RSD1

Of course, Trump wasn't screwing China when he just whacked them with 154% tariffs? Kettle black innit.

That’s all good, but it still comes across as Google Scholar and YouTube PhD info. I’m not saying any of your points are wrong, but it’s hard to take third-hand information too seriously. Even second-hand insights are often unreliable because they’re based on someone’s personal interpretation. You seem pretty keen on Colombia, and that’s fine, I’m just not. Sure, it has a few upsides, but there are too many downsides for me. It just feels far less balanced than a place like Thailand when you weigh the pros and cons. Like I said before, even a place like Spain would make more sense. Or spending part of the year in some of the more developed countries in Asia. For me, the ideal setup is to base yourself in a country that checks the most boxes, knowing no place is perfect, and then travel a few times a year to change the wallpaper. There’s no perfect country, and even if one came close, its climate wouldn’t be ideal year-round. That’s one of the main reasons I travel to escape the worst weather in the country I’m based in. Take Thailand for example: April and May are brutal in terms of heat, at least in my opinion. The rest of the year is mostly fine, apart from periods of extreme rain or awful air pollution. Anyway, to sum it up, anyone seriously considering Colombia really just needs to go and see it for themselves. No amount of research or advice can prepare someone for how they’ll actually feel in a place once they’re there. I’ve been to places people hated and I really liked, and the opposite has happened too. Personal preference plays a huge role in all of this. There are people who visit Thailand or Bangkok and can’t imagine living there, and yet for others, they’d rather live nowhere else.

Driving in Thailand is stressful. Would never do it for more than a day.

I’ve read your posts about Colombia and watched the video you shared about that apartment complex in the city you’re recommending. But I’m curious, have you actually been to Colombia or spent any amount of time there, or is this just anecdotal information you’ve picked up and are passing along? I don’t mean to sound judgmental, and I admit I haven’t been there myself, but my understanding is that it’s still a pretty dangerous country in many ways. Robberies seem to be common, and the crime can be physically violent, especially when someone wants something from you. That said, I’ve been curious about Colombia myself. I’ve heard good things about the people, the food, climate, and I’ve met some really nice Colombians. But I think there are still a lot of downsides to living there, and it’s not as straightforward as just low cost-of-living. Sure, it’s affordable, but so are other places like Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Ecuador, Mexico, etc, but I wouldn’t want to live in any of those places either. Unless you’re in one of the major cities in Colombia, you’re probably quite limited in terms of shopping and food choices, availability of imported goods, general lifestyle options, reliability of services, internet, and so on. And while the big cities do offer more variety, they’re also where the risks can be highest in terms of crime. On the other hand, the more remote areas might be safer, but they also risk being boring or too limited, even if they’re cheap and have a decent climate. And realistically, if you want to come and go from the country, you still have to go through those big, dangerous cities anyway. If you’re seriously suggesting Colombia as a place to live, I’d recommend digging a little deeper into the realities on the ground. There’s a guy on YouTube with a channel called "Life with David", an American with Latino roots who moved to Colombia and has been living there for a while. He’s posted a lot of very straight-up videos about life there, and he doesn’t shy away from talking about the dangers. After watching a few of his videos, I came away feeling like it’s a very edgy place to live, which kind of cooled my interest. You could probably find a similar quality of life in Spain, for example, but without all the risk. You’d be in Europe, with better infrastructure, reliable healthcare, solid services, and a more stable environment overall. Probably a better long-term option than Colombia.

