Cyber |
The most well-paid engineer in the world? Meta poaches AI researcher from rival with $200 million pay offer |
2025-07-12 |
[Daily Mail, where America gets its news] In the battle for AI supremacy, Meta has just made a major move. Mark Zuckerberg's firm – which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp – has lured a renowned AI expert away from rival Apple with an eye-watering pay offer. And it's an amount that the majority of us can only dream of. Over the next 'several years', Ruoming Pang, originally from China, will earn more than $200 million (£147 million) in his new role, a report reveals. The 'unusually high' earnings package is among the highest of any corporate job, including CEO roles at the world’s major banks, the report adds. Mr Pang becomes a high-ranking member of Meta's mysterious new 'superintelligence' lab, thought to be based in California. The secretive department is developing smarter-than-human AI in an attempt to get ahead in the AI race. And its already packed with former employees from ChatGPT creator OpenAI. According to the new report from Bloomberg, Ruoming Pang gets the $200 million compensation package over a 'several-year period'. Reportedly, the figure significantly exceeds the compensation of all Apple employees, apart from CEO Tim Cook, who is top dog at the tech giant. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Apple did not try to match the offer to retain Mr Pang, even though he was head of a team dedicated to Apple’s AI models. The report cited 'people with knowledge of the matter' who declined to be named while discussing unannounced compensation details. |
Link |
Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
The Potemkin Mutiny: How Japanese Money Set the Black Sea on Fire |
2025-07-07 |
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Stanislav Smirnov [REGNUM] At midday on June 20 (July 3, new style) 1905, the Russian St. Andrew's flag was lowered and the Romanian flag was raised over the battleship Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky. Sailors were descending from the gangway - members of the crew of the rebellious ship that had left Crimea for the Romanian port of Constanta. The mutineers were preparing to divide the captured ship's cash register and go home. On June 26 (July 9), a squadron of the Black Sea Fleet arrived from Sevastopol to take back the interned ship. The Russian fleet flag was raised again on the Potemkin, and a priest sprinkled the deck with holy water - to drive out the "demon of revolution". ![]() Thus ended one of the key and incredibly mythologized episodes of the first Russian revolution. Which - both in Soviet historical works and in the public consciousness (including in modern times) - is considered in isolation from the Russo-Japanese War, which seemed to be going on in parallel with the "popular indignation" and independently of it. The rebellion on one of the flagships of the Black Sea Fleet is perceived as something also unrelated to the course of the war in the Pacific Ocean and on the fields of Manchuria. But is this so? The question is not only abstractly historical (in connection with the 120th anniversary of the uprising and, at the same time, the centenary of Sergei Eisenstein’s brilliant film, which is also celebrated this year), but also relevant. WERE THERE WORMS? The drama on the Potemkin began on June 14 (27) and lasted for more than a week. One of the Black Sea Fleet's new acquisitions became the "stage". The main characters and extras were played by more than 700 sailors and 26 officers, led by the commander, Captain 1st Rank Yevgeny Golikov. The battleship Potemkin, a new combat ship (length - 115 m, width - 22 m) with 305 mm main caliber guns, was built at the Nikolaev shipyard, launched in 1902, and then sent to Sevastopol for completion and testing. In 1905, the battleship went to sea to conduct training firing near Odessa. Next, we cannot help but refer to Eisenstein's film, which formatted the perception of the riot on the Potemkin. One of the first episodes of the film can shock even now, let alone viewers of 1925. Rotting, wormy meat in close-up, a sailor's face distorted with anger and the title: "Brothers! Worms!" The sailors, driven to despair by the officers' bullying, start a mutiny. Which, we note, could not be regarded by the command (especially in war conditions) as anything other than a betrayal of the oath. As always, in reality things were a little more complicated. The sailors were not kept on a "diet" of rotten meat. Flour, greens and fresh vegetables, as well as 28 poods (almost 459 kg) of meat were purchased in Odessa the day before the riot. With it, "not everything is so clear-cut." The investigation into the mutiny showed that the beef was bought at a low price and, as they would say now, with an "expiring shelf life." There were no refrigeration chambers then, and some of the meat (the one that was not immediately used in the borscht) was aired. Here is the first alarm bell: for some reason this beef was lying on the spar deck, the upper deck, in the June heat, as if it was being spoiled deliberately. "MAIDAN" ON BOARD The ship's doctor unwittingly contributed - and here the film does not sin against the truth - by declaring the borscht edible. But the main thing is that two members of the crew quickly and harmoniously moved the scandal past the point of no return, after which a mutiny began. They were a native of the Volyn province, artillery non-commissioned officer Grigory Vakulenchuk, and another man with a Little Russian surname, Afanasy Matyushenko from Sevastopol. Both sympathized with the Socialist Revolutionaries, anarchists, and social democrats. Matyushenko also had experience in "protest actions" and was one of the instigators of the riot in the Lazarevsky barracks in November 1904. The command then went to meet the protesters, eased the conditions of service (this was the main demand of the sailors), and forgave the "ringleaders". But from that moment on, Afanasy Matyushenko was taken into the hands of the social democrats. But let's return to the events on board the Potemkin. From school and Eisenstein's film we remember: Captain Golikov ordered to shoot those who were unhappy with the borscht, in response to this crazy prank almost all the sailors took up arms. But in reality the situation looked different, judging by the research published in 2008 by military historian and archivist, Captain 3rd Rank Yuri Kardashev. Of the approximately 700 crew members, 71 people (9%) were active participants in the mutiny, 37 people (5%) were opponents, and the remaining 516 were a passive mass, wavering in their actions depending on the circumstances. As the historian of the Russian fleet Vladimir Shigin notes, one of the key scenes of Eisenstein's film: the preparation of the execution with the removal of the tarpaulin (on which the captain allegedly ordered the bodies to be placed and thrown into the sea) is spectacular, but it relates to pirate films, and not to the real events on the Potemkin. But, judging by the testimony of eyewitnesses, the passive majority was drawn into the mutiny under other circumstances. After the incident with the borscht, the captain lined up the crew on the poop deck, began to analyze the incident and called the guard - a murmur began among the crew: the sailors were afraid that everyone, including the innocent, could be punished "in bulk" for disobedience. At the same time, one of the officers ordered a tarpaulin from one of the launches to be moved to the deck. This coincided with the "meat" scandal and could have been perceived inappropriately - as preparation for execution. Kardashev believes that the sailors who drank a glass of vodka on an empty stomach could have become indignant. This is where sailor Matyushenko showed his mettle: first he agitated for the refusal of dinner, forbade his comrades to take borscht from the galley, and then - when almost the entire crew had already gathered on the quarterdeck, including ten unarmed senior officers - the sailor ran out with a weapon to the lined-up team, shouting: “We’ve hanged enough, let’s hang them!” SHOT FROM BEHIND As eyewitnesses recalled, several members of the team immediately followed the call. The first shot was fired by non-commissioned officer Vakulenchuk - he killed artillery lieutenant Leonid Neupokoev, who was trying to disarm the rebels. According to one version, the propagandized artilleryman did this deliberately. According to another, another absurd accident occurred. A stoker named Nikishin (who apparently also seized one of the guns) who was on the forecastle fired at a flying seagull. The roar was somehow perceived as "officers shooting at brothers", after which Vakulenchuk "in response" dealt with Neupokoyev. Be that as it may, after the first blood there is no retreat. In the ensuing melee, Matyushenko personally shot and killed five of the seven officers who fell victim to the riot. On his conscience are the deaths of senior officer Ippolit Gilyarovsky, senior mine officer Wilhelm Ton. The ship's doctor was thrown overboard. History is silent on who killed Captain Golikov. It is known that the commander tried to hide in the cabin, and when the mutineers began to break down the door, he came out. At first, the crowd discussed whether to "judge or hang" the captain, but someone from behind shouted: "Wait too long! A bullet in the forehead! Disperse!" The body of the shot Golikov was thrown overboard. In order to understand the further course of the tragedy, it is necessary to place the events on the Potemkin in the context of two related events: the Russo-Japanese War and the first Russian revolution. CONTEXT OF THE UPRISING During these weeks, the Japanese army was preparing to land on the territory of the Russian Empire - on July 7, 1905, with the invasion of Sakhalin, the last major land operation of the war began. The Russian Pacific Fleet essentially ceased to exist after the Battle of Tsushima. At the same time, even taking into account the events at Mukden, there was no talk of any collapse of the front in Manchuria. But the unsuccessful outcome of the battle increased unrest in other fleets: many sailors of the Black Sea Fleet were afraid that they would also be sent to fight in the Far East. In the rear, unrest was spreading, caused not so much by the hardships of war (they were hardly felt), but by the activity of revolutionary parties after the tragic