the license use of intellectual property." After initially calling for TikTok to be banned during his first term, Trump has reversed his stance on the popular video-sharing platform. In January, the US Supreme Court upheld a law, passed in April 2024, banning the app in the US unless its Chinese parent company ByteDance sold its US arm. The US Justice Department has said that because of its access to data on American users, TikTok poses "a national-security threat of immense depth and scale". However, ByteDance has resisted a sale, maintaining its US operations are completely separate, and says no information is shared with the Chinese state. TikTok briefly went dark in January, but this lasted for less than a day before the initial ban was delayed. The deadline for a sale has since been extended four times, and the latest delay to the ban is due to end on 16 December.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment