Initially, much of Star Wars Hunters will have you unlocking things like the character roster. However, the game also features many modes that need to be earned. To discover all the game modes in Star Wars Hunters and how to unlock them, follow along. Star Wars Hunters: All game modes explained, and how to unlock them Each mode will require you to grind first. But, as long as you play with friends and keep things coordinated, unlocking all the modes should be a breeze.  Before you start going in guns blazing, it’s a good idea to learn what all the modes are, and how they play. Because if you do, leveling up and unlocking more items will occur more. Image: Zynga All mode explained Since Star Wars Hunters is a live service game, you can expect more content including modes to drop later. But for now, we can have four options to pick from. What I like about the mobile game is that all the modes feel different and can stand on their own. By reading on, you may land on t...

In recent days, Chinese internet users have found themselves unable to edit their social media profiles. The seemingly inexplicable phenomenon happens every year in China in the days leading up to June 4, to the consternation of the young and uninitiated. “They’re so strict during the university entrance exam period,” wrote one Chinese user, referring to a nationwide standardized test scheduled for June 7 and 8 that largely will determine whether and where high school seniors continue their academic pursuits. Similar comments blaming the inability to edit profiles on security measures related to the exam have been seen across the social media landscape. That these individuals can’t think of any other reason for heightened sensitivity this time of year exposes the naïve innocence of a population cohort still ignorant of the horrors that the government inflicted on its own people on June 4, 1989—the real reason for the social media disruptions. Today is the 35th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.  Each year at this time, the communist regime closes some buildings and public services around the famed public square in Beijing. Virtual private networks, or VPNs, used by many educated Chinese to circumvent the country’s “Great Firewall,” mysteriously stop working. Across China, high-profile dissidents are rounded up and detained. Previous years saw reports of dissidents being forced to take all-expense-paid vacations under the watchful eye of government handlers. The Chinese government goes to a lot of effort to make people forget June 4. Perhaps too much effort—ironically, its bizarre behavior during this period is itself a form of commemoration and makes it hard for the rest of us to forget. When I lived in Beijing, I always knew the Tiananmen anniversary was near when I started seeing increased police presence near university campuses and officers near the city center armed with assault rifles instead of the standard-issue batons police usually carry. Clearly Beijing is petrified of June 4, and with good reason. The massacre is perhaps the blackest mark on the Chinese Communist Party’s record, even more unforgivable than the Great Leap Forward that caused the greatest manmade famine in recorded history and the Cultural Revolution that pushed the entire country into a decade of chaos. Those resulted from policy failures and intraparty power struggles. But this was the People’s Liberation Army opening fire on unarmed civilians—many of them students with promising futures. The Chinese people were shocked that their government would kill its own citizens in cold blood. So divisive was the Chinese Communist Party’s decision to use force that its own general secretary opposed the move and subsequently was purged and kept under house arrest for the remainder of his life. If any incident ever threatened to destroy the CCP and end its regime, this was it. The widespread calls through the years for Beijing to acknowledge the truth and compensate victims’ families consistently have fallen on deaf ears. Beijing doesn’t dare admit the truth, for fear it would irreparably damage the CCP’s legitimacy. Instead, Beijing has spent 35 years attempting to wipe the Chinese people’s brains of any memory of what happened on that horrific night. On the surface, this has been successful. If there’s one topic people don’t discuss in China, it’s Tiananmen. But the fact they don’t talk about it doesn’t mean they don’t remember. Although many in the rising generation know little or nothing of what happened June 4, 1989, their parents know. Some of them eventually break the news to their children when they’re old enough to bear the shock—and to be trusted not to speak about it. For the most part, this is a dangerous topic, though, and ignorance is often deemed preferable to the truth. Beijing can alter and whitewash history, but it can’t change the truth about what happened 35 years ago. Nor should we stand idly by as it tries to do so. The Chinese people still long for freedom. This was apparent with the nationwide white paper protests a year and a half ago, as well as with the lone protester on Beijing’s Sitong