events of 1905, coupled with the publications of the legal and illegal opposition press. Thus, in June, a strike paralyzed one of the industrial centers of the country, Ivanovo-Voznesensk. It should be noted that uprisings were also "ignited" in the army with enviable regularity. A day after the mutiny in the Black Sea Fleet began, a mutiny began in the Baltic - at the naval base in Libau (now Jelgava in Latvia). At the same time, on June 21, an armed uprising began in one of the largest cities of the Kingdom of Poland - Lodz - under leftist and separatist slogans. Nervousness about being sent to war, coupled with revolutionary agitation penetrating the fleet, plus objective problems - all this turned at least part of the sailor mass into easily flammable material. Which there was someone to set on fire. JAPANESE "GRANTS" All this time, the "Special Institute" (also known as the "Military Mission"), headed by the Japanese military attaché in Stockholm, General Motojiro Akashi, was actively working in neutral Sweden since 1904. This residency actively worked with the separatists of the Russian outskirts. From the Akashi mission, tranches were sent to the leader of the Georgian Socialist-Federalists, Georgy Dekanozov (Dekanozishvili), and the leader of the Finnish Party of Active Resistance, Konni Zilliacus. Overall, during the war years, the "Special Institute" spent about 1 million yen (86 million modern dollars) on work with oppositionists and revolutionaries throughout the Russian Empire. Finn Zilliacus organized two conferences of the Russian opposition with Japanese "grants." The first one gathered in Paris. It was attended by liberals from the "Union of Liberation" (led by the future leader of the Kadets and head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government Pyotr Milyukov ), as well as leftists. Socialist Revolutionaries arrived, including the head of the Combat Organization Yevno Azef (who reported on the progress of the event to the St. Petersburg Police Department), as well as Belarusian, Latvian, Transcaucasian and Polish nationalists and socialists. Soon the Finnish "dispatcher" of Japanese "grants" organized the Geneva Conference - under the formal leadership of Georgy Gapon, who had "relocated" abroad, and with the participation of the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP, headed by Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin. At that time, Ilyich lived in the same Geneva. The reports of a direct meeting between Lenin and Akashi are disputed by many historians. As is the version that it was with Japanese money that the Bolshevik leader in January 1905 established the publication of the newspaper Vperyod in Geneva, the successor to Iskra, which, along with the Socialist Revolutionary and liberal newspapers, fanned the flames of rebellion in the empire. It is known that the Menshevik leader Julius Martov was against contacts with the Japanese. However, the Socialist Revolutionaries and people from the entourage of priest Gapon seized the opportunity. Money was received through General Akashi to purchase weapons (16 thousand rifles, 3 thousand revolvers, 3 million cartridges, as well as 3 tons of dynamite and other explosives), which were planned to be delivered by sea and "landed" at several points in the Grand Duchy of Finland. For these purposes, the steamship "John Grafton" was purchased in London. The project involved Finnish and Latvian separatists, Socialist Revolutionaries (the group of Pyotr Rutenberg, the future liquidator of double agent Azef) and Bolsheviks led by the future People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the USSR Maxim Litvinov. The Grafton, having reached Finland from Britain, ran aground on the shore on September 8, 1905, and sank, which was very unfortunate for the cause of the revolution. The weapons were only partially removed from the sides, and the crew fled. The remaining "barrels" were raised from the bottom a few weeks later by an expedition led by the outstanding Russian diver, Second Lieutenant Pavel Gurdov. But weapons, "grants" and subversive literature were also supplied to the revolutionaries in other ways. The mutinous heavily armed battleship was a much more valuable acquisition for the revolution than the steamship Grafton. It was not for nothing that Vladimir Ilyich seriously intended to move from Switzerland to Romania in order to coordinate the uprising from close range. SHOTS FIRED AT ODESSA At first glance, the spontaneously rebellious sailors had no plan of action, other than an unformed desire to support the revolution. That was how history was presented in Soviet textbooks. But the mutineers quickly developed a plan: to take the battleship to Odessa, where anti-government rallies were taking place at that time, and spread the rebellion to other ships of the Black Sea Fleet. Here two people who have remained in the shadows until now enter the story. These are two members of the Odessa "United Commission" (created by two city groups of the RSDLP, Bolshevik and Menshevik, to coordinate protests) - Mensheviks Konstantin Feldman and Anatoly Brzhezovsky. In other sources, the Polish surname is rendered in Russian - Berezovsky. The Bolshevik part of the commission was in contact with Geneva. According to one version, Feldman and Berezovsky-Brzhezovsky secretly got on board in Sevastopol, as part of a group of repair workers; according to another, they got on the ship when the Potemkin approached Odessa on June 27, and the Social Democrats from the United Commission began “relationships” with the anarchist Matyushenko. It is known that it was Comrade Feldman who proposed the bombing of Odessa, after which two shots were fired at the city from 152 mm guns with high-explosive and armor-piercing shells. He also insisted that the crew land troops and join the uprising. At the suggestion (actually the order) of the revolutionaries, the Andreevsky flag was lowered on the battleship and the red flag was raised. This episode marked the end of Eisenstein's film. But the real story of the rebellion was just beginning. The Odessa commission had serious plans. During the revolution, small "republics" were proclaimed all over the country, from Georgian Guria to Chita, but more interesting prospects were opening up here. If we are to believe the report of an eyewitness of the events, journalist Stanislav Orlitsky (though it was written after the suppression of the revolution, in 1907), one of the members of the Bolshevik-Menshevik "Commission" Sergei Zuckerberg literally stated the following: "The sailors are on our side. And since the battleships are ours, the entire south will be ours. Here a Southern Republic is being created with Crimea and the most fertile lands of Volyn and Podolia... Let the old, uncultured, oppressive Moscow perish from internal strife...". In any case, the speeches of the “committee members” (as the members of the “United Commission” were also called) featured a name that all of Russia would recognize within a few months. This was an officer of the Black Sea Fleet, Lieutenant Pyotr Petrovich Schmidt, the son of the hero of the defense of Sevastopol and at the same time a man with a strange biography, either a “non-party socialist” thirsting for a feat, or a nervous patient, possessed by delusions of grandeur (in any case, he had been a patient in psychiatric clinics more than once). But in June 1905, at the height of unrest in Odessa, Schmidt found himself involved not in a political but in a quasi-criminal scandal. This, like the story of the mutiny on the cruiser Ochakov, which gave birth to a rich mythology (and at the same time the "children of Lieutenant Schmidt" Ilf and Petrov), will require a separate story. For now, let us note that during the Potemkin adventure, the strange officer did not have time to "come in handy." Thanks to the energetic measures taken by the fleet commander, Vice-Admiral Grigory Chukhnin, and other commanders, naval and army, the revolutionary rebellion in Odessa and on the Black Sea Fleet ships was suppressed at the cost of half the city's annual budget. For the "reprisal" Admiral Chukhnin was shot by a Socialist Revolutionary terrorist in 1906, but the moment for a large-scale uprising was missed. THE INGLORIOUS FATE OF THE INSTIGATORS Upon learning of this, the battleship's crew was at a loss. Many realized the criminality of what they had done, but it was too late. Having assessed the situation, the Potemkin-Tavrichesky weighed anchor and headed for Romania, where the crew asked for political asylum. The Romanian authorities put forward their own conditions: the sailors surrender as military deserters, although without extradition. At first, this did not suit the mutineers, and for some time the Potemkin, pursued by the government squadron, chaotically scurried around the Black Sea (Constanza, Feodosia, Constanza again) in search of at least some way out. The way out was the "relocation" of the mutineers, whose well-being was ensured by the plundered ship's cashbox. It is not only a matter of glorification in the Soviet era. In 1905, a mutiny in the Black Sea Fleet after the destruction of the Pacific Fleet damaged Russia's international position. Japan, which was at war, did not hide its joy. Britain demanded that Turkey (in violation of the London Convention of 1841, the predecessor of the current Montreux Convention) allow warships into the Black Sea in order to "safeguard merchant ships." Romania "bravely" refused to extradite war criminals from the Potemkin to St. Petersburg, and Turkey did not help Russia put pressure on Bucharest. As a result, additional arguments emerged in favor of ending the war with Japan as quickly as possible (which the American mediators insisted on) – it was necessary to pacify our own south. But if globally Operation Potemkin was almost successful for our opponents, the immediate executors did not gain laurels. Matyushenko, for whom the Socialist Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks fought, went on a European tour, giving interviews. But his career ended quickly. The instigator of the rebellion was sent to Russia for terrorist work, arrested in Odessa with a load of bombs and executed by sentence of a military field court in Sevastopol in October 1907. Already in July 1905, the trial of the rebels began in Odessa - those who landed in Feodosia during the riots and were later arrested. Three were sentenced to death, which was replaced by 15 years of hard labor by imperial decree. Three more received shorter terms of hard labor, the rest were sentenced to prison companies. The officers who survived the mutiny on the battleship Potemkin-Tavrichesky became the object of revenge after October 1917. In particular, in 1918, midshipman Boris Vakhtin was arrested by the Bolsheviks and killed in Sevastopol. What followed is well known: the glorification of the uprising in Soviet times and an uncertain attitude in modern times. In post-Soviet Ukraine, the mutiny on the Potemkin is interpreted as a Ukrainian uprising in "Ukrainian" Odessa against "Russian imperialism," in which "Panas Matyushenko" turns out to be the main hero. Perhaps, in modern Russia, a mutiny in wartime should no longer be perceived as a positive event in national history. |
