The Genshin Impact 4.7 update introduced the Endless Forms Most Martial Event, and this guide will explore how this event works and what team comps are best for each stage. Table of contentsGenshin Impact: Endless Forms Most Martial Event guideEndless Forms Most Martial Event rewardsBest team comps for Endless Forms Most Martial EventChallenge 1Challenge 2Challenge 3Challenge 4Challenge 5Challenge 6 Genshin Impact: Endless Forms Most Martial Event guide Screenshot: PC Invasion Running from June 25 to July 1, the Endless Forms Most Martial Event has you picking the correct team comps to defeat enemies according to specific objectives. If you don’t defeat those enemies according to the challenge objective, you won’t pass. Screenshot: PC Invasion There are also three difficulty levels in each stage, allowing you to earn plenty of rewards. The higher the difficulty, the less time you have to complete the objectives. Screenshot: PC Invasion There’...

The Retro Warfare event in MW3 is a pretty easy one to allow players to enjoy the game and benefit from a list of great rewards. Table of contentsAll Retro Warfare event challenges and rewards MW3How to unlock the Bit Blaster blueprint in MW3 and MWZBest game modes to play to complete Retro Warfare in MW3 All Retro Warfare event challenges and rewards MW3 Screenshot: PC Invasion The Retro Warfare event is a simple one in MW3, as all you have to do is earn XP. As you hit XP milestones you’ll earn new cosmetic rewards themed around the retro style. Do note that if you play with one of the 8-Bit skins (that must be purchased with real money), you’ll earn an extra 5,000 XP per match whilst the event is active. Here is the full list of rewards for the Retro Warfare event, alongside the XP needed to earn them: Retro Warfare RewardXP neededDisc Data weapon sticker10,000 XPRetro Warfare emblem20,500 XP45-minute double Battle Pass XP token37,200 XPStage Select c...

The Scadutree Chalice in Shadow of The Erdtree is an interesting place due to its collection of Scadutree fragments and weird purpose. Here is how you can reach it easily in Elden Ring. Getting to the Scadutree Chalice You’ll want to reach this area as soon as you can. The Scadutree Chalice location in Shadow of The Erdtree is home to a ton of Scadutree Fragments, ripe for the picking. However, getting there is no easy task and will require quite a few steps to reach it. From Moorth Ruins to Shadow Keep The full guide on how to reach Shadow Keep, Back Entrance can be found here. It will also help you to gain access to the hidden Scaduview area. In brief, follow these instructions. Getting to the Back Entrance of Shadow Keep will require you to make your way through the Moorth Ruins and Bonny Village. Leaving Bonny Village, make your way to the entrance of Shadow Keep by heading Northwest. You will eventually come to a huge cave entrance leading to the flooded secti...

Site has no Description

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has reacted to Wednesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the Murthy v. Missouri case, to call for new legislation that would, going forward, reinforce the rules, already contained in the First Amendment, meant to protect citizens from government-orchestrated censorship. Jordan, whose Committee is probing alleged government-Big Tech collusion in violation of the First Amendment through the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, noted that the US Constitution’s First Amendment is “first for a reason.” According to the Republican congressman, free speech that this amendment protects (from government intervention) should extend to any government infringement – be it in Congress, or online. Jordan said that while respectfully disagreeing with the SCOTUS ruling the Committee’s own oversight “has shown the need for legislative reforms.” “While we respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision, our investigation has shown the need for legislative reforms, such as the Censorship Accountability Act, to better protect Americans harmed by the unconstitutional censorship-industrial complex,” Jordan wrote in a statement. In other words, the increasingly pressing issue of how the government “interacts” with social platforms (because of their massive reach and therefore influence among the electorate) should be put into the hands of courts and their interpretations based on new and clear legislation to guide those decisions. The Judiciary Committee chairman mentioned the Censorship Accountability Act – a bill that would let citizens launch legal action against federal employees suspected of colluding to suppress free speech. Regardless of the SCOTUS decision, Jordan pledged that the Committee’s “important work will continue” – stating that the Subcommittee’s thus far “uncovered how and the extent to which the Biden Administration engaged in a