DOGE Is Far Short of Its Goal, and Still Overstating Its Progress Elon Musk now says his group will produce only 15 percent of the savings it promised. But even that estimate is inflated with errors and guesswork. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has produced an accounting of impressive-sounding budget cuts using inflated and speculative figures, even claiming credit for canceling a contract that did not exist. By David A. Fahrenthold and Jeremy Singer-Vine - The reporters have been examining the details of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and its online ledger of purported savings. April 13, 2025 Last week, Elon Musk indicated for the first time that his Department of Government Efficiency was falling short of its goal. He previously said his powerful budget-cutting team could reduce the next fiscal year’s federal budget by $1 trillion, and do it by Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year. Instead, in a cabinet meeting on Thursday, Mr. Musk said that he anticipated the group would save about $150 billion, 85 percent less than its objective. Even that figure may be too high, according to a New York Times analysis of DOGE’s claims. That’s because, when Mr. Musk’s group tallies up its savings so far, it inflates its progress by including billion-dollar errors, by counting spending that will not happen in the next fiscal year — and by making guesses about spending that might not happen at all. One of the group’s largest claims, in fact, involves canceling a contract that did not exist. Although the government says it had merely asked for proposals in that case, and had not settled on a vendor or a price, Mr. Musk’s group ignored that uncertainty and assigned itself a large and very specific amount of credit for canceling it. It said it had saved exactly $318,310,328.30. Mr. Musk’s group has now triggered mass firings across the government, and sharp cutbacks in humanitarian aid around the world. Mr. Musk has justified those disruptions with two promises: that the group would be transparent, and that it would achieve budget cuts that others called impossible. Now, watching the group pare back its aims and puff up its progress, some of its allies have grown doubtful about both. “They’re just spinning their wheels, citing in many cases overstated or fake savings,” said Romina Boccia, the director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. “What’s most frustrating is that we agree with their goals. But we’re watching them flail at achieving them.” Mr. Musk’s group did not respond to questions about its claims sent via X, his social-media platform. Mr. Musk previously acknowledged the group might make errors but said they would be corrected. The White House press office defended the team, saying it had compiled “massive accomplishments,” but declined to address specific instances where the group seemed to have inflated its progress. Mr. Musk actually promised an even larger reduction last year. When he was Mr. Trump’s most prominent supporter on the campaign trail, he said he could cut $2 trillion from a federal budget of about $7 trillion. After Mr. Trump was elected and Mr. Musk’s group began its work, Mr. Musk lowered that goal to $1 trillion. Even after Mr. Musk’s comments in Thursday’s cabinet meeting, a White House official indicated that this target had not changed. Budget analysts had been deeply skeptical of these claims, saying it would be difficult to cut that much without disrupting government services even further, or drastically altering popular benefit programs like Medicare and Social Security. Mr. Musk’s group has provided an online ledger of its budget cuts, which it calls the “Wall of Receipts.” The site was last updated on Tuesday, to show an “estimated savings” of $150 billion. The ledger is riddled with omissions and flaws. While Mr. Musk said on Thursday that his group would save $150 billion in fiscal 2026 alone, the website does not say explicitly when its savings would be realized. The site also gives no identifying details about $92 billion of its claimed savings, which is more than 60 percent of the total. The rest of the savings are itemized, attributed to cancellations of specific federal grants, contracts or office leases. But these detailed listings have been plagued with data errors, which have inflated the group’s savings by billions. DOGE’s $150 Billion in Claimed Savings Is Short on Detail On its website, the Department of Government Efficiency claims to have saved $150 billion in federal spending. As of early April, however, it has provided receipt-level breakdowns for less than 40 percent of that amount. Mr. Musk’s group has deleted some of its original errors, like entries that triple-counted the same savings, a claim that confused “billion” with “million,” and items that claimed credit for canceling contracts that ended when George W. Bush was president. Still, some expensive mistakes remain. The second-largest savings that the group lists on its site comes from a canceled I.R.S. contract that DOGE says saved $1.9 billion. But the contract it cites was actually canceled when Joseph R. Biden Jr. was president. The third-largest savings that the group claims comes from a canceled grant to a vaccine nonprofit. Mr. Musk’s group says that saved $1.75 billion. But the nonprofit said it had actually been paid in full, so the savings was $0. In other cases, the itemized claims include “savings” that would not happen in fiscal 2026 — or might not happen at all. They start with the largest single savings on the group’s website. Mr. Musk’s team says it saved $2.9 billion by canceling a contract for a huge shelter in West Texas to house migrant children who crossed the border alone. That figure is pumped up by assuming things that might never happen, according to a New York Times analysis of federal contracting data and interviews with people familiar with that contract who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not permitted to discuss it with members of the media. One assumption was that the government was going to renew the contract every year for three more years. Another was that the shelter was going to hold hundreds of children every day from 2023 to 2028, triggering a higher payment rate. Both of those assumptions seem less than guaranteed, given that the number of unaccompanied child migrants began falling last year. Around the country, shelters like this had emptied out even before Mr. Trump took office. The Texas shelter had been empty since March 2024. The government paid a lower rate of $18 million per month to keep it on standby, compared to $55 million per month if the facility had been full, people familiar with the contract said. By canceling the contract, the government did save the cost of keeping the facility ready until it expired later this year. But only a fraction of that money — about $27 million — would count as savings in fiscal 2026. That was about 1 percent of the savings that Mr. Musk’s group had claimed. Nat Malkus, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said this approach — casting uncertain events as certain — was common in the data published by Mr. Musk’s group. “It’s like if your kid drops out of college, and you tell your wife, ‘Whoa, we saved money on medical school!’ Well, that doesn’t make any sense, but that’s the same idea,” Mr. Malkus said. “How do you call it savings?” In another example, Mr. Musk’s group said it had saved $285 million by canceling a contract with a South Dakota company, Project Solutions Inc., to perform safety inspections in federally subsidized apartment buildings. But that presumed the government would spend money it had not promised to spend. Robin Miller, a Project Solutions manager, said that the higher figure was calculated using a “ceiling value” — the maximum amount that the government could pay. In reality, she said, the government had agreed to pay only $29 million, of which $1.8 million had been disbursed, and another $3 million was owed for completed work. Ms. Miller said her company supported Mr. Musk’s mission, but his group had its facts wrong in this case. “If it’s not going to be used, it wasn’t truly money saved,” she said. In any event, she said, there would not have been much savings in the period Mr. Musk was focused on: The contract would end on Oct. 3, 2025, just three days into the next fiscal year. Mr. Musk’s group also claimed credit for canceling a contract that was not a contract at all. It involved a request for proposal that the Office of Personnel Management had published, seeking bids for help with human-resources work. When announcing these requests, government agencies describe the work they want done. Contractors submit proposals, with both a plan and a price. The government can choose one vendor, or several. Even after that, it often negotiates with them to push the price below their original bids. Details about this particular request were scarce: Mr. Musk’s group provided a tracking number for the request, 47QFEA24K0008. But The New York Times was not able to find that number in databases of previous government solicitations. The Office of Personnel Management declined to release the request, or say what it had planned to spend on the contract, nor would the office say when it planned to choose a contractor. Despite that uncertainty, Mr. Musk’s calculated the savings involved in that cancellation down to the cent. (It later rounded the claim to an even dollar: $318,310,328.) “Garbage,” said Steven L. Schooner, a professor who studies federal contracting at George Washington University. He said it was far too early to know for sure what the government was going to spend — especially in the year that Mr. Musk had targeted. What if the bidders competed to drive the price lower? What if a losing bidder protested, and then the whole thing got canceled? “You don’t know what’s going to happen,” Mr. Schooner said. “It’s silly.” Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/13/us/politics/doge-contracts-savings.html