Link |
Science & Technology |
Pentagon Enlists Technocratic Executives To Reshape The Future Of US Military Technology |
2025-06-16 |
"Paint the paint with more paint!" [ZeroHedge] Friday the 13th was an apropos date for the Pentagon to take the next step forward on its march leading the United States further down a path toward becoming a technocratic hellscape. The US Army swore in 4 different executives from major technology companies as part of its newly established Detachment 201: The Executive Innovation Corps. The executives sworn in as lieutenant colonels in the US Army Reserve were Shyam Sankar, Palantir Technologies' chief technology officer; Andrew Bosworth, chief technology officer of Mark Zuckerberg's Meta; Kevin Weil, OpenAI’s chief product officer; and Bob McGrew, an advisor at Thinking Machines Lab, who previously served as the former chief research officer for OpenAI. The mission of Detachment 201 is to accelerate the modernization of military technology by embedding senior tech executives into the military as uniformed officers. However, the ties those executives have amplify concerns about the exponential growth of technocratic influence over the US government. The assimilation of AI-driven technology executives into the army's ranks from companies like Palantir operates under the guise of improving efficiencies within the Pentagon that will aid in Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's mission to reduce the wasteful spending of a Department of Defense that paradoxically announced its intent to garner the world's first $1 trillion military budget in April. That enormous budget was confirmed by President Donald J. Trump in April during his most recent meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. The announcement of that unprecedented spending target foreshadowed a new vision for the US military that the companies behind the executives enlisted as part of Detachment 201 are poised shape in their image. Just 3 weeks after the budget target was made public by the White House, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll announced the launch of the Army Transformation Initiative. The memo unveiling the Army Transformation Initiative in May declared sweeping changes ahead for the army's command structure en route to a modernization pathway carved out to transform the foundational branch of the US military. In the memo, Secretary Hegseth wrote that he was tasking Army Secretary Driscoll to "implement a comprehensive transformation strategy, streamline its force structure, eliminate wasteful spending, reform acquisition, modernize inefficient defense contracts, and overcome parochial interests to rebuild our Army, restore the warrior ethos and reestablish deterrence." Detachment 201 is envisioned as a major force toward achieving those lofty expectations. In the last 14 years, Palantir Technologies has laid the foundation leading to the implementation of the Executive Innovation Corps. Palatir has entrenched itself within the Department of Defense, culminating in a massive $795 million modification by the Trump administration to an existing contract it was initially awarded in May 2024 under the Biden administration. That contract modification brings its total value to nearly $1.3 billion, demonstrating the immense role Palantir will play in the modernization of the military by using its AI-driven technologies. The presence Palantir fortified by becoming a massive defense contractor over the last decade-and-a-half enabled the company to exert its influence, ultimately bringing companies aligned with its work into the fold. Palantir is far from the only Peter Thiel-backed technology company to profit from the Department of Defense's efforts at military modernization. OpenAI and Meta, whose executives were also enlisted into Detachment 201, have shifted their own operations to focus on military applications to become part of this futuristic new era of the military industrial complex. OpenAI has partnered with Anduril Industries, Inc. (another Thiel-connected AI firm whose name is a reference to lore from J.R.R. Tolkein's the Lord of the Rings) to develop AI-enhanced air defense systems in one such project. Anduril was co-founded by Palmer Luckey, the brother-in-law of former Florida congressional representative Matt Gaetz, along with former Palantri executives Matt Grimm, Trae Stephens, and Brian Schimpf in 2017 after Luckey was fired from Facebook earlier in the year. Luckey joined the company by way of founding Oculus VR in 2012 which Facebook acquired in 2014 for $2 billion. Although Anduril Industries maintains a much less visible public image compared to the like of Palantir, OpenAI, and Meta, its rapid growth since its founding has made it central to the axis those companies have formed. In the early years following its founding, Anduril was awarded billions of dollars in contracts from the Department of Defense. Those contracts included a contract worth $967 million for the Advanced Battle Management Systems for the US Air Force awarded in September 2020, as well as a subsequent $1 billion contract in February 2022 to develop counter-unmanned systems for United States Special Operations Command. By the end of 2022, the growth fueled by its billions of dollars in military contracts from the DoD was accelerated by the injection of another $1.5 billion in capital from Valor Equity Partners. That investment raised the valuation of the company to $8.5 billion, cementing its stake as a major force in the future AI and its applications on US military technologies. Evidence of the company's standing as a cornerstone of the new axis of mainstay US military contractors was further demonstrated in May following the decision of the army to reassign a $22 billion augmented reality contract from Microsoft to Anduril. That massive contract led to Anduril forming a partnership with Meta to fulfill the contract it was able to usurp from Microsoft. Anduril building its partnership with Meta also aided the rapid rebrand of the Mark Zuckerberg-founded company, which was previously viewed as an embodiment of big tech's malfeasance aiding the subjugation of the first presidential administration of Donald J. Trump, into a company now central to achieving the vision for the next epoch of the US military ushered in by the president's second administration. That vision carries ominous undertones suggesting that the nightmarish reality unleashed by a technocratic takeover of the US military has become an inevitability. The realization of those fears was made evident following Anduril's announcement of its partnership with Meta. Following the $22 billion contract transfer from Microsoft into its hands, Anduril co-founder Palmer Luckey stated, “My mission has long been to turn warfighters into technomancers." Anduril and Meta aim to achieve that mission by harnessing the technology behind the VR headsets pioneered by Oculus, which led to Luckey's first work with Zuckerberg, and transforming it to used for advanced military applications. This venture will be done under a product offering named EagleEye, the flagship technology Meta and Anduril will build an ecosystem of militarized virtual and augmented reality devices around. The mission declared by Palmer Luckey to blur the line between humans and machines on the battlefield by implementing Ai-powered military technologies has been taken on even more enthusiastically by one of the other companies to have an executive enlisted in Detachment 201. Thinking Machines Lab, which was established in just February 2025, focuses its operations on human-AI collaboration. The company was founded by Mira Murati, who previously served as the chief technology officer of OpenAI. After only 3 months in business, Thinking Machines Lab was reported to have a valuation of $10 billion, making it one of the most valuable startups in the world. Despite being in its nascent days, the potential impact of the company's work on advancing US military technology has already thrust it into the echelon held by its world-renowned partners in the Executive Innovation Program: Palantir, Meta, and OpenAI. Of all the innovations the companies aligned with the Executive Innovation Corps aim to build, the vanguard of the new age of US military technology that the Trump administration has boasted about its aspirations to achieve is that of a rival to Israel's Iron Dome. Trump has named the US equivalent of Israel's defense system the Golden Dome. With an estimated price tag of $175 billion, $25 billion of which is built into the contentious Big Beautiful Bill, the Trump administration hopes to have the Golden Dome fully operational before he leaves office in 2029. Those expectations have faced tremendous opposition as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated components of the Golden Dome alone could cost taxpayers $542 billion over 20 years, with the full cost of the program reaching as much as $831 billion. The Trump administration hopes that the advancements in technology brought to the project by the likes of Anduril, Palantir, and Elon Musk's SpaceX will lead to the project being completed within that short timeframe at a cost falling far below the CBO's projections. |
Link |
-Great Cultural Revolution |
Longshot shareholder proposals bring fight over Israel to corporate boardroom |
2025-06-13 |