censorship campaign in violation of the First Amendment.” Murthy v. Missouri – which sought to give the plaintiffs the right to pursue their legal case against the government, alleging it pressured social media to censor online user content, was thrown out by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling as “lacking standing to sue.” At the same time, the court canceled – at a particularly sensitive time, mere months before the upcoming US presidential election – an injunction that limited the way the government can “interact” with social platforms regarding a range of issues. The collusion allegations for the most part refer to activities and communications between the government and Big Tech in the context of the previous vote that resulted in the installment of the current US administration. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Free Speech Legislation Gains Attention Following Supreme Court Siding with Biden in Social Media Censorship Case appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Recently the news arrived that what opponents see as a key linchpin in the government-Big Tech censorship collusion, the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), was winding back its operations. But before it does, the House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government want to gain access to information requested through a previous subpoena. On Monday, Chairman Jim Jordan sent a letter to SIO’s legal representative, the main point being the Committee’s desire to make sure that neither SIO, other groups operating as part of the university, nor any group that might succeed SIO will continue with their “disinformation studies” ahead of the 2024 presidential election. We obtained a copy of the letter for you here. Jordan recalled that the subpoena was issued in April 2023, after the group failed to voluntarily provide requested information meant to help the Committee’s oversight of alleged past collusion. However, SIO (Stanford) failed to respond to the subpoena in time. Jordan goes into what type of information was requested: Stanford working with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) and in the process using Jira to send censorship recommendations to online platforms, for the sake of content “moderation.” The Committee wanted access to relevant Jira ticketing data and other documents. Under threat of being held in contempt, this eventually started happening, and, Jordan writes, “The Committee found that there were dozens of examples of EIP personnel, including then-Director of SIO Alex Stamos, making explicit recommendations to platforms for specific enforcement measures.” Prior to this, the SIO and EIP denied making this type of recommendation, and there is now obviously little trust, to put it mildly, in the Committee’s approach to the activities of these groups (Jordan mentions their “repeated false and/or misleading” past statements). With that in mind and given the news of SIO’s “disbanding,” but also “reconstituting” in some manner, the letter wants to make sure that the “reconstituted remnants” don’t resume with their involvement in censoring lawful speech ahead of an election. “The Committee’s subpoena to Stanford University is continuing in nature, and the instructions and definitions accompanying the subpoena make clear that relevant documents and information related to the SIO – and its ‘successors’ – are within the scope of the subpoena,” Jordan warns in the letter. In order to ensure compliance, the Committee wants to know if SIO or some successor, or another Stanford University entity, will “participate or otherwise support the Election Integrity Partnership” as well as if they will “participate or otherwise support any monitoring, analysis, or research of Americans’ election-related speech in the lead-up to the 2024 election.” Further questions about the same current or future groups concern their intent, or lack thereof, “to work with, or intend to work with, any social media or technology companies regarding the monitoring or moderation of Americans’ election-related speech online,” and – “Will the SIO, any successor to the SIO, or any other entity within Stanford University provide recommendations to social media or technology companies to remove or otherwise censor Americans’ election-related speech in the lead-up to the 2024 election.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Jim Jordan Investigates Stanford Internet Observatory Monitoring Election Speech for 2024 appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

A Cautionary Tale of WhatsApp, Meta and Data Mining LizardMen

Brutal Border Crisis Ad to Air During Debate