Bridge ahead of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s appointment in 2022 to a precedent-breaking third term in power, an incident reminiscent of the iconic photo of a lone man confronting a line of Chinese tanks following the Tiananmen massacre. This longing for freedom also is evidenced by the exponential increase in migration out of China since COVID-19 restrictions were lifted in late 2022. We can’t bring freedom to China against the will of its government, but we can help preserve the memory of the Tiananmen martyrs and what they stood for. For decades, Hong Kong carried this torch through a vigil that drew tens of thousands of participants each year. Sadly, that city’s residents no longer can play this role, due to two draconian “national security” laws that made such activities illegal. The U.S. and Europe should help fill the vacuum by holding more vigils, establish June 4-themed museums, and educate the public about what really happened 35 years ago in Beijing. We also can help the cause by empowering Chinese diaspora communities to carry on their march toward freedom. The Chinese Communist Party fears its overseas citizens and uses many means to prevent them from exercising their freedom of speech and other political liberties. We must not let it do that in defiance of our laws and sovereignty. The courage of some Chinese students in recent years to speak out publicly against their government on U.S. campuses—and some students’ attempts to establish student organizations outside the reach of Beijing’s oversight—show that the spirit of freedom that played out on Tiananmen Square 35 years ago remains bright in the hearts of many Chinese. By embracing and cultivating this spirit, we not only enable them to enjoy their guaranteed freedoms, but also contribute to their longer-term efforts to drive greater freedom in China. The post 35 Years After Tiananmen Square, Beijing Still Tries to Erase Memories appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Registered voters across the battleground state of Nevada registered in prison and at commercial addresses such as casinos, strip clubs, and fast-food restaurants—and an election watchdog group is pushing for action before mass mailing of ballots begins.  Logan Churchwell, research director for Public Interest Legal Foundation, wrote Monday to Clark County Registrar of Voters Lorena S. Portillo, who oversees voter registration in Nevada’s largest jurisdiction, including Las Vegas.  “In our analysis of Nevada’s statewide voter list dated April 9, 2024, we identified numerous addresses listed as residential that appeared to be commercial buildings where no one resides. Attached to this letter is a list of addresses from Clark County,” Churchwell wrote. “We are including pictures that we have taken at each location along with additional information we collected,” he added in the letter to Portillo. “We request that you conduct your investigation and make any appropriate corrections to the voter roll by June 17, 2024.” Public Interest Legal Foundation also posted a video on social media showing visits to numerous commercial locations where voters are listed as residing, only to find people unaware of the registered voter’s name.  YouTube oddly posted a disclaimer under the video that says: “Mail ballots submitted by voters who meet eligibility and validity requirements are counted in every election. Before they are counted, election officials vigorously verify the validity of every mail ballot submission.”  However, the point of the foundation’s video was to request that election officials verify the location of registered voters, then update voter lists accordingly. “Ensuring the accuracy of the voter roll is especially critical given that Nevada has recently expanded voting by mail,” Churchwell’s letter to Portillo says. As noted in my book “The Myth of Voter Suppression,” jurisdictions across the United States have done a poor job of updating voter registration rolls in compliance with the federal National Voter Registration Act. This leads to the inclusion of dead voters or those who moved out of state remaining on voter lists in certain locations.  The Clark County Registrar of Voters office didn’t respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment on this report by publication time.  Public Interest Legal Foundation has sued Washoe County, Nevada—which includes Reno—to force election officials to investigate commercial addresses on the voter lists. Democrat election lawyer Marc Elias filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit.  The document below includes evidence and a list of suspect addresses in Nevada compiled by Public Interest Legal Foundation. Clark-County-NV-Request-for-Investigation-June-3-2024Download The post Casinos, Strip Clubs, Fast Food: Addresses Listed for Battleground State Voters Prompt Concerns appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The rise of AI and complaints about online “misinformation” is now being used as an excuse for the Justice Department to deny transparency to the American public. The Justice Department is currently leveraging concerns about the potential for artificial intelligence to create deceptive deepfakes as an excuse to block the release of an audio recording featuring President Joe Biden and former special counsel Robert Hur. Hur is a former US Attorney and a special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. He was tasked with investigating the handling of classified documents by President Joe Biden. This investigation was initiated after classified documents were discovered at Biden’s former office at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C., as well as at his home in Wilmington, Delaware. Hurr recommended that no charges be brought against President Biden as he reasoned that “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” In Hur’s opinion, “it would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.” It was these statements that intrigued the Public about what President Biden testified to while under investigation and what led Hur to believe the President didn’t have the “mental state” adequate for trial. However, the audio recordings of President Biden’s statements have yet to be released, with the Justice Department wanting to avoid offering any transparency about Biden’s testimony. And now, after running out of reasons as to why the recordings should not be made public, the Justice Department argues that they could be used to promote “misinformation” and deepfakes – growing arguments that are used to justify censorship. We obtained a copy of the filing for you here. “The passage of time and advancements in audio, artificial intelligence, and ‘deep fake’ technologies only amplify concerns about malicious manipulation of audio files,” the Justice Department stated. “If the audio recording is released here, it is easy to foresee that it could be improperly altered, and that the altered file could be passed off as an authentic recording and widely distributed.” “A malicious actor could slow down the speed of the recording or insert words that President Biden did not say or delete words that he did say,” the filing argues. “That problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is now widely available technology that can be used to create entirely different audio ‘deepfakes’ based on a recording.” This argument forms part of a broader legal stance outlined in a court filing late Friday, where the Department contends that the release could lead to the manipulation of the audio to misrepresent the president’s words. Critics, however, view this stance as overcautious, pointing out the abundance of publicly available recordings of President Biden that could already be used for creating such deepfakes. They argue that the Justice Department’s fears are perhaps exaggerated given the existing availability of Biden’s voice in various formats across the media. In the court documents, the Department emphasizes the risk of malicious actors altering the recording—either by inserting false statements or omitting actual ones—to produce a fraudulent representation of the conversation. Bradley Weinsheimer, an associate deputy attorney general, has noted in his affidavit that such alterations could be more convincingly passed as the original if the actual audio were released. Conversely, keeping the audio under wraps would purportedly allow the Department and others to more effectively challenge any falsified reproductions. This controversy unfolds against a backdrop of intense legal demands by House Republicans, media groups, and conservative organizations, all pushing for the audio’s disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The administration, however, has only released a transcript of the interview, claiming it mirrors the audio recording with negligible exceptions such as filler words or repetitions. House Republicans insist that the nuances of Biden’s spoken words could offer insights beyond the written transcript, potentially critical to their broader impeachment investigation. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Justice Department Bizarrely Cites AI Threats to Deny Biden Audio Release appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Hmmm. 'The Apprentice' is Making a Splash Around the World but No U.S. Distributor Yet

On today's Morning Joe, Defender of the Faith Joe Scarborough ruled that an evangelical leader who expressed his support for Trump was guilty of "depravity," and "straight-out blasphemy."  What a display of religious illiteracy. Scarborough was outraged that the pastor had pointed out that, like Trump, Jesus had been convicted of crimes, and yet Christians worship Jesus. Blasphemy would be saying Trump is Christ, not that he's persecuted like Christ. Nodding along like Scarborough's own Ed McMahon-style sidekick, Willie Geist agreed: "There used to be a word for that: blasphemy." Scarborough didn't specify the punishment to be doled out to the pastor whom he condemned for blasphemy. Perhaps Joe will take inspiration from history: we're just a few days past the anniversary of Joan of Arc, condemned as a heretic, having been burned at the stake.  