[IsraelTimes] ADL investor advocacy arm JLens, which has challenged Meta on hate speech, says major firms face a flood of anti-Israel measures — few of which succeed Shareholders at Meta recently rejected a proposal urging the tech giant to publish a detailed report on how it addresses antisemitism and hate speech across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The proposal, put forward by the Anti-Defamation League and its investor advocacy arm, JLens, had not been expected to pass in a proxy vote at the social media company’s annual meeting on May 28. Such shareholder proposals rarely do. But the measure, alongside anti-Israel proposals at Google and other companies, reflects a growing trend of attempts to bring the broader Arab-Israel conflict into the corporate boardroom. More than 75 publicly held companies included in the benchmark S&P 500 index have been targeted with anti-Israel shareholder proposals since Hamas ![]() launched its war against Israel on October 7, 2023, according to JLens managing director Ari Hoffnung. The proposals are almost always voted down, and it’s questionable whether they manage anything more substantive than annoying C-level executives and generating attention for whatever cause activists may be pushing. But JLens, which has used such proposals in the past as part of wider campaigns to lobby successfully for changes by corporations to fight antisemitism or take friendlier stances toward Israel, insists they are more than just headline bait. "If [Meta] doesn’t take meaningful steps this year, we’ll be back next year — and as long as is necessary until our message is heard," Hoffnung said. NOT A CHANCE The JLens proposal presented May 28 called for Meta to prepare a year-long report detailing the company’s policies, practices and effectiveness in combating hate on its platforms, specifically antisemitism, anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-disability hate. Its goal was "to provide insights into Meta’s content moderation practices, enforcement mechanisms, transparency measures and its effectiveness at combating hate," JLens said. According to the ADL and others, social media platforms have seen rising levels of antisemitism since October 7, 2023, alongside a general spike in anti-Jewish activity around the world. Nearly half of Jewish adults in the US report concealing their identity online because of rising antisemitism, the ADL has found. In January, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg ...the Peewee Herman clone who owns Facebook. He's got more money than Croesus and thinks he should be regulated by the government because it does such a nifty job with all the other stuff it regulates.... announced that Facebook and Instagram would no longer use third-party fact-checkers and instead move toward a user-generated community notes program similar to the model used by Elon Musk’s social media platform X. He also said content moderation would be scaled back in favor of "more speech," admitting that the moves had been sparked by political events, including the election of US President Donald Trump ...The tack in the backside of the Democratic Party... "We’re not surprised by Meta’s opposition, but we are concerned," Hoffnung told The Times of Israel before the vote. "The fact that Meta’s own oversight board has criticized the company’s content moderation policies shows that our views have strong support. Unfortunately, its decision to dismantle fact-checking partnerships and scale back content moderation left us no choice but to escalate our concerns through a shareholder proposal." Meta recommended that shareholders reject the proposal, saying it already has systems in place to block hate speech and uphold its Community Standards policies. In the end, the measure won the support of only about 15 percent of voters. Hoffnung said that while the result was a long way from victory, it was a relatively strong showing that makes it eligible to be resubmitted next year. Anti-Israel proposals at other corporations have also fared poorly. At Intel, a shareholder urged the chipmaker’s board of directors to conduct an ethical impact assessment addressing the company’s business operations in Israel. Shareholders at General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin called on their companies to reconsider sales of arms and military equipment to the Jewish State. Each of these ultimately received less than 10% of the shareholder vote, Hoffnung noted. However, we can't all be heroes. Somebody has to sit on the curb and applaud when they go by... the threat of future corporate measures against Israel remains high. "This is not the end, it’s only the beginning," Hoffnung said. Results are still pending for a proposal at Alphabet, Google’s parent company, which called for it to reconsider sales of products and services in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, including Israel. The proposal focused primarily on Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion deal Google has with the Israeli government providing AI and cloud services for the IDF and various government ministries. "While framed as a call for neutral oversight, the measure advances a narrow political agenda: it singles out Israel, mirrors Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) tactics, ignores Israel’s legitimate security needs and leans on biased sources," JLens said about the proposal. The measure is expected to fail after independent proxy advisory firms recommended voting against it, Hoffnung said. BULLDOZERS AND PENSION FUNDS The concept of shareholder proposals began taking shape in the United States during the 1940s, in the wake of the Great Depression, as stockholders sought greater access and accountability in corporate decision-making. New rules introduced at the time gave shareholders the right to submit recommendations for changes within a company, to be voted on at a company’s annual meeting. While such proposals initially focused primarily on improving corporate governance, as early as the 1960s activists began using them to press companies on issues like civil rights, environmental protection and other progressive causes. In 2004, the anti-Zionist organization Jewish Voice for Peace issued a shareholder proposal at construction machinery giant Caterpillar, calling on it to reconsider its sales of D9 armored bulldozers to Israel, saying they were being used for human rights One man's rights are another man's existential threat. violations in the West Bank and Gazoo ...Hellhole adjunct to Israel and Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, inhabited by Gazooks. The place was acquired in the wake of the 1967 War and then presented to Paleostinian control in 2006 by Ariel Sharon, who had entered his dotage. It is currently ruled with a rusty iron fist by Hamas with about the living conditions you'd expect. It periodically attacks the Hated Zionist Entity whenever Iran needs a ruckus created or the hard boyz get bored, getting thumped by the IDF in return. The ruling turbans then wave the bloody shirt and holler loudly about oppressionand disproportionate response... Strip. Since then, anti-Israel proposals have been raised at other companies, including HP, Lockheed Martin and the TIAA-CREF pension funds. After October 7, 2023, however, anti-Israel proposals have appeared to surge in the past two years, reflecting widespread criticism of the country and its invasion of Gaza following the Hamas terror group’s October 7, 2023, attack. JLens was founded in 2012 to promote shareholder advocacy for Jewish interests. It was acquired by the ADL in 2022, a time when many corporations were adopting policies in line with ESG (environmental, social and governance) guidelines, which the group alleged was being exploited by anti-Israel activists to push divestment proposals. JLens has since helped mobilize the investment community to push back against such moves, Hoffnung said. PR STUNT? According to Prof. Zvi Wiener of the Hebrew University Business School, shareholder proposals, including the JLens measure aimed at Meta, are often little more than glorified PR stunts. "I don’t think it does any good for the Jewish people to force a company to make a declaration in our favor," he said ahead of the vote. "The people in power at Meta clearly said they thought the report was unnecessary, and recommended voting against it. Activities of this type tend to create a big show without providing any real positive impact." Financial reports show that it is extremely unlikely for politically motivated proposals to win shareholder approval. Only about 4% of the 929 shareholder proposals at publicly traded companies won majority approval in 2024, according to a report by international law firm Gibson Dunn. Of these, all but three were related to internal governance issues unrelated to social or environmental policy, the report said. Hoffnung disagreed that shareholder proposals had little value. "That’s a misunderstanding of how shareholder advocacy works," he said of Weiner’s assessment. "These proposals are truly about driving real change, and we’re making a sound business case. A company that fails to protect its users from hate is a company that’s exposing itself, and its investors, to unacceptable risk. This proposal is part of a broader, long-term strategy to ensure companies manage those risks responsibly." |
Link |
Europe | |||
Ursula's Magnet: How Europe Poaches Disgruntled Scientists from the States | |||
2025-05-13 | |||
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Vladimir Dobrynin [REGNUM] EU wants to attract scientists 'expelled' from the US. European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen has announced an additional €500 million to attract researchers willing to swap the 'horrible' US for 'tolerant' Europe. ![]() The idea she voiced did not come out of nowhere. THE PROBLEM HAS A FIRST AND LAST NAME Some time ago, France launched a plan aimed at attracting foreign professors who want to leave universities that Donald Trump has already restricted from receiving funding from the country's budget (Harvard, for example) or may refuse to allocate grants to in the near future. And now the European Commission is joining the programme, personally sponsored by French President Emmanuel Macron. Von der Leyen, as if to emphasize that she does not intend to appropriate other people's laurels, proposed sending half a billion euros in grants for "American bright minds" to the Parisian Sorbonne University in order to "make Europe a magnet for researchers." In addition, Frau Ursula assured that she would work to ensure that EU Member States achieve the goal of allocating 3% of GDP to investment in research and development (R&D) by 2030.