Trump’s sweeping tariffs, now standing at 20% on most imports and up to 145% on Chinese goods, are meant to revive American manufacturing by making foreign products costlier and enticing firms to build factories in the US. But this plan is flawed and already buckling under economic pressure, cultural shifts, and Trump’s unpredictable leadership. Instead of bringing jobs and growth, it looks set to punish consumers and drive away investment. Prices are rising for basics like coffee, clothing, and many electronics, adding anywhere from $1,300 to $3,800 average a year to household budgets. By 2026, inflation could jump up another 1.5% from these tariffs, while tariff retaliation from China and Canada threatens 740,000 US jobs and could shave 1.3% off American GDP. Farmers are already taking a hit, too. China’s 125% tariffs on US soybean and pork exports to China are crushing rural exporters and pushing grocery prices even higher. Yet Trump still banks on a fantasy that Americans will return to factory floors and companies will risk investing billions on building plants in the US. But the economy has moved on. Services now make up 80% of American GDP, and manufacturing jobs, once 30% of employment in 1970, are down to just 8%. These jobs offer low wages, tough conditions, and little growth potential. Most workers who would be filling those types of jobs now lean toward tech, retail, or gig jobs. Automation cuts factory worker roles even further, weakening Trump’s nostalgic vision. And a new factory can cost up to $10 billion to build, a bet most CEOs will not take lightly. His constant policy reversals only add to the confusion. In 2018, tariff uncertainty froze $40 billion in new project investments. Now, US investment could drop another 15%-20%, with companies eyeing more stable countries like Singapore or Mexico. Corruption rumors make it worse. Exemptions may favor Trump donors or his international real estate partners, tilting the market. Small importers get crushed. Big firms may shift billions to fairer systems in the EU or India. Voters expected jobs and cheaper goods, but rising prices and favoritism have left many already feeling burned. So what happens if Trump's dream of American manufacturing glory just no longer fits the reality of a modern economy?