Eugene Robinson, who doubles as a Washington Post columnist and an MSNBC analyst, had kicked off the conversation, playing off his current WashPost column: "Here’s how Trump could make America great." You can guess Robinson's predictable answer: Trump should drop out of the race.  Careful what you wish for, Gene! Before Trump wrapped up the nomination, polls showed any of the other likely contenders would run stronger than he would against Biden! Back in January, for example, a CBS poll showed Nikki Haley trouncing Biden by nine points, whereas Trump only edged him by two. But back to Scarborough. Now that Joe has established himself as the arbiter of Christian morality and theology, beyond the unidentified pastor in question, how many more of the millions of evangelicals who support Trump will Defender of the Faith Joe banish for blasphemy?  Notes: Scarborough claimed that Trump was convicted of 34 "different" felonies. Wrong. As this CBS News article explains, Trump was convicted of 34 counts of one felony: "falsification of business records" in connection with the way that Michael Cohen was reimbursed for his payment to Stormy Daniels. But DA Bragg managed to manufacture 34 counts by charging every check, invoice, and voucher connected to the reimbursement as a separate crime.  Robinson claimed that in contrast with Trump, who has been convicted of 34 felonies, "the only thing [Biden] is guilty of is living to 81." Not so. Last year, we caught Robinson, in a bit of embarrassing sycophancy, claiming that Biden is "sharp as a tack." There are plenty of octogenarians with all their marbles. But as Robinson would surely admit in a candid, private moment, Biden ain't one of them.  Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 6/4/24 6:07 am EDT EUGENE ROBINSON:  Any other moment in our history, a candidate for IIany office who was convicted mid-campaign of 34 felony charges, would have been out, out of the race before the jury foreman had finished the 34 guilty verdicts, right? It would have just been automatic, unthinkable that, that someone would stay in any race given the status as a 34-time felon . . . All these sort of, you know, hand-wringing Democrats and chin-stroking pundits, they've been calling for Joe Biden to step aside. And the only thing he is guilty of is living to 81, you know?  SCARBOROUGH: Gene brings up such a great point, Willie. In the good old days, back, back when I was in Washington, I mean, heck, if somebody got indicted of 34 counts, they immediately resigned from Congress and, you know, went to prepare their defense. Here, Donald Trump gets, gets convicted 34 times,  34 different felonies, and, of course, you have United States Senators who are trying to use it as a badge of honor that their guy is being persecuted by the state. WILLIE GEIST: Yeah, I mean, martyrdom, right? I mean, he's been compared to religious figures, without irony, by members of the United States Congress, by people on TV, as a rallying cry behind him. And that's the, that's the Trump way, though,isn't it? Never surrender. Never apologize for anything. Put your head down, and keep moving. And pretend, despite all the facts around you, that you are the victim. SCARBOROUGH: And always, always play the victim. I mean, that's -- GEIST: Yes. SCARBOROUGH: That's always it. Always play the victim. Always play the martyr. You know, he was asked in, in this weekend, Fox and Friends interview, about evangelicals supporting him.  We even saw people that used to be -- I just saw shocking things by evangelical so-called leaders. One of them having Trump next to Jesus on a cross, saying, why wouldn't you vote for somebody who's been convicted? You worship somebody who was convicted. And that shows you, just the depravity that, that, that many of these people are willing to sink to. It's just straight out blasphemy. GEIST: I was going to say, there used to be a word for that: blasphemy.

The Tuesday edition of CBS Mornings rolled out an old-fashioned appeal to identity fallacy as correspondent Jim Axelrod interviewed former Army Maj. Harrison Mann so that the latter could use his Jewish identity to smear Israel as intentionally targeting civilians and waging a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, Axelord himself would hype a measly “more than a half dozen government officials” who have resigned in protest. Axelrod began his report with a voiceover, “When the reports started to filter in about a Hamas attack of Israel on October 7, former Army Major Harrison Mann knew what to expect.” Mann was then shown in the interview, explaining it was “All hands on deck. People working late hours, you know, 24/7 at the outset,” but according to Axelrod, “What was unexpected for him was Israel's response.”     