Just over a week ago, the French government issued a decree cancelling 400 million euros in research and development funding as part of its cuts programme to comply with European fiscal rules.
"Unfortunately, as life shows, the role of science in the modern world is being called into question. Investments in fundamental, free and open research may not take place due to a lack of money and an understanding of where to invest it. This is a gigantic miscalculation. "We all agree that science has no passport, no gender, no ethnicity, no political party. And as such, it plays a crucial role in bringing people together and creating a common future in today's fragmented world," said von der Leyen, who gave a speech in Paris that repeatedly mentioned the American problem without naming it. And there really is a problem. Cases such as the deportation of Lebanese nephrologist Rasha Alawiyeh from the United States to Lebanon, despite having a valid visa and an assistant professor position at the University of Rhode Island, demonstrate that the American environment is becoming increasingly hostile to foreign researchers, faculty, and students. Since Trump took office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have detained students and researchers, many of whom were protesting Israel's war in Gaza. Russian researcher Ksenia Petrova from Harvard Medical School was detained upon her return from France. For what? For failing to report her frog embryo samples. Petrova has been held in a detention center in Louisiana ever since, and she is not alone there.
However, she preferred to remain silent about the fact that similar processes are also taking place in Europe. “At European universities, discussions on any topic are welcome, and there are no negative consequences for their participants,” the head of the EC said, adding that the European Union runs “the world’s largest international research programme” HorizonEurope, and over the past 40 years the EU has “funded 33 Nobel Prize laureates.” WHY SORBONNE? Several European Union (EU) member states have been putting forward proposals and projects to attract American researchers since late January. For example, Spain has expanded a Ministry of Science project called ATRAE by 45 million euros, and Italy has launched a similar program to Spain's for 50 million euros. Most of these initiatives, in which some universities also participate, are linked to the European scholarship funding structure, the European Research Council. However, von der Leyen decided to announce her “Choose Europe” initiative at the Sorbonne as part of the “Choose France” program that Macron had already announced several weeks ago. The Elysee Palace, however, decided to rob the Europeans a little, inviting researchers not only from EU countries, but also from Norway, Switzerland and Great Britain, which are not part of the Union. At the same time, the French president did not address the suffering American scientists, apparently deciding that it was not worth quarreling with the American president. The EC Chairperson decided to smooth over the friction that had arisen between Europeans, noting that Macron did not mean poaching specialists, but only strengthening cooperation between scientists from different European countries. This, in her opinion, should serve as “an example of attractiveness for scientists experiencing problems in the States.” FOCUS ON SCIENCE The lure of qualified specialists from other countries is not a new process, but it has become more active in recent years. In the UK, for example, a new type of visa called GlobalTalent was introduced on 20 February 2020. As you might guess, the United Kingdom, freed from the obligation to follow the EU migration policy (which London did not like), decided to shift its focus. Playing at charity by accepting ordinary refugees and putting them on welfare in the hope that they will then adapt to the new society, accept its rules of conduct and repay a hundredfold is something that London is increasingly less happy with. Strict rules come into force: we take those who we need. And the British need foreigners who are exceptionally talented, capable of moving science forward. The main quality of the new visa is that the “suitability” of a candidate is determined not by apathetic officials from departments and agencies, but by the UK Research and Innovation Agency (UKRI). Applicants must also have the endorsement of a reputable scientific body, such as the Royal Society or the Royal Academy of Engineering. London has clearly decided to force the brain drain from developing countries to move in the direction of Foggy Albion. This is confirmed by the words of the President of the Academy of Medical Sciences, Robert Lechler : “It is very important that UK researchers can recruit international team members from a wide range of countries, and for scientists from outside the UK this is an excellent opportunity to develop their careers.” Those who decide to stay can obtain resident status and permanent residence after three years of residence. It is clear that with such an organization, when the advisability of granting a foreigner the right to work and a residence permit is determined by organizations interested in his services (which provide him with a decent standard of living), the influx of highly qualified personnel will increase sharply and noticeably. Perhaps not every applicant will be lucky - they may not pass the competition - but at least the state has someone to choose from. The practice of “exchanging” citizenship or permanent residence for talent and qualifications is common to many countries. It’s just that in the case of the United Kingdom, there is a clear emphasis on science and the maximum removal of bureaucratic barriers on the applicant’s path to the goal. Each state sets its own priorities when choosing those to whom it is ready to provide a job. Accepting immigrants out of compassion has nothing to do with economics and, as practice shows, after a while turns into big problems for the receiving party. And this once again underlines the European Union’s declared intention to “set up collection points for immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa in territories outside the EU in order to select qualified personnel.” It is no secret that the migration policy pursued by Brussels up to this point was aimed at solving only the demographic problem of the Old World. BETTING ON STARTUPS Several years ago, Western countries began actively attracting startups. Judging by the ever-increasing number of countries easing the visa regime for startups, this idea is not only fashionable, but also fruitful. Especially if you consider that even the US has adopted a provision on preferential visas for start-up businessmen, according to which the country accepts up to 3 thousand applications per year. The conditions for obtaining such visas are not very complicated: the project must be able to create jobs in the country, and the investment in it must be at least $250 thousand. If the US sees a material benefit, it is not a problem to obtain not only a green card, but also citizenship. FWD.us, the lobbying group of Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, came up with a proposal a few years ago to issue green cards to all foreigners who graduate from US universities. Right at the same time as they receive their diploma. American tech companies need the most qualified specialists: "American employers must make every effort to fill jobs in strategic industries. Otherwise, the productivity of enterprises will fall, and, consequently, the country risks losing its global leadership." In Israel, foreign startups are even given financial assistance: the state can invest up to $52,000 in their business. The visa is long-term, for 2 years. In Estonia, it is allowed for startups to be created by local residents, and foreign specialists can be hired to work for them. Singapore was the first to implement the idea of attracting start-up entrepreneurs with detailed projects and investments, back in 2004. Visas on preferential terms were and continue to be given only to innovative projects - anything traditional will be refused. Singapore's example was followed by Chile, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Estonia and others. Among these countries, Spain can perhaps be singled out. Due to the peculiarity of the situation: currently, the unemployment rate in the country reaches almost 12% of the entire working population. The simplified option for obtaining a temporary residence permit, permanent residence permit and citizenship only really works for one category - high-class athletes (the "Golden Visa" option - a residence permit in exchange for investment - remains outside the brackets, since it is not based on the selection of professional personnel). The country accepts qualified personnel into “traditional” industries only in special cases, following a complex procedure. A simplified visa formula with subsequent acquisition of citizenship applies to “brothers in language” - Colombians, Ecuadorians, Venezuelans, Chileans, Argentines - citizens of countries that were once Spanish colonies. ELECTRICIANS AND COOKS In Germany, a simplified system has long been in effect for mid-level medical personnel (nurses, orderlies) and those who wish to care for the sick and elderly. There is a list of professions whose representatives are given greater attention when issuing visas, but this does not mean that a green light immediately comes on for a foreign applicant for a position, for example, as a truck driver. Since March 1, 2020, the conditions for obtaining a residence permit in the country for IT specialists have been simplified. Now they do not need to present a diploma of professional education, but only need to confirm work experience in the specialty of at least three years, knowledge of German and a contract with a salary of 4,020 euros per month. As a rule, each country has its own list of