Albert Einstein: “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” --- Maher then told Bannon that he "brought a copy" of the Constitution to the show, and proceeded to read the 22nd Amendment aloud. "Amendment 22. No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice," Maher read, adding, "And yet you keep talking about Trump's — maybe you should have this," before handing the copy of the Constitution to Bannon. The former Trump advisor clarified that "President Trump didn't bring up running for a third term," and that it was himself and others who were the ones who brought up the idea. "President Trump is going to run for a third term, and President Trump is going to be elected again on the afternoon of January 20th of 2029. He's going to be President of the United States," Bannon asserted. "OK, but the thing I just read in there," Maher replied, pointing at the Constitution. "It seemed like there was no wiggle room there, it seemed like it was just, you know, eight or ten words that said only two times." Bannon told Maher that "we have a team of people" who are working on reviewing the amendment. "How can a team do something about that? I don't care if the team is twelve trillion people, the words are still the words," Maher asked. Bannon noted that there are currently "120 lawsuits on what President Trump is doing for his Article II rights," and that those who are suing Trump right now are doing so based off of their own interpretation of the Constitution. While holding up a copy of the Constitution, Bannon said, "The interpretation of this [the U.S. Constitution] is open for interpretation." "How could it be open — could I have it back?" Maher responded, reaching over to take back the copy of the Constitution he gave Bannon. The late-night host, laughing along with the audience, then went through every word of the 22nd Amendment with Bannon. "I don't see what the ‘team’ is finding," Maher told Bannon, adding that the two will just have to "disagree" on the topic. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-is-going-to-run-for-third-term-and-is-going-to-win-bannon-insists-to-bill-maher-on-january-20-2029-hes-gonna-be-president/ https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-going-run-third-term-steve-bannon-tells-bill-maher

Trump pausing tariffs on smartphone and computer components (including semiconductor chips) in his trade war with China means he’s already blinked on 25% of US imports from China, and those are among the most important products the US receives from China. The next question is whether the Chinese will back down on any of the tariffs they’ve already imposed on US goods entering China. Perhaps they won’t pause any of them at all if they decide to use this opportunity to teach the US a lesson in “The Art of War.”

There are so many opinions floating around right now about Trump's self inflicted trade war, mostly about Trump’s intentions, what he understands and what he doesn’t, what he’s trying to achieve, how much of it is ego, bullying, bravado, and so on. But at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is: when and how does this end? I think the simple answer is that it ends very soon, probably next week, because both the US financial markets and the US government’s sovereign debt markets (Treasuries) are now hemorrhaging and are in free fall, and that’s just not sustainable for more than a minute. If it’s allowed to fester for too long, it could become genuinely malignant. As for how it ends, I suspect Trump blinks first. The Chinese are in a stronger position financially and economically. They aren't facing the same financial markets carnage and can wait this out far longer than Trump or the US can, plus the Chinese are used to economic pain, whereas the US isn't. So what I think happens is Trump, pretending to be the great dealmaker, offers China an olive branch next week by announcing a 60 or 90-day pause on the tariffs, giving both sides time to negotiate a deal. Most likely, it’ll just be him kicking the can down the road with no real agreement ever to follow. But in the meantime, the markets will rally, treasury yields will settle, and he’ll be seen as being sensible, at least in the moment. As for the tariffs themselves, it buys him time to spin the narrative, confuse the American public to the point where no one really understands what’s going on anymore, eventually Americans move onto the next big news cycle topic and the whole situation fades away, more or less back to where things were before he started this trade war that he can’t possibly win. Just political theatre and market pain for nothing, but no real progress is ever made on the large trade deficit between the US and China. And the biggest losers in all this? All the investors who panicked and sold out and liquidated their financial positions, thinking the American economy was about to collapse. One other possibility is: Trump has repeatedly expressed his strong desire for the Fed to cut interest rates now, ideally by at least another full percentage point. So far, the Fed has largely ignored those signals, and there’s not much Trump can do about it legally, unless he’s willing to cross more legal lines. But if the stock market continues to tank and the sell-off in treasuries intensifies as a result of Trump’s trade war, it could eventually corner the Fed into action. If things spiral far enough, the Fed might feel compelled to step in and cut rates, effectively reviving what’s known as "The Fed Put", like what happened during the COVID crash, when emergency rate cuts turned the markets around almost overnight. That could be Trump’s hidden play in all this. Knowing he can't win a trade war with China, but if he drags this out long enough and triggers a rate cut, he could then swoop in, end the trade war, and claim victory, thus restoring confidence to the US financial markets, and inflation expectations become re-anchored again, just as rates fall. It’s speculative, but not outside the realm of possibility. If he pushes things far enough, it just might work for his agenda on cutting interest rates and perhaps he's merely using his illusive trade war with China as the red herring to do it.