If Mann didn’t believe that an attack several times worse on the per capita scale than 9/11 wasn’t going to invite a massive response from Israel that says more about him than it does Israel, nevertheless he declared, “We saw, even from the first days of the Israeli air campaign, willingness to inflict very high civilian casualties.” Axelrod continued, “A response this 13-year Army vet working on Middle East issues for the Defense Intelligence Agency says was enabled by U.S. weapons and indiscriminately targeted Palestinian civilians.” Back in the interview, he asked, “Were the Israelis using American weapons against civilians in Gaza.” After Mann replied, “almost certainly yes,” Axelrod asked if they were doing so on purpose, he added, “I don't know how you kill 35,000 civilians by accident.” This man was in the Army for 13 years, and he’s apparently unfamiliar with urban combat and Hamas’s tactics of maximizing the danger to civilians so that people like him go on CBS and spread their propaganda to uncritical interviewers like Axelrod. Mann then read from his resignation letter, ‘“At some point, whatever the justification, you're either advancing a policy that enables the mass starvation of children or you're not.’” After an archived clip of PBS’s Amna Nawaz reporting, “Another U.S. government official announced today she has resigned,” Axelrod added, “More than a half dozen government officials have publicly resigned in protest of U.S. support for Israel's war. Mann is the first from the military, the first from the intelligence community, and the first who is Jewish.” According to Reuters, the number is eight and the definition of “official” appears to be anyone who works for the U.S. government in any capacity even if it has nothing to do with national security or foreign policy. There are 2.2 million civilian employees in the federal government, even if one includes Mann, that means CBS is hyping a microscopic .0004 percent of them. Speaking of Mann, he claimed, “I understand if people are angry that I chose to speak about this, but I didn't really feel like I had that much of a choice.” Axelrod then tried to put Mann above criticism, “The grandson of Jews who fled the anti-Semitism of Eastern Europe, Mann doesn't agree that the cry of Never Again that galvanized Jews after the Holocaust warrants the current Israeli response.” Mann then rambled, “They're not responding in a way that is productive for the security of the state of Israel or Jews worldwide and I think using Never Again as a justification, I'm confident saying it's certainly, you know, some measure of ethnic cleansing. I do not think it is in the spirit of Never Again.” Back in studio, co-host Nate Burleson thought it was all very compelling, “Powerful reporting from Jim Axelrod.” It was not. Mann and CBS should reread their copies of Hamas’s charter before claiming Never Again is being abused. Here is a transcript for the June 4 show: CBS Mornings 6/4/2024 8:09 AM ET GAYLE KING: Now, our exclusive interview with a Jewish U.S. Army major who resigned to protest Israel’s war in Gaza. Until yesterday, Harrison Mann worked in the Middle East Bureau of the Defense Intelligence Agency. In his first TV interview he tells chief investigative correspondent Jim Axelrod why he can no longer serve in the Army. JIM AXLEROD: When the reports started to filter in about a Hamas attack of Israel on October 7, former Army Major Harrison Mann knew what to expect. HARRISON MANN: All hands on deck. People working late hours, you know, 24/7 at the outset. AXLEROD: What was unexpected for him was Israel's response. MANN: We saw, even from the first days of the Israeli air campaign, willingness to inflict very high civilian casualties. AXELROD: A response this 13-year Army vet working on Middle East issues for the Defense Intelligence Agency says was enabled by U.S. weapons and indiscriminately targeted Palestinian civilians. Were the Israelis using American weapons against civilians in Gaza. MANN: I can say almost certainly yes. AXELROD: But, were they doing so intentionally? MANN: I don't know how you kill 35,000 civilians by accident. AXELROD: Mann resigned in November. This is your letter. No longer able to justify his work to himself, which he explained to his colleagues in a letter. MANN: “At some point, whatever the justification, you're either advancing a policy that enables the mass starvation of children or you're not.” AXELROD: You felt your work was directly connected to starving children? MANN: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ [PBS]: Another U.S. government official announced today she has resigned. AXELORD: More than a half dozen government officials have publicly resigned in protest of U.S. support for Israel's war. Mann is the first from the military, the first from the intelligence community, and the first who is Jewish. MANN: I understand if people are angry that I chose to speak about this, but I didn't really feel like I had that much of a choice. AXELROD: The grandson of Jews who fled the anti-Semitism of Eastern Europe, Mann doesn't agree that the cry of Never Again that galvanized Jews after the Holocaust warrants the current Israeli response. MANN: They're not responding in a way that is productive for the security of the state of Israel or Jews worldwide and I think using Never Again as a justification, I'm confident saying it's certainly, you know, some measure of ethnic cleansing. I do not think it is in the spirit of Never Again. NATE BURLESON: Powerful reporting from Jim Axelrod.