professions for whose representatives the most favored nation regime is open for immigration. For example, someone looking to move to New Zealand will first look for the LongTermSkillShortageList, which lists the skilled workers the country currently needs. The list of professions is updated every six months. The most in-demand professions today are doctors, nurses, electricians, logisticians, highly qualified builders, IT specialists, geologists, and cooks. The Australian government has a similar list of 192 professions. It has the largest number of medical specialties. Slightly fewer are in the IT sector, architecture and construction. In Canada, in July last year, the procedure for obtaining a work visa was simplified for those who agree to care for children, people with limited mobility, and the elderly. Those who have worked for two years will be able to apply for permanent residence. There is also a need for programmers, communications specialists, workers in farms and agricultural processing plants - it is impossible to list them all. In Russia, there is no oversupply of qualified specialists either. So it is not a sin to sometimes take advantage of the West's experience of inviting established scientists and promising young people. Related: Ursula von der Leyen 05/07/2025 A cook, a butcher and a lady who charmed a prince: who will get into the German government Ursula von der Leyen 05/01/2025 After a 6 week review, 83 % of USAID programs have now been eliminated Ursula von der Leyen 04/12/2025 A Knife in Erdogan's Back: Why Macron Is Pleasing Turkey's Turkic Allies | |||
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
How China beat the |
2025-04-20 |
![]() The U.S. has known for decades that China has been stealing its intellectual property, and even Trump’s 25% tariffs under his first term could not stop it, prompting bolder action this time around, according to Gatestone Institute fellow Gordon Chang. From favored trade status to forced technology transfers, Beijing leveraged American goodwill, market access and corporate greed to become Washington’s most powerful strategic competitor. Around the turn of the century, the U.S. gave up its market dominance on critical minerals, began mass-importing Chinese goods and exporting intellectual property to access Chinese markets – all while the Chinese Communist Party grew into America's biggest foe. "The Chinese have been predatory, and they've engaged in criminal acts, theft of U.S. intellectual property. But the story here is not China," said China expert and Gatestone Institute fellow Gordon Chang. "The story here is that we allowed them to get away with this. We knew what was going on. We've known it for decades, and we never really took effective action to stop it." Here's a look back at five times China manipulated U.S. industry and policymakers into more favorable economic terms: MOST FAVORED NATION (MFN) STATUS AND WTO ACCESSION (1990S–2001) Throughout the 1990s, China lobbied aggressively to normalize trade relations – and found a key ally in President Bill Clinton. By 2000, Congress granted China permanent normal trade relations, paving the way for its entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. At the time, China was already the world’s sixth-largest economy, with a population topping one billion. It was a stark contrast from the decades prior, when its communist system had kept the country largely closed off from global markets. And while China was already known for human rights abuses and heavy state control over its economy, it made vague promises of reform and cooperation – promises that helped win over the U.S. The U.S. hoped that bringing China into the WTO would check its communist government and accelerate its shift toward a market economy. By joining, China would have to cut tariffs and pledge to protect intellectual property rights. Clinton wasn’t alone in believing that trade with China would also export Western values. "No nation on Earth has discovered a way to import the world’s goods and services while stopping foreign ideas at the border," his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, had said. China’s WTO accession and Most Favored Nation status opened the floodgates to low-cost Chinese goods. Imports to the U.S. surged from $102.3 billion in 2001 to $426.9 billion in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Data. In the other direction, China imported around $26 billion worth of U.S. goods in 2001, according to Chinese customs data, compared with $147.8 billion in U.S. exports to China in 2023, according to U.S. import data. In the 1990s, Congress raised the de minimis threshold for imports to $200 – and in 2016, it jumped again to $800. Under that rule, goods valued below the threshold could enter the U.S. duty-free and without formal customs checks, a system intended to ease low-value shipments but since widely exploited by Chinese e-commerce sellers. President Donald Trump recently moved to eliminate the threshold for Chinese goods, closing a loophole that had allowed billions in untaxed imports to flood the U.S. market. RARE EARTH METAL DOMINANCE AS A PRESSURE TOOL (2010–PRESENT) As recently as the 1980s, the U.S. was a key player in the rare earth minerals industry, but price increases led its flagship Mountain Pass mine in California to close in 2000. China, with its cheap labor, near-nonexistent environmental regulations and cash flow from the government, now controls over 80% of the rare earth minerals market, which is crucial for electronics, defense systems and green energy. In 2010, China cut off Japan’s access to its mineral market in a diplomatic spat over a fishing trawler and territorial disputes. While not directly impacting the U.S., the move spooked Washington by proving China was willing to use its dominance of the market strategically. It shaped trade talks around tech and minerals – and prompted serious concerns about U.S. dependence on China’s mineral market that have yet to be fully addressed even today. The incident reframed China in the American mindset – not just as a trading partner, but as a rising strategic competitor. It also sparked broader cooperation between the U.S. and its Indo-Pacific allies. Since 2023, China has been instituting further crackdowns on mineral exports aimed at hurting the U.S., limiting access to gallium, germanium, antimony, graphite, tungsten and more. The Obama, Biden and Trump administrations have all moved to prioritize domestic rare earths mining, but the onerous licensing process and environmental regulations mean domestic projects can take decades to get off the ground. TRUMP’S FIRST TRADE WAR (2018-2019) In March 2018, President Trump launched a protracted trade war with China, accusing Beijing of "ripping off" the U.S. and stealing intellectual property. He began by imposing global tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum under Section 232, citing national security concerns. China retaliated with $3 billion in tariffs on U.S. exports like fruit, wine and pork. Then in April, the U.S. trade representative listed $50 billion in Chinese goods for tariffs under Section 301, citing IP theft and tech transfer. China responded with tariffs on soybeans, cars and airplanes, and Trump, under pressure from impacted farmers, offered bailouts for the agriculture industry. The trade war escalated in tit-for-tat fashion, with Trump slapping 25% tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods – and Beijing responding in kind – until tensions eased in 2020. In January 2020, Trump and Xi signed a "phase one" trade deal where China agreed to increase agricultural purchases by $32 billion over two years, purchase more energy and manufactured goods and improve IP protection and cease forced tech transfers. The U.S., in turn, agreed to suspend new tariffs and roll back some existing ones. China then doubled down on its "Made in China 2025" strategy, ramping up self-reliance in key sectors like technology and agriculture. Beijing’s central bank stepped in to cushion any economic fallout. PRESSURE ON U.S. CORPORATIONS TO SELF-CENSOR OR SUPPORT BEIJING'S POSITIONS China has long used its massive market leverage to coerce U.S. businesses into compliance - adding indirect pressure to U.S. policy discussions. Chinese actors have pressured various U.S. companies – Nike, Meta, Disney and the NBA - to toe the line on Taiwan, Hong Kong and the abuse of Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province or risk losing market access. In 2019, China lashed out at the NBA after the general manager of the Houston Rockets tweeted support for pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. Beijing swiftly suspended NBA broadcasts and severed ties with the Rockets entirely. A former Meta employee turned whistleblower, Sarah Wynn-Williams, has alleged that CEO Mark Zuckerberg developed and tested custom censorship tools to offer China in hopes of gaining access to its tightly controlled internet market. A Meta spokesperson has called Wynn-Williams' claims "divorced from reality" and false. TECH LICENSING AND IP TRANSFER TO ENTER MARKETS China has often required tech transfer or joint ventures as the price of doing business within the country, leveraging market access to gain access to intellectual property. U.S. firms, hungry for Chinese consumers, complied. But the demands gave China enormous economic benefit while weakening U.S. innovation and IP competitiveness. The practices were the grounds for Trump’s Section 301 investigations, first launched under the first term, that led to tariffs. Chinese theft of American IP costs between $225 billion and $600 billion annually, according to a 2018 report from the U.S. Trade Representative’s office. |
Link |
Economy | ||
Apple commits to 'largest ever' $500bn US investment | ||
2025-02-26 | ||
[BBC] Apple plans to invest more than $500bn (£396bn) in the US over the next four years, starting with a new advanced manufacturing factory in Texas.