I’ve seen a lot of weed sellers in Thailand offering trim and shake at very low prices. I think there’s already a consumer market for it. People on a tight budget or those who aren’t too fussed about flowers probably go for it. With trim, you don’t even need to bother grinding it, and it’s great for use in a dry herb vaporiser too. One of the sellers I buy from gave me some to try as a free sample once. It came from one of the same plants they use for their high potency flowers, and I’ve got to admit, it had really good strength. I haven’t bought any myself yet, but if you know it’s coming from a strong strain, then there’s nothing wrong with it. It should still pack a solid punch.

There are quite a few hospices up in the north. I believe there’s a fairly well-known one run by a foreigner that I’ve seen mentioned on this forum before. As for the weed side of things, that’s the easy bit. You can get that anywhere. Though smoking it probably isn’t ideal for him at this stage. The coughing alone could be rough on him, and most facilities likely wouldn’t allow it anyway since the smoke could bother other residents. The best option would be to go to one of the cannabis shops and have them brew up a strong, potent cannabis oil for him to take as an edible. That way he can dose up all day long without disturbing anyone, and live out the rest of his time in whichever hospice he prefers. Have a look at a couple of places – one called Care Resort Chiang Mai, which I think is run by a British bloke, and another called Vivobene Village, which is run by a Swiss guy.

Fully agree, I do exactly the same. In my experience, you’ll never get a completely accurate prescription from any of the shops. Any Eye Department in a hospital should be able to give you a proper one. If you’re in Bangkok and on a budget, Bangkok Christian Hospital is a good option, not expensive. Then you can order your glasses online from Zenni. They get it right every time. One other thing to keep in mind when testing for reading glasses, make sure that whatever you’re reading from is held at a distance of about 30 centimetres from your eyes. The person conducting the test might not pay much attention to that, but it’s really important because that’s the standard reading distance used to determine the correct prescription. You can use a book, phone screen or anything similar, just make sure the print is relatively small and held at 30 centimetres. That should give you a reliable result.

I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories unless there’s some basis for them. Just pulling things out of a hat, asking “why this” or “why that,” without logic or common sense doesn’t get us anywhere. I don’t have the answer, and neither does anyone else except the prosecutors and law enforcement involved. But I assume there’s a good reason we’re at this point, or the case wouldn’t have moved forward. Most likely, the women didn’t feel safe coming forward individually because they didn’t want their lives torn apart. But once they realized others had similar experiences and they could come forward together, they were probably more emboldened. We’re all making assumptions here because we don’t know the full story, but there’s likely a reasonable explanation, possibly shame, fear, or not wanting to derail their own lives. Also, many rape cases come down to one person’s word against another’s. But when four women come forward independently with corroborating stories, the case becomes stronger and is taken more seriously. As for the evidence, I would assume there’s more than just testimony. If charges are being brought two decades later, there must be something more substantial than just personal accounts. We’ll have to wait and see. But I wouldn’t second guess the prosecution or dismiss the possibility of a conviction simply because the alleged crimes happened 20 years ago. Murder is murder, rape is rape, and a crime is still a crime, regardless of how much time has passed.

