In a rather unexpected collaboration for a single off the new Coldplay album, Chris Martin teamed up with Dick Van Dyke for a music video just before one of the danciest stars in Hollywood turns 99 years old. ‘All My Love’ is a single from the LP Moon Music released in October, and in a […] The post Dick Van Dyke Dances in New Coldplay Video Premiering on His 99th Birthday (WATCH) appeared first on Good News Network.

News 28 Years Later It’s Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s Turn to Kill Zombies in the 28 Years Later Trailer 28 or 23 years later, depending on your counting scheme, Danny Boyle returns to zombieland By Molly Templeton | Published on December 10, 2024 Screenshot: Sony Pictures Entertainment Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: Sony Pictures Entertainment They’re not coming back, exactly. They never really went away. A mere 23 years after 28 Days Later, director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland’s indelible 2002 zombie movie, it’s time for 28 Years Later, the first film in a new trilogy that returns (or fast-forwards) us to a time when the rage virus wreaked havoc on the world. That first movie starred a young Cillian Murphy [ed note: heart eyes], who appears to pop up here as a zombie; he is expected to appear in these films, but his zombification has yet to be confirmed. Our new hero is Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Kraven the Hunter) who heads out from his lightly oldey-timey civilization with a young boy, presumably his son. They have bows and arrows and appear to be hunting dinner. Naturally, they find something else entirely. After a seemingly endless number of seasons of The Walking Dead, most of which I did not even watch, it is hard not to find the imagery here familiar: the carefully guarded settlement, the not-so-unexpected threat, the attempts to make life go on. There is no dialogue, so we can’t get much sense of the characters. Instead, we get what Deadline identifies as “a Taylor Holmes recording of Rudyard Kipling’s war poem ‘Boots’,” glitchy and monotone and eerie. Boyle and Garland have both returned to this continuation of the series; along with Taylor-Johnson, new cast members include Jodie Comer (Killing Eve), Ralph Fiennes (Conclave), Erin Kellyman (Solo), and Jack O’Connell (Ferrari). Get ready to run fast when 28 Years Later arrives in theaters June 20, 2025.[end-mark] The post It’s Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s Turn to Kill Zombies in the <i>28 Years Later</i> Trailer appeared first on Reactor.

Crazy and kooky, The Addams Family's not-so-normal yet charming dynamic was all the spooky rage in the 1960s. Still, there are some behind-the-scenes facts about the sitcom that might have crept over fans' heads along with the family hand, Thing. From newspapers refusing to run The Addams Family comics after the series aired to the real-life attraction between Morticia and Gomez, here are some ** Source

Courts are increasingly asked to “apply long-standing First Amendment principles to somewhat novel facts” involving digital social media. They have performed this task often—if not well—in recent cases such as NetChoice v. Paxton, Murthy v. Missouri, and Anderson v. TikTok.  The mixed lessons from these efforts were on display in the latest installment in this juridical drama issued Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the TikTok divestiture case, TikTok v. Garland. TikTok came before the court asserting several challenges to a law that required its separation from parent company ByteDance, an entity headquartered in and subject to the laws of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). That law was, as Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan put it, the product of a “strong bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress, together with two successive presidents (one of whom is also the president-elect).” For all that those persons disagree on, all of them agreed “that divesting TikTok from PRC control is a national-security imperative.” TikTok’s primary arguments against divestiture rested on the familiar assertion that most anything having to do with the business of social media platforms is inherently a matter of protected speech shielded by the First Amendment. Cast in supporting roles were arguments that the law violated the Constitution’s promise of equal protection and its little-used prohibition on bills of attainder, i.e., laws passed to punish a specific party. Ultimately, none of these was availing.  Strident though TikTok and its “self-styled creators” were in accusing the government of trying to suppress free expression, it turns out that national security remains one of the few governmental interests insulated against the techno-libertarian bent of the Supreme Court’s recent free speech jurisprudence.  The three-judge panel in the case divided 2-1 over the proper standard of review, but all three agreed that the law passed constitutional muster. The government’s national security justification for the law had two components—one that concerned TikTok’s transfer of American user data to the Chinese Communist Party and another that concerned the Beijing’s manipulation of content shown to American users through its access to the ByteDance-created algorithms that TikTok employs. The data-protection rationale, all three judges agreed, did not present First Amendment concerns.  The desire to prevent the PRC’s manipulation of content on TikTok was, however, another matter. Writing for the majority, senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg assumed that the divestiture law made a content-based distinction when it addressed the potential for Beijing to mediate the content Americans saw on TikTok. In doing so, he drew on the Supreme Court’s controversial decision last term in NetChoice v. Paxton, where the court insisted that algorithmic content moderation is necessarily a form of protected expression. That meant that the divestiture law had to clear the demanding “strict scrutiny” standard of review, which requires that the law be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Despite that usually fatal standard, Ginsburg concluded that Congress’ security rationales were compelling and well-founded, and that the law was sufficiently tailored to them.  