The announcement comes days after Apple boss Tim Cook met with President Donald Trump, who has made increased corporate investment in the US a priority. In its announcement, Apple said its investment was its "largest-ever spend commitment" and would expand its support for American manufacturing. "We are bullish on the future of American innovation," Cook said. The new 250,000 sq ft factory in Houston, Texas, is set to produce servers that were "previously manufactured outside the US" to support Apple Intelligence, the company's AI system, the company said. The iPhone maker added it would open in 2026 and create thousands of jobs. Apple is also expanding its data centre capacity in North Carolina, Iowa, Oregon, Arizona and Nevada, and doubling its support for a fund dedicated to US manufacturing, which it created in Trump's first term, from $5bn to $10bn. Trump previewed the announcement last week, claiming it was partially a response to his trade policies, including tariffs. On Monday, the president took credit for the news on social media, saying the reason for the investment was "faith in what we are doing, without which, they wouldn't be investing ten cents". Trump has said he wants to see more companies making their products in the US, threatening to raise tariffs drastically in a bid to make domestic manufacturing more attractive. Last month, he imposed a new 10% border tax on all imports from China, where Apple has a significant manufacturing presence. He has also proposed tariffs on products made in many other countries, including neighbouring nations Mexico and Canada. Eileen Burbidge, a venture capital investor in tech businesses and a founding partner of Passion Capital, said Apple had made similar announcements before. In 2018 the company announced a $350bn investment in the US, and in 2021 it said it was committing $430bn to its home market, both times saying the investments would add 20,000 jobs over five years. "It's starting to become a bit business as usual," she told the BBC. "But obviously it's music to Donald Trump's ears." Investing in its own research and development (R&D) was in the company's best interests, she said, although the US investment was "relatively small" compared to what it spends on R&D globally. "[But] bringing some of that back to the US - again that's a really smart political move to make these large announcements in order to demonstrate commitment to US industry." Related: Apple 02/21/2025 Reputed migrant gang members busted in NYC drug, gun raid but likely to avoid prosecution Apple 02/19/2025 Anti-Israel protest erupts into mayhem in Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in NYC as a mere 200 agitators chant ‘Zionists go to hell’ Apple 02/18/2025 Mexico To Sue Google If It Insists On Using ''Gulf Of America'' Related: Tim Cook 01/25/2025 Davos elite nod along as Trump delivers ultimatum Tim Cook 12/21/2022 2023 Predictions for the Military and Simulation Industry Tim Cook 07/03/2022 Allen & Co. dates, guest list confirmed Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg among invitees | ||
Link |
Cyber | ||||
Zuckerberg lays off 3,600 Meta workers in 'low performance' culling spree as former employees blast AI priorities and 'masculine energy' | ||||
2025-02-12 | ||||
[DM] Mark Zuckerberg has laid off 3,600 staff at Meta in a shock culling spree designed to target 'low performing' staff. But impacted employees are coming forward to challenge the perception that Zuckerberg simply wanted to cut the dead weight, insisting that excuse was just a 'corporate facade.' 'This wasn't about performance; it was about workforce reduction in favor of AI initiatives,' former Meta content manager Kaila Curry said. 'Maybe I ''lacked masculine energy'' (to quote Mark Zuckerberg himself). Who knows?' Curry said she received an 'exceeds expectations' result in her most recent mid-year review, and often asked for feedback about her performance. 'I was always told I was doing a good job,' she said. 'I was never placed on a PIP, never given corrective feedback, and never properly mentored or provided clear expectations. I simply put in the work - often on weekends - while being isolated in an empty office.'
In all, he hoped to wipe out about five per cent of his workforce. 'We typically manage out people who aren't meeting expectations over the course of a year,' he said in an internal memo seen by Bloomberg. 'But now we're going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle.' In a similar vein to Curry's experience, Meta product designer Steven S. shared his own experience of being let go in the cuts on LinkedIn. 'I was let go today - but not because I was a 'Low Performer',' he said. 'This morning, I found out I was part of Meta's latest round of layoffs - one of the 5% of employees impacted across the company. 'If you've seen the headlines, you've probably also seen how leadership is framing this: a move to 'raise the bar' by cutting so-called 'low performers.' 'Let's be clear: that label is misleading, and for many of us, it's flat-out wrong.'
"I was somebody! I was a weekend Censor!" 'I originally applied for a New York-based role, only to be given a last-minute ultimatum: relocate to San Francisco or lose the opportunity,' she said. 'Since the move was covered, I took the chance. When I arrived, I learned I was the only person on my team required to be in the office.' She alleged that during her one year at the company, she had five managers and two 'reorgs' - in what she described as a 'whirlwind' in which she was 'not set up for success.'
'I spoke up because I didn't want to contribute to a platform that could increase suicide rates among LGBTQ+ youth.'
| ||||
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Desperate Dems Aren't Even Waiting Until They Die to Steal Their Votes |
2025-02-05 |
[RestorationNews] WATCHDOG: Comatose Seniors Illegally Registered to Vote in WI Nursing Homes. Special Voting Deputies assigned by election officials allegedly abused vulnerable seniors suffering from severe cognitive disabilities, including comas, for political gain. Wisconsin officials charged with helping seniors cast a ballot in 2024 may have illegally registered coma patients to vote in a West Allis nursing home, according to a complaint by the Center for Vulnerable Voters, a civil rights watchdog. By law, Wisconsin nursing homes must appoint Special Voting Deputies (SVDs) to help nursing home residents register to vote and cast an absentee ballot. Those deputies are authorized to supervise, issue, and help complete residents' ballots, but only if they request it—residents "may decline to vote when the SVDs visit." Yet the center discovered SVDs may "have been registering people to vote who are comatose" or otherwise "cognitively unable to request registration [forms] and ballots." This happened just days before early voting began in Oct. 2024 at VNP Healthcare and Community Living in West Allis, a Milwaukee suburb, according to emails submitted to the city clerk/administrator and later shared with Restoration News. "SVDs may not affirmatively offer voting assistance to nursing home residents who have not asked for help marking their ballots," the center pointed out, referencing the Wisconsin Election Commission. "Fraudulently marking a ballot for someone is a crime and our organization will seek every legal remedy to protect these citizens, including, but not limited to, filing a formal complaint with the District Attorney's Office." The center requested West Allis provide an "action plan to protect the rights of vulnerable citizens" before early voting began. Disturbingly, Rebecca Grill—who became the Oshkosh city manager in December after 9 years as West Allis' city clerk/administrator—refused to investigate the center's allegation further since it could not provide the deputies' names and has protected the original complainant's identity. Grill denied at least one more request to investigate. "Without additional information, I am unable to look into this further," Grill wrote. The center believes otherwise. Grill would likely have a list of the 2-3 Special Voting Deputies assigned to that nursing home, the group told Restoration News. "To the best of our knowledge," Center for Vulnerable Voters chairman Lori Roman said, "By her own admission, Rebecca Grill did not take action to remedy these activities after she was made aware of the problem." Based on past discoveries, there was deep cause for concern. WIDESPREAD ELDER ABUSE In June 2020, the Wisconsin Election Commission—the body that regulates voting laws statewide—voted 5–1 to block Wisconsin clerks from sending Special Voting Deputies to nursing homes, ordering them to instead mail ballots directly to residents during COVID lockdowns. At least 91 nursing homes reported 95–100% turnout in the Nov. 2020 election across the Democratic vote-rich Milwaukee, Dane (Madison), Brown (Green Bay), Racine, and Kenosha Counties, according to a later Special Counsel investigation ordered by the state legislature. There are roughly 92,000 Wisconsin seniors live in nursing homes statewide; the Center for Vulnerable Voters believes these shockingly high turnout rates suggest a coordinated effort by nursing home staff that violates state law. A 2021 investigation by Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling revealed nursing home staffers admitted to illegally "helping" residents fill in their ballots. The investigation was prompted by a Racine County woman who told authorities her elderly mother "didn’t have the mental capacity to vote absentee in the months leading up to her death in October [2020]." Recall that Special Voting Deputies are only allowed to assist residents who request help voting. In 2022, the Wisconsin Office of the Special Counsel found numerous elderly voters who suffering from "severe dementia" who'd cast a ballot in 2020 from their nursing home. A number of them were legally barred from voting by court order, yet voted by mail anyway. One Dane County resident had been deemed incompetent by doctors since 1972. A Brown County senior unlawfully voted twice by absentee ballot; another in the same facility submitted a ballot with a mismatched signature. The Office of the Special