I should have mentioned this from the start for its literary quality, somehow I had forgotten: Michel Houllebecq’s controversial novel entitled "Platform". Summary below: Platform (French: Plateforme) is a 2001 novel by French writer Michel Houellebecq (translated into English by Frank Wynne). It has received both great praise and great criticism, most notably for the novel's apparent condoning of sex tourism and Islamophobia. After describing Islam as "the most stupid religion" in a published interview about the book, Houellebecq was charged for inciting racial and religious hatred but the charges were ultimately dismissed, as it has been ruled that the right to free speech encompasses the right to criticize religions. The novel and its author have been deemed "prophetic" or "prescient", as the last part depicts an Islamic terrorist attack which bears strong similarities with the bombings in Bali in October 2002, about a year later (and the novel was published on 27 August 2001, a few days before the 11 September 2001 attacks). A similar coincidence, involving Houellebecq, Islam and terrorism, would occur 13 years later, when his novel Submission, dealing with Islam again (although in a more nuanced and less confrontational way), was published on 7 January 2015, the day of the Charlie Hebdo shooting. --- The story is the first-person narrative of a fictional character named Michel Renault, a Parisian civil servant who, after the death of his father and thanks to a hefty inheritance, engages in sex tourism in Thailand, where he meets a travel agent named Valérie. Valérie and Renault begin an affair, and, after moving back to France, hatch a plan with Valérie's boss (who works in the travel industry in the Aurore group, an allusion to the real-life Accor group) to launch a new variety of package holiday called "friendly tourism", implicitly aimed at Europeans looking for a sexual experience whilst on vacation. Single men and women—and even couples—are to be targeted, and would vacation in specially designed "Aphrodite Clubs". Initially, the name "Venus clubs"—an allusion to the Villa Venus clubs dreamed of by Eric Veen in Vladimir Nabokov's classic Ada or Ardor—is suggested, but is rejected as being too explicit. It is decided that Thailand is the best location for the new clubs, with the advertising making it clear that Thai women would also be easily available. The tours are to be marketed predominantly to German consumers, as it is perceived that there will be less moral outrage in Germany than in France. Michel, Valérie and her boss Jean-Yves travel to Thailand on one of their company's tours incognito and enjoy an idyllic holiday. They decide that they will move to Thailand permanently, to perpetuate the bliss they experience there. However, towards the end of their holiday, Muslim extremists commit a terrorist act in which Valérie is killed. Michel is left bereft, and at the end of the novel he travels back to Thailand to die.

Of maybe he will be room mates with Tommy Robinson pretty soon.

This is a criminal case. There is no financial benefit to anyone resulting from the outcome of this prosecution. Why would anyone question the intentions of the women? They are putting their own personal safety on the line by coming forward, full stop. If the allegations are true then they are certainly doing the right thing and making big personal sacrifices. And if the allegations are false then they are only screwing up their own lives for no good reason. I can't see any benefit to these women coming forward, whether he is guilty or not. Either way they lose. So the conspiracy theories suggesting they are lying or fabricating stories makes no sense on any level.

More conspiracies. Brand also went on a bizarre rant about the Government, Britain’s legal system and corruption. Detective Superintendent Andy Furphy said: "The women who have made reports continue to receive support from specially trained officers. "The Met's investigation remains open and detectives ask anyone who has been affected by this case, or anyone who has any information, to come forward and speak with police. "A dedicated team of investigators is available via email at CIT[at]met.police.uk. "Support is also available by contacting the independent charity, Rape Crisis at 24/7 Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Line." Jaswant Narwal, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "We have today authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Russell Brand with a number of sexual offences. "We carefully reviewed the evidence after a police investigation into allegations made following the broadcast of a Channel 4 documentary in September 2023. "We have concluded that Russell Brand should be charged with offences including rape, sexual assault and indecent assault. "These relate to reported non-recent offences between 1999 and 2005, involving four women. "He will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court for a first hearing on Friday May 2, 2025. "The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that criminal proceedings are active, and the defendant has the right to a fair trial. "It is extremely important that there be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings." https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/34288679/russell-brand-breaks-silence/

For the Trump supporters here who think there’s bias in any of the responses above, you can take the question from the subject header of this topic, run it through any AI model yourself, and see what you get. The answer will come out the same no matter which political party one supports. It’s a hypothetical question, and the responses from AI aren’t based on personal political beliefs.