Thus, the First Amendment was no bar, nor could TikTok’s subsidiary arguments overcome the government’s security interest. Perhaps this favorable review was colored by the fact that the law had been a priority of both parties under two presidents.  It also did not hurt that national security is an area in which courts remain deferential to the political branches, even as their deference to the executive branch recedes in other areas after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).  But more specifically, Ginsburg credited the government’s fear that ByteDance and its U.S. subsidiaries would not “comply in good faith with the [National Security Administration]” if left in their current state of ownership. That follows from the very nature of ByteDance, which Ginsburg refers to as a “hybrid commercial threat.”  As one U.S. presidential administration after another made free trade the core of American policy abroad, rivals such as China had no patience for the dogmatism of an undergraduate economics course.  Instead, they were busy creating hybrid commercial threats the better to “conduct espionage, technology transfer, data collection, and other disruptive activities under the disguise of an otherwise legitimate commercial activity.”  Through its manipulation of nominally private enterprises, the “PRC has positioned itself to manipulate public discourse on TikTok in order to serve its own ends,” an activity far afield from the interests and protections of the First Amendment. The entanglement with the PRC was not speculative. In addition to being subject to the Beijing’s laws on data accessibility, ByteDance apparently houses a “Chinese Communist Party committee” consisting of 138 ByteDance employees. But the presence of party members has not prevented the company from learning to speak in the peculiar idiom of market liberalism and contend to a U.S. court that Congress’ law must be set aside because it “would make TikTok uncompetitive with rival, global platforms.” Fortunately, the appeals court did not allow TikTok or ByteDance to “[exploit the] corporate form to take advantage of legal protections in the United States.”  Ginsburg’s decision to assume that strict scrutiny applied may have been the prudent choice. It bolsters the decision against criticism if the Supreme Court grants TikTok’s inevitable petition for review. But conceptually, Srinivasan seems to have the more sensible approach, particularly in concluding that the law is not content-based and thus a less demanding “intermediate” tier of scrutiny should apply. The majority fears that the law made a distinction in content because its application affects some of TikTok’s content moderation decisions. But the majority is never clear on what sorts of content form the basis of the law’s supposed distinction. As Srinivasan maintains, a content-based law “discriminate[s] based on the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.” Here, the law’s distinction is premised on the actions and intent of a particular actor deemed by Congress to be a foreign adversary, in this case, the PRC. And as Srinivasan points out, “one can imagine situations in which it would even serve the PRC’s interests to augment anti-China, pro-U.S. content,” for instance, to bolster a narrative of Western bias and warmongering.  Ultimately, the law’s reference is not to the message of any particular content, but to Beijing’s motives for promoting it. Here, fortunately, there is no consequence to the choice between standards of review, but the reflexive assumption that strict scrutiny applies whenever social media content moderation is implicated could jeopardize the prospects for other beneficial sorts of legislation, such as state efforts to limit minors’ premature access to social media platforms. And that brings us to a further point. Although the law and the appellate court’s decision mitigate the national security concerns, critics of TikTok should not expect this decision to accomplish much else. Both opinions are quite clear that once TikTok is truly privatized, i.e., taken out from under PRC control, then “new owners could circulate the same mix of content as before.”  In other words, whatever they deem “expressive content” can be algorithmically funneled with abandon to its tech-addled users. For a sample of the type of content on which TikTok makes its money, readers might familiarize themselves with the “blackout challenge” that gave rise to Anderson v. TikTok. The post Why the First Amendment Is No Bar to Forcing TikTok’s Divestiture appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Lawmakers Say KOSA Doesn’t Mandate Online Age Verification. It Effectively Does. appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Canada’s Manitoba province government is looking into changing its election law to include combating various forms of “disinformation,” Canadian media is reporting. The government, led by the social-democratic New Democratic Party (NDP) of Manitoba, wants to amend the Elections Act so that it prohibits what might come to be officially considered “disinformation” affecting electoral workers and the system. While addressing the initiative, provincial Justice Minister Matt Wiebe made sure to mention some “staples” often invoked by “disinformation warriors”: AI, and in particular, deepfakes. Recent years have shown how in many parts of the world, spurred either by governments or global, and globalist organizations, even information they simply dislike gets treated as disinformation – and slated for censorship. This push is waning in some corners, but in countries like Canada, it doesn’t seem to be losing momentum. And now Wiebe is suddenly discovering what “unreal” things deepfakes – a technology present for many years, particularly in the entertainment industry – can achieve. Of course, Wiebe is concerned about politics and elections, and