During CBS Mornings’ “Changing the Game” series Wednesday morning, hosts highlighted the gender-inclusive clothing brand Dapper Boi. The brand was started by a butch girl who liked dressing like a boy but couldn’t find mens clothes to fit her body…because she’s a girl. “Our series ‘Changing the Game’ highlights extraordinary women making a difference and for June’s pride month we’re celebrating members of the lgbtq+ community. We’re introducing you to Dapper Boi, gender neutral, size inclusive line created by married couple Charisse and Vicky Pasche,” CBS Mornings host Tony Dokoupil cheerfully said. As with most lesbian relationships, the one that dressed, looked and acted more like the male of the relationship, Vicky, talked about her struggle to find clothes that fit her body in the men's department. Yeah, it really was my own personal journey shopping in the men's department. Once I was comfortable enough to do that, which is kind of a crazy experience socially, you know, are the clothes going to fit, it was everything to me. Those clothes exactly represented my inside on the outside. But I realized down the line and more so what my fashionista wife over here pointed out that the clothes really never fit my body. The wife, Charisse, talked about how it was a “privilege for someone like myself to take clothes off the rack and it fits,” noting that for Vicky, a “plus sized” woman who wants to dress in men's clothes, it's much more challenging. The wives joked about how the idea for the gender-neutral clothing line was “conceived” on their honeymoon. “Most people conceive their first child on their honeymoon, and we conceived our first baby which is Dapper Boi,” Chariesse said. “Because Vicky, you said you didn’t feel comfortable in the men or the women’s section,” host Gayle King chimed in. Vicky said “I’m a plus-sized person” before noting that “if I were to try on the men’s like highest sized jeans, I’d have to go on really two sizes too bug. They’d still be just frumpy and loose in all the wrong places.” Host Vladimir Duthiers said, “you say the brand isn’t about genders but about bodies,” before pointing towards a few mannequins in Dapper Boi outfits. Vicky talked about how at regular department stores, “you literally have two options –- the men's section and the women's section. We don't think about it, [it’s] just what it is. But really it’s just embedded with these societal rules and norms based on your gender. And we're looking to break that. Our goal is to be the next Levi's of all gender fashion.” Hosts praised the success of the “multimillion dollar business” that “started on the honeymoon.” “We’re inspiring people, changing people lives everyday,” Vicky said. “Bravo Pasches. Congratulations,” King concluded. Good God. When is CBS Mornings going to stop shoving woke crap and gender garbage down our throats and give airtime to things people actually care about?

During Tuesday night’s episode of The 11th Hour, MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle showed a pre-recorded segment of her interview with Senator Joe Manchin (I-WV) and his daughter Heather Bresch at the Aspen Ideas Festival. Throughout the interview, Manchin explained his decision to leave the Democratic Party and called out the media as responsible for the drastic political polarization in the U.S. Ruhle asked Manchin for his opinion on the root cause of political polarization, which the senator insisted was the fault of “you all,” meaning the media. In response, the host shouted a censored expletive and told the senator, “Wrong answer!”  However, Manchin stood his ground and suggested that “You all should be paying Donald Trump royalties. You have him on every minute of every day, all day long, seven days a week.” He also chided Ruhle and pointed out that the news has the “ability to sensationalize bad behavior”, adding that “it used to be if it bleeds it reads, and now if it's sensational, you put it on.”     “I can't take it anymore, I turn on Life Below Zero up in Alaska just to get through the night,” Manchin joked. Manchin illustrated the disunity in American politics as the direct result of the “toxic” weaponization of the Republican and Democratic parties: You know, if you’re on one side you’re supposed to hate the other. But if you're a Democrat you’re supposed to hate Republicans, if you’re a Republican you’re supposed to hate Democrats. I don't hate anybody. They’re all my friends and I thought, well, the best way to love both of them, be an independent and talk to both of them. He also revealed that even though he had always identified as a Democrat out of loyalty to his grandfather, he never “subscribed” to either side and disagreed with certain issues regardless of the party. “I have never looked at politics as far as a partisan issue or Democrat, Republican. Never have,” he affirmed. Manchin expressed his disappointment with the devolvement of the Democrat Party and its aggressive shift to the far-left. Furthermore, he told Ruhle that it reached a point where it was impossible for him to continue to