How much of the following is already in play now, and where? ChatGPT's answer: That’s a heavy but thought-provoking question. If we’re exploring this as a theoretical or fictional scenario, maybe as a plot for a story or a political thought experiment, then it would make sense to look at it through the lens of plausible actions that could systematically weaken or destabilize a powerful nation from the top down. Here are some steps such a leader might take: 1. Undermine Institutions Attack the credibility of key institutions like the judiciary, free press, intelligence agencies, and electoral systems. Cast doubt on their integrity to erode public trust. 2. Polarize the Population Stoke division along racial, religious, economic, or ideological lines. Encourage tribalism and turn groups against each other to create internal chaos and distrust. 3. Corrupt the Rule of Law Appoint loyalists instead of qualified professionals, weaken checks and balances, pardon allies indiscriminately, and ignore legal norms. 4. Suppress Dissent Use state power to silence critics, intimidate journalists, and limit free expression. Target whistleblowers and protestors under the guise of national security or public order. 5. Destroy Alliances Withdraw from international treaties, insult allies, and cozy up to adversaries. Undermine global credibility and weaken strategic partnerships. 6. Tank the Economy Implement reckless fiscal or trade policies, stir up investor fear, ignore inflation or debt, and mismanage crises to trigger recessions or long-term decline. 7. Exploit National Emergencies Use crises like pandemics, wars, or economic collapses to seize more power, suspend civil liberties, and push through unpopular or extreme policies. 8. Weaken the Military Undermine the chain of command, politicize the military, purge experienced leaders, or engage in reckless conflicts that sap strength and morale. 9. Manipulate Elections Interfere with voting systems, suppress voter turnout, question results, or delay elections to create uncertainty or justify emergency rule. 10. Encourage Conspiracy and Disinformation Flood public discourse with false narratives to confuse people, distort reality, and make truth seem subjective or unknowable. --- Grok's answer: A president intent on destroying their own superpower would likely focus on undermining its core strengths—economic stability, military power, social cohesion, and global influence. Here’s a hypothetical breakdown of steps they might take: 1. Economic Sabotage: Push policies that tank the economy—massive, unsustainable debt through reckless spending or tax cuts with no plan to balance it, devalue the currency by meddling with central bank independence, or impose crippling trade barriers that alienate allies and disrupt supply chains. Encourage corruption to drain public funds and erode trust in institutions. 2. Military Weakening: Slash defense budgets without strategy, abandon key alliances like NATO, or pull troops from critical global hotspots, leaving a vacuum for rivals to exploit. Neglect infrastructure like naval fleets or cyber defenses, and leak sensitive intel to adversaries under the guise of “transparency.” 3. Social Division: Amplify cultural rifts by picking fights over divisive issues, weaponizing media to pit groups against each other—race, class, religion, whatever works. Undermine education with propaganda or defunding, ensuring a less capable future workforce. Ignore or exacerbate public health crises to sow chaos. 4. Institutional Erosion: Appoint loyalists over competence to key positions—judges, generals, agency heads—turning government into a personal fiefdom. Attack the rule of law by pardoning cronies, ignoring court rulings, or rigging elections. Dismantle checks and balances by bullying Congress or the press into submission. 5. Global Isolation: Pick pointless fights with allies, cozy up to hostile powers, and ditch international agreements—trade, climate, security—leaving the country friendless and exposed. Project weakness by botching responses to crises, inviting opportunists to test borders or influence. 6. Infrastructure Collapse: Let roads, bridges, power grids, and tech networks rot through neglect or outright sabotage. Block disaster relief or recovery efforts, turning natural setbacks into permanent scars. The result? A superpower gutted from within—broke, divided, defenseless, and irrelevant. Historically, no leader’s pulled this off single-handedly; it’d take a mix of intent, incompetence, and a complicit or apathetic system. Look at cases like Venezuela under Maduro—hyperinflation, exodus, and isolation—or Rome’s later emperors fiddling while barbarians closed in. Self-destruction’s a slow burn, not a switch flip.