It appears that Democrats and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) have accomplished a feat that even Donald Trump couldn't for the last decade: turn "Never-Trump" voters into Trump supporters.Trump's conviction proved to be a massive fundraising boon for his campaign. But it's also persuading Americans reluctant to support Trump in the past to vote for him in November.'I feel the need to send a message to the Democrats that their dirty politics will not be rewarded.'It's the law of unintended consequences personified.Last week, venture capitalist Shaun Maguire made headlines with his six-figure donation to Trump's campaign in the wake of the verdict. In a new interview, Maguire told the Free Press that it wasn't necessarily the verdict that persuaded him to support Trump — but Democrats' lawfare against the former president."We were told that Donald Trump would be the end of democracy, but it turns out that lawfare tactics have been escalated by the Democrats and not by the Republicans," he told the news outlet. "And so it’s from that backdrop that I believe the Republican Party is less of a danger to democracy than the Democratic Party right now."Jack MacGuire, a 48-year-old travel consultant from Texas, voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and once "couldn't stand Trump." But everything changed for him when Trump began to be targeted with criminal prosecutions."What happened has every level of corruption and deceit and a willingness to use whatever means necessary to stay in power," MacGuire told the Free Press. "It just absolutely galvanized me to say enough is enough. I’m all in with the MAGA people because this has to end."Kate Nitti, a lifelong Democrat who lives in New Jersey, told the Free Press that she is now considering voting for Trump."I feel the need to send a message to the Democrats that their dirty politics will not be rewarded," Nitti said. "I'm no fan of Trump. That said, I have a huge problem with contorting the law or using prosecutorial authority in the name of ‘saving democracy,’ which has been the Democrats’ message for the past four years," she explained.President Joe Biden's campaign argues that Trump is a threat to democracy. Americans, therefore, must vote for him if they want to preserve democracy, the campaign says.But Adam Mortara told the Free Press the true danger to America is Biden and the Democrats."What’s gotten me off the sidelines is that if he does not win, and by a rather sizable margin, that will validate this type of weaponization of the judicial system in the future," said Mortara, a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School."Before, I would’ve said it’s not a danger to America if Joe Biden wins the election," he added. "Now, I kind of think it is."Maine state Sen. Eric Brakey (R) agreed with Mortara's analysis, describing the Trump verdict as "a very blatant attack on democracy itself.""Democrats don't preserve democracy," Brakey told the Free Press. "They're afraid that the people, when presented a democratic choice, will not vote for them."Voters are not only supporting Trump with their words, but they're also throwing their hard-earned dollars behind his campaign effort. In the 24 hours after Trump was convicted, his campaign raised $53 million in small-cash donations — a third of which came from first-time donors.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The female-led sequel for the "Mad Max" franchise likely didn't do enough at the box office for studios to bank on another movie in the saga, reports have suggested."Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" finished the Memorial Day long weekend with only $32,000,000, according to Box Office Mojo. It was also the lowest-earning No. 1 film for a Memorial Day box office opening since 1995 when "Casper" took the top spot with just $16.8 million. The budget was an estimated $168-$233 million, likely on the higher end when accounting for advertising and marketing costs.As reports have suggested, the performance of the sequel seemed to be the marker as to whether or not the planned prequel called "The Wasteland" gets made.'A Mad Max movie without Mad Max — or the actress who embodied the title character — is a tough sell.'Franchise creator George Miller told journalists the day after the film's Cannes Film Festival premier that he was waiting to see how "Furiosa" does before jumping into the next film."I'll definitely wait to see how this goes, before we even think about it," he said, per the Hollywood Reporter. The outlet also said its industry sources revealed the next film hasn't even reached the development stages. At the same time however, Warner Bros. studio is allegedly incredibly proud of the film.Another point of contention for the film was its inability to bring in a female audience, which is essentially the point of making the lead character a hard-nosed, tough woman.The opening weekend for 2015's "Mad Max: Fury Road" brought in an audience of 40% women, with Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron leading the way. That number reportedly shrank to 29% female viewership for "Furiosa," which, while being the lead character, was played by relatively unknown actress Anya Taylor-Joy, not