defend Democratic policies to his home state of West Virginia and doing so would be a violation of his core principles: Yeah, went too far to the left for me, basically, to go home and defend. I’ve always said this, you know, you are who you are, no matter where you were raised, how you were raised, and who raised you. No matter what station in life you are today–God bless everybody–but you still think about how you were raised, where you were raised, and who raised you. And can you go back home and talk to them? Well, if I can’t go home and explain it, I can’t vote for it. I can't support it. And it moves so far to the left, there's a lot of things I could not vote for or support. For her part, Bresch outlined a comprehensive plan to increase political involvement for independent voters and allow for “more responsible representation”: But if we opened primaries and gave the ability to have ranked choice or immediate runoff in the general election, I think it is the most proven way to level the playing field of parties. It's not saying you’re anti-party. You get one ballot for a primary, you see Republican, Independent, Democratic candidates, you vote for one. Then the top four, the top five go to the general election and you rank the order of whom you like…We know that it allows more people the opportunity to get involved and it allows more responsible representation. Towards the end of the segment, Ruhle essentially proved his point about the media by repeatedly pressing Manchin for a Joe Biden endorsement, though he refused to submit to the pressure and declared his intention to pull the president back to the center. “I think those of us who’ve known Joe Biden for a long time would like to see the Joe Biden we've known,” he stated. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s The 11th Hour 6/25/2024 11:37:48 PM EST [Cuts to video] STEPHANIE RUHLE: You know, I'm going to start with the obvious question, Senator. What made you decide to make this move, what couldn’t you do as a Democrat in office, that made you make this decision just a few months ago? SEN. JOE MANCHIN (I-WV): Well, both brands have become so toxic because they’ve basically been weaponized. You know, if you’re on one side you’re supposed to hate the other. But if you're a Democrat you’re supposed to hate Republicans, if you’re a Republican you’re supposed to hate Democrats. I don't hate anybody. They’re all my friends and I thought, well, the best way to love both of them, be an independent and talk to both of them because... RUHLE: And do you think that's how they took it? MANCHIN: Well, let me just say this. Not having a brand and you’re speaking to them, they’re not looking at you through colored–rose-colored glasses like you’re trying to pull something over on them. They know me well enough. But it’s with that it’s made it hard.  There's a lot of things I didn't agree with and there’s a lot–and someone said “Why don’t you be a Republican?” Well, there's a lot of things I don't agree with on the Republican side. But what happens is that you get to Washington and you got to pick a side. Well, I never subscribed to that, even though I had a “D” by my name all my life.  They said, “Why are you Democrat?” I said, “Well, I guess my grandfather was very [impressed with?] FDR back in the coal mining days of 1930’s of West Virginia–kinda gave him a start and helped him and everything–so, out of loyalty, you know, I never thought anything.  I have never looked at politics as far as a partisan issue or Democrat, Republican. Never have. RUHLE: Did you feel like you couldn’t be a Democrat representing West Virginia or did you feel like the Democratic Party went too far to the left… MANCHIN: Went too far. RUHLE: …for Joe Manchin. MANCHIN: Yeah, went too far to the left for me, basically, to go home and defend. I’ve always said this, you know, you are who you are, no matter where you were raised, how you were raised, and who raised you. No matter what station in life you are today–God bless everybody–but you still think about how you were raised, where you were raised, and who raised you. And can you go back home and talk to them? Well, if I can’t go home and explain it, I can’t vote for it. I can't support it. And it moves so far to the left, there's a lot of things I could not vote for or support. [Transition] RUHLE: Heather, you call the silent majority, the sensible majority and I believe a lot of people here aren't the disaffected voter but they are part of the sensible majority who thinks, “I guess the system doesn't work,” but they want it to. So let's get practical on what has to get done. HEATHER BRESCH: Yeah. So, I think, as you said, we all recognize it's broken, how can we fix it? Or, there's tangible steps to take and I think there is hope and a light at the end of the tunnel.  