Has anyone read Lawrence Osborne's novel the Glass Kingdom, published in 2020, and which is set in Bangkok? It follows an American woman who arrives in the city with a suitcase full of cash, hiding out in a luxurious yet eerie apartment complex—the “Glass Kingdom” of the title. The story unfolds against the backdrop of Bangkok’s chaotic energy, blending suspense with Osborne’s signature atmospheric prose. This novel reflects his deep familiarity with the city, where he has resided for years. Synopsis: Escaping New York for the anonymity of Bangkok, Sarah Mullins arrives in Thailand on the lam with nothing more than a suitcase of purloined money. Her plan is to lie low and map out her next move in a high-end apartment complex called the Kingdom, whose glass-fronted façade boasts views of the bustling city and glimpses into the vast honeycomb of lives within. It is not long before she meets the alluring Mali doing laps in the apartment pool, a fellow tenant determined to bring the quiet American out of her shell. An invitation to Mali’s weekly poker nights follows, and—fueled by shots of yadong, good food, and gossip—Sarah soon falls in with the Kingdom’s glamorous circle of ex-pat women. But as political chaos erupts on the streets below and attempted uprisings wrack the city, tensions tighten within the gilded compound. When the violence outside begins to invade the Kingdom in a series of strange disappearances, the residents are thrown into suspicion: both of the world beyond their windows and of one another. And under the constant surveillance of the building’s watchful inhabitants, Sarah’s safe haven begins to feel like a snare. From a master of atmosphere and mood, The Glass Kingdom is a brilliantly unsettling story of civil and psychological unrest, and an enthralling study of karma and human greed. --- I've also come across 5 more fairly recent titles, but haven't read any of these either: 1 - Bangkok Wakes to Rain by Pitchaya Sudbanthad (2019) This debut novel by a Thai-American author is a lyrical, multi-generational tale centered on Bangkok. It weaves together stories across time—past, present, and a speculative future—exploring the city’s evolution through its people, from missionaries and aristocrats to modern residents facing floods and urban decay. 2 - A Good True Thai by Sunisa Manning (2020) Set in 1970s Thailand, including Bangkok, this novel follows three young characters—students from vastly different backgrounds—caught up in the political upheaval of the time. Manning, a Thai-American writer, crafts a poignant coming-of-age story with a sharp eye for cultural and historical detail. Its focus on personal and societal tension though it leans more historical than suspenseful. 3 - The King of Bangkok by Claudio Sopranzetti, Sara Fabbri, and Chiara Natalucci (2021, English edition) This graphic novel, rooted in ethnographic research, follows a blind man’s journey from rural Thailand to Bangkok, culminating in the 2010 Red Shirt protests. The artwork and narrative combine to create a gritty, immersive portrait of the city’s underbelly and political strife. 4 - Comrade Aeon’s Field Guide to Bangkok by Emma Larkin (2021) Written by a pseudonymous author with deep ties to Thailand, this novel intertwines the lives of characters across generations, from a revolutionary recluse to a maid haunted by a construction site’s ghosts. Set in Bangkok, it’s a slow-burn narrative with lush prose and a keen sense of place, exploring resistance, memory, and urban transformation. 5 - All at Sea by Julian Sayarer (2017) This novel takes place partly in Thailand, including Bangkok, following a British cyclist reflecting on his travels and a lost love. Sayarer’s introspective, poetic writing captures the sensory overload of Thai settings with a melancholic edge.

A couple of the authors I enjoyed when I first discovered Thailand were Collin Piprell, Dean Barrett and Roger Crutchley. They weren't literary geniuses, but their writing was lighthearted and entertaining. I'm trying to remember some of the other early authors that I read back then, but drawing a blank. One of my favorite travel writing authors was Pico Iyer. He wasn't a fictional writer per se, but he wrote non-fiction with a real fiction kind of flare. I would say some of his writing was some of the best back then.

From Hong Kong? The tattoos on the man in the image appear to be inspired by traditional Japanese Irezumi. The bold, intricate patterns covering his chest, shoulders, and arms resemble classic Japanese full-body or sleeve tattoos, often associated with Yakuza culture. These designs typically feature mythological creatures, koi fish, samurai, and other elements deeply rooted in Japanese tattoo tradition. His tattoos have swirling patterns, floral elements, and possibly mythical or traditional imagery, further reinforcing the connection to Irezumi. Japanese tattoos are known for their detailed and colorful designs, frequently covering large areas of the body, such as the chest, back, and arms. They often incorporate motifs like koi fish, dragons, and cherry blossoms, all of which align with the style seen here. The use of bold lines and shading also points to this cultural origin.

Have you given any Indian "Microsoft Support" call center (scammers) remote access to your computer to "fix" anything lately? Install and run Malwarebytes. Then disable that temporarily and install and run TrendMicro. See if either of those finds anything. After done with both, remove Trendmicro and keep Malwarebytes running. If still having problems you could try Hitman Pro, which offers a fully functional (30-day free trial) that cleans malware, viruses, trojans, worms, keyloggers, rootkits, trackers, spyware and more. https://hitmanpro.com