Counsel report concluded that the only way these elderly voters could've requested, filled out, and returned their ballots in huge numbers was with illegal assistance by—and pressure from—nursing home staff, who may have forged their signatures. And that pressure was enabled by the Wisconsin Election Commission's decision to replace Special Voting Deputies with unaccountable mail-in ballots in mid-2020. GROUND ZERO FOR ELECTION CONCERNS Under Rebecca Grill, West Allis accepted over $62,000 in "Zuck Bucks"—payments from Meta/Facebook founder and leftist mega-donor Mark Zuckerberg to the officials responsible for counting ballots—in 2020, funds used to boost voter turnout in Democrat-heavy jurisdictions nationwide. Neighboring Milwaukee took $3.4 million in Zuck bucks, the largest grant anywhere in the state. In 2020, West Allis broke 56–44% for Joe Biden over Donald Trump. It went 54–44% for Kamala Harris in 2024. The city is part of Milwaukee County, which voted 69–29% for Biden in 2020 and 68–30% for Harris in 2024. Wisconsin voters finally banned private funding for election operations in April 2024 after Democrat Gov. Tony Evers twice vetoed similar bills from the Republican-run legislature. The Center for Vulnerable Voters plans to keep a close eye on nursing homes in the upcoming April 1 election, when Wisconsinites will vote on a critical state Supreme Court seat and an initiative mandating photo ID in future elections. "In upcoming elections, election authorities must do a better job of training Special Voting Deputies and volunteers who work at polls," Roman said. "Through our Vote Fraud Hotline and our staff and volunteers on the ground, we will be monitoring." |
Link |
Government Corruption |
Trump Settles with Meta Platforms for $25 Million After Social Media Giant Suspended His Accounts in 2021 |
2025-01-31 |
[THEGATEWAYPUNDIT] President Donald Trump ...They hit him with slander, they impeached him twice. Nancy Pelosi tore up his State of the Union address on national TV. They stole an election and put his adherents in jail. They vilified him. They couldn't crucify him, so they shot him. Still, they can't keep him down... settled with Meta Platforms for $25 million after the social media giant suspended his accounts following the January 6, 2021, protests at the US Capitol. $22 million from the settlement will go to President Trump's presidential library. The rest will go to legal fees and to fellow plaintiffs who signed on to the case. Meta did not admit to any wrongdoing in the settlement. The Wall Street Journal reported that activity on the case after Mark Zuckerberg ![]() flew to Mar-a-Lago to dine with President Trump in November after his 2024 election victory. Apparently, Trump brought up the lawsuit at the end of dinner with Zuckerberg in November. Then in January, Zuckerberg met with President Trump again for a full day of mediation at Mar-a-lago. Facebook has been censoring conservative voices and the truth from reaching the masses for several years now. Obviously, this is not the only censorship case Meta is involved in. Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook eliminated up to 93% of traffic to top Pro-Trump websites following the 2016 election. The Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft testified to Congress on the oppressive Facebook policies back in 2018. The Gateway Pundit previously reported in May 2022 that Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, along with Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, filed a lawsuit (Missouri v. Biden) against the Biden Administration, including Biden himself, Anthony Fauci, the Department of Homeland Security, and nearly a dozen federal agencies and Secretaries. The suit alleges a massive coordinated effort by the Deep State to work with Big Tech to censor and manipulate Americans — from average citizens to news outlets — on issues including the Hunter Biden Laptop from Hell, 2020 Election Integrity, COVID-19 origin and extent skepticism, COVID-19 vaccine skepticism, among other issues. |
Link |
International-UN-NGOs |
Davos elite nod along as Trump delivers ultimatum |
2025-01-25 |
[BBC] World leaders, the bosses of the world's biggest companies and a sprinkling of celebrities gathered in the small Swiss mountain town of Davos for the annual World Economic Forum this week. On the other side of the Atlantic, President Donald Trump was starting his political comeback as the new US president. "Nothing will stand in our way", he declared, as he vowed to end America's "decline". Towards the end of the gathering, President Trump was beamed in straight from the White House webcam to deliver his message of world domination directly to the global elite. While he charmed, almost seduced the audience with a credible picture of a booming US economy about to scale new technological heights, he simultaneously menaced with threats of tariffs to those who did not choose to shift their factories into the US. Trillions of dollars of tariffs for the US Treasury for those businesses exporting into the US market from foreign factories. "Your prerogative" he said, with a smile not out of place in a Godfather movie. And then for one of his own, the Bank of America chief Brian Moynihan, a remarkable public lashing accusing the lending giant of "debanking" many of his conservative supporters. He awkwardly mumbled about sponsoring the World Cup. In this first week of his second term, most people at Davos were nodding along, as they cannot think what else to do, just yet. Two worlds colliding, as the 'America First' President was beamed in like a 30-foot interplanetary emperor, into the beating heart of the rules-based international economic order. It is one thing suggesting that trade deficits are a problem with your domestic electorate. It is quite another to suggest at an internationalist forum that a G7 ally, Canada, become a state of your nation, eliciting gasps in the audience, and not just from Canadians. The address was, by design, charming and offensive. There was carrot and stick for the rest of the world. As delegates absorbed the mix of threats, invites and on occasion, praise, many appeared to be trying to decide just how much Trump might damage the global trading system, whilst assessing just how far ahead his America is getting in this tech driven AI boom. Davos has been for this first week the alternative pole of the Trump second term. There was a coherence to his agenda to use every means to drive down energy prices including by pressurising the Saudis on oil. This he said would not just help to lower inflation, but also drain Russia's war coffers of oil dollars to help end the Ukraine war, by economic means. The ceasefire in the Middle East has already bought Trump some geopolitical credibility in these circles. Christine Lagarde, David Miliband, and John Kerry shuffled into the hall. Various bank chiefs assembled on stage to praise and then lightly question the President. The bottom line was this: Is president Trump serious about what sounded like campaign trail threats to the world economic system? The answer will reverberate for the next four years and beyond. The answer sounded like a most definitely, yes. However, this does not mean it is going to work. Some leading US CEOs told me that they were preparing for tit-for-tat retaliatory tariffs to be applied to their exports. Their assumption was that the President's love of a rising stock market would restrict his deployment of tariffs. But no one really knows. In any event, much is up for grabs. He has already withdrawn from the World Health Organisation. In the promenades the whisper was of his Project 2025 allies suggesting US withdrawal from the IMF and the World Bank too. The rest of the world does have some counter leverage, once it decides to get back up after the Trump whirlwind. The Canadians are now briefing on their retaliatory tariffs. In conversations with both the British business secretary and EU trade minister, Jonathan Reynolds and European Union trade chief, Maros Sefcovic, I detected a desire for calm dialogue. Both are making similar arguments to try to dissuade Trump from wider tariffs. Mr Reynolds told me that as the US does not have a goods trade deficit with the UK, there is no need for tariffs. Mr Sefcovic said that the US should really think about its services surplus too. But do they not consider the threats to G7 and Nato allies Canada and Denmark (over Greenland) to be straightforwardly unacceptable and as absurd as France claiming back Louisiana? Sefcovic did not want to whip anything up. Diplomats are making lists of US goods that Europe can now purchase to demonstrate "wins" for President Trump, from arms to gas to the magnets in wind turbines. It might make some sense for the rest of the G7 to work in unison on retaliation against the tariffs, in order to concentrate the minds of Congress, and the competing factions inside the court of Trump. There is no sign of that happening. The US tech supremacy story epitomised by the broligarchy – including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg, Apple leader Tim Cook, and Google chief Sundar Pichar - had top seats at the inauguration this week. While the US is streets ahead of Europe, its standing against China is more uncertain. One of the talks of Davos was DeepSeek's high performing, much cheaper AI model, made in China. The prediction that the tech bros would be tearing strips out of each other in the court of Trump began to come true within hours, rather than months. Meanwhile, while most, though not all, here in Davos sounded rather seduced by Trump's tech-fuelled optimism, some in Europe also see a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to attract top researchers who may be rather less than enamoured with the direction of US politics. It was openly suggested by the European Central Bank chief Christine Lagarde. Others sought solace in the fact that Europe no longer has to face Biden's massive green subsidies, creating a more level playing field again for Europe. President Trump is changing the terms of world trade. The response of the rest of the world to this is as important as what the Trump administration itself decides. |
Link |