Theron.The film also suffered in the 18-24 age group, which frequents movie theaters the most. That demographic also had a 10% decrease since the last film, from 31% to 21%."This won't kill the franchise. Hollywood clings to IPs, even the ones that have stumbled or collapsed," said entertainment reporter Christian Toto."See the 'Terminator' saga, which had not one but two duds before they took a knee. Still, a 'Mad Max' movie without Mad Max — or the actress who embodied the title character — is a tough sell," Toto told Blaze News. "Audiences increasingly know films are hitting video on-demand faster and faster these days. Just look at 'The Fall Guy,' already available for home viewing."Warner Bros. will have to hope "Furiosa" blazes a similar trail to that of "Fury Road," which opened with $45.3 million domestically but eventually gained momentum on its way to grossing $379.4 million.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Moderna's mRNA-1345 vaccine, which allegedly protects adults aged 60 and older from respiratory syncytial virus infection-caused lower respiratory tract disease. The agency's breakthrough therapy designation approval for the drug, which will be marketed as mResvia, is only the second Moderna drug the FDA has approved. More significantly, it is the first mRNA vaccine to have been approved to address a disease other than COVID-19. 'We did not refer your application to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.' Even though that amounts to a big step, it appears the regulator was keen to jump past additional levels of scrutiny. The FDA noted in its Friday approval letter, "We did not refer your application to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee because our review of information submitted in your [biologics license application], including the clinical study design and trial results, did not raise concerns or controversial issues that would have benefited from an advisory committee discussion." The advisory committee's job is to review and evaluate data concerning the "safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines and related biological products," then provide independent expert advice to the agency. According to the pharmaceutical company, the approval was based on "positive data from the Phase 3 clinical trial ConquerRSV, a global study conducted in approximately 37,000 adults ages 60 or older in 22 countries." Nearly 20,000 of the trial participants were based in the United States. There are at least 11 other studies under way examining the impact of the novel drug on other demographics. The company claimed in a Feb. 29 overview of its trial data that the vaccine "continued to be efficacious through median 8.6 months follow-up" and was shown to prevent severe RSV disease "base on analysis of shortness of breath and medically attended RSV-[lower respiratory tract disease]." The vaccine's efficacy is allegedly 83.7%. Reuters noted, however, that the label indicates the shot is only 79% effective at preventing at least two symptoms of RSV, such as fever and cough. While the overview insisted that the vaccine was relatively effective and safe, it nevertheless highlighted a number of "systemic reactions" reported within seven days of vaccination, such as headache, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, and chills, besides customary injection site pain. A Moderna-funded study published in the New England Journal of Medicine similarly alleged that a single dose of the vaccine "resulted in no evident safety concerns." Despite similarly having been presented as a safe vaccine, Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine was linked in various studies, including in an FDA-funded study, to an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in men ages 18-25. Extra to heart inflammation, the Global COVID Vaccine Safety Project — a Global Vaccine Data Network initiative supported by both the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services — revealed in a February study in the esteemed journal Vaccine that "Bell's palsy had an increased [observed to expected] ratio after a first dose of [Pfizer's] BNT162b2 and [Moderna's] mRNA-1273." The study also noted that "there were also increased OE ratios for febrile seizures following a first and second dose of mRNA-1273 ... and for generalized seizures following first mRNA-1273 dose and fourth BNT162b2 dose." Blaze News previously reported that the University of Auckland, which hosts the Global Vaccine Data Network, noted that there were safety signals for "acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (inflammation and swelling in the brain and spinal cord) after viral vector and mRNA vaccines." Despite outstanding concerns about its only other approved vaccine, Moderna appears confident in its product and has evidently secured the FDA's confidence as well. Its next stop is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whose Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will review the vaccine during its June 26-27 meeting. Analysts estimate Moderna will do roughly $340 million in RSV vaccine sales this year and possibly $830.5 million in 2025, reported Reuters. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!