So, after kinda diving deep, it became very clear, the point dad was just making, there is zero infrastructure in Washington, D.C., for anybody that wants to be center-right, center-left, or an independent. There's no place to come have a cup of coffee with Senator Manchin, or Senator Murkowski, or Senator Romney, if you’re Jared Golden or Marie Perez, that want to stay moderate, to have help writing op-eds, to have just infrastructure, fundraising, that the parties offer. Not just the parties, but I'm talking almost college campuses, for dinner, for all your needs. So, there's a huge vacuum white space there. So, that is needed to be filled, for sure, a center for the center. I think structurally, it's totally nonpartisan.  But if we opened primaries and gave the ability to have ranked choice or immediate runoff in the general election, I think it is the most proven way to level the playing field of parties. It's not saying you’re anti-party. You get one ballot for a primary, you see Republican, Independent, Democratic candidates, you vote for one. Then the top four, the top five go to the general election and you rank the order of whom you like. We know it moderates, we know that's the only reason Senator Murkowski is in the Senate, from Alaska. We know that it allows more people the opportunity to get involved and it allows more responsible representation. [Transition] RUHLE: How did we become so polarized? Was it our politicians that saw the– MANCHIN: To me, it's you all. RUHLE: Oh, [Bleep], wrong answer! BRESCH: That's funny. RUHLE: But that could be, right? Is it media, is it politicians, or is it the American people? Like, what is the root cause of it? MANCHIN: You all should be paying Donald Trump royalties.  RUHLE: Yeah. MANCHIN: You have him on every minute of every day, all day long, seven days a week. [Applause] BRESCH: But let me–I guess I’ll say this… RUHLE: Hold on a minute. Like, I get that that gets applause. BRESCH: Before we get to… RUHLE: Ready?  MANCHIN: (Laughs). RUHLE: Hold on. He's a former president of the United States, who just sat at a criminal trial and was convicted of 34 felonies. What do you think should be on the news? [Input from audience] BRESCH: They’re saying back in 2015, 2016. MANCHIN: Whenever. I’m just saying this. The bottom line is, you all have the ability to sensationalize bad behavior, okay? Because it used to be if it bleeds it reads, and now if it's sensational, you put it on. RUHLE: There’d be nothing to sensationalize if the behavior wasn’t bad. MANCHIN: I know. But I’m just saying, I gotta–I can't take it anymore, I turn on Life Below Zero up in Alaska just to get through the night. RUHLE: (Laughs). [Transition] RUHLE: Help us understand who that West Virginia voter is because it's in your state where you’ve seen that anger, where you saw all of the support, you know those grievance voters.  MANCHIN: Right. RUHLE: Where did that come from, and where did your party miss the mark so much? Because, again, before politics, it's about respect and dignity? MANCHIN: The West Virginia Democrats felt like the returning Vietnam veteran. We have done every–taken every order you have given us and we've done everything you asked. We never said no, we did the heavy lifting, and now we’re not good enough, clean enough, bright enough, smart enough. You don’t want us at all, you’ve just thrown us to the side. They just flip continuously.  So, I will say this about Joe Biden. He took that to heart and I said, “Mr. President, you cannot leave anybody behind.” So, we wrote some of these bills that we have, the REA [inaudible] and some of them. We have done that, where you get a boost if you go into an area where that–we’re not using the resources anymore, whether it be coal or different things. Those areas have to be able to–be able to sustain themselves. And that wasn’t done. That's how we flipped so quick. We didn’t ever flip that quick. It's never been done in our history of our country. RUHLE: So, are you voting for him in November? MANCHIN: Who? RUHLE: Joe Biden, who you just… MANCHIN: No, I voted for him–no, I voted for him last time.  RUHLE: No. Will you vote for him this November? MANCHIN: I’m gonna be voting. I'm trying to bring my buddy back to the middle. I'm just working hard. Pulling him back. RUHLE: And, so, you will vote for him? MANCHIN: I’m gonna be pulling him back to the middle.  [Laughs] MANCHIN: I said, I love my country too much to vote for Donald Trump. And I know–I know Donald real well but I just think that, you know, the transfer–orderly transfer of power, the rule of law, the love we should have for our judicial system, it's still the best in the world and he tried to basically just destroy those two. It's just–it’s more than I can take. But with that… [Applause] MANCHIN: …but with that, but with that, I think those of us who’ve known Joe Biden for a long time would like to see the Joe Biden we've known. (...)