justifies the focus – all the way to changing the law – on such tech as making it easier to “fake some things.” This was probably important to underline because Manitoba’s election rules already deal with false information, impersonation, and other acts that can endanger the integrity of an election, and even include fines (up to $10,000) and, jail time. The difference between the existing law and what this and other officials are trying to now introduce as a bill amending it, said Wiebe, is that while candidates already can’t “explicitly” lie about opponents – this would not expand to “protect” election workers and, the system. The timeframe for proposing the bill is currently not known, but in the meanwhile, Wiebe’s stance is supported by Manitoba’s chief electoral officer Shipra Verma. Verma veered into the territory when those pushing for more stringent disinformation rules and trying to define them, end up further muddling the issue. Now Verma speaks about the need to outlaw “objectively” false information about election officials, the equipment (ostensibly a reference to voting equipment), the process, etc. But even seemingly straightforward terms like “objective” can be bent to political will, and interpreted to suit a political option. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Manitoba Could Rewrite Election Rules in the Name of Fighting “Disinformation” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Ancient grains may have been left on the sidelines for a few generations, but they're definitely making a comeback. Brace yourself because what you will learn about ancient grains could possibly and positively change your lifestyle! Ancient Grains: What You Know Could Save You! With the recent popularity of chia seeds, quinoa, and amaranth, interest in these ancient grains have since increased. And with my propensity to be drawn to anything ‘healthy', I've included quinoa and chia seeds in my diet. Of course, before I went nuts over these foods, I did my own searching and found more positive revelations about these healthy grains. Not only are they an excellent food source, they're also perfect for my homesteading lifestyle. Read on to know what ancient grains are, what's in it, and why they're still enjoying popularity today. What Are Ancient Grains? Ancient grains or heritage grains are a grouping of seed- or fruit-based cereals which trace its roots as far as the beginning of civilization. These heritage grains have been cultivated for thousands of years but didn't achieve the prominence modern grains like corn, rice, and wheat got. However, unlike modern grains, these grains changed so little over the millennia. Perhaps, farmers preference for faster-growing crops like corn and wheat spared these grains from crop manipulation and selective breeding. Ancient grains were once important crops in different cultures, though they've lost that distinction over the years. For example, quinoa was once revered by the Incas, farro grains was mentioned in the Bible, and barley and oats were once essential crops during 19th century-Europe. With their recent rediscovery in the West, their popularity is expected to rise and continue. So much so that they could be our food of tomorrow. No products found. What's The Fuss With Ancient Grains? With the belief that the Paleo diet is healthier, plus the old-world romanticism of ‘slow food', heritage grains are making a revival. While cultivation of these crops has been limited, they are increasingly taking over shelves in stores and the market. You can now easily find pasta, artisan bread, and cereal made from heritage grains. Luckily, heritage grains have been continually cultivated organically in different communities around the globe. Because these grains remained natural, they are the stuff of healthy-eater dreams. They make a great choice and a healthy addition to grains and carbs since they are less refined and apparently contain a higher amount of essential nutrients. Organic, higher fiber and nutritional content, gluten-free, and protein-rich are just some of the characteristics ancient grains boast. Perhaps, being unchanged from selective cropping and biotechnological research, they've managed to be just as they were for the past centuries–just as healthy. In short, ancient grains are non-GMO—great news for health watchers and organic growers. No products found. Have You Tried These Ancient Grains? Millet Barley Teff Oats Freekeh Bulgur Sorghum Farro Einkorn Emmer Quinoa Amaranth Buckwheat Chia Couscous Wild Rice Khorasan Wheat (Kamut) Spelt Grains versus Pseudocereals Technically, not all of the heritage grains are grains, but they have been classified along with grains since they are prepared in the same manner. Sorghum, oats, rye, barley, millet and wild rice are considered grains while buckwheat, chia, amaranth, and quinoa are pseudocereals. Making organic pillows has never been better! Read on for instructions #LifeHack https://t.co/4WemMz8i6e — Homesteading (@HomesteadingUSA) August 19, 2017 Nutritional Benefits Of Ancient Grains Gefen Pearl Barley Total of 3 Pounds, Premium Quality Pearled Barley, Product of The USA, 16oz (3 Pack) Gefen Pearl Barley 16oz, Value 3pkAdds a nice additional flavor and texture to many soups.... $12.99 Buy Now Generally, heritage grains are all said to be more nutritious and healthier than modern grains. They are said to contain more protein, perfect for vegans who need plant-based protein in their diet. However, the nutritional properties of grains are varied and sometimes unique to a variety. For example, oats have a hefty level of thiamine, chia doubles in fiber content compared to other grains, and spelt has a high level of manganese. Ancient grains, often referred to as ‘super grains', are said to be rich in protein, antioxidants, and omega-3 fatty acids. Ongoing research shows that these healthy grains are likely to decrease the cholesterol level in consumers. It has been also shown to help prevent diabetes and certain cancers, specifically colon and breast cancer. Some grains are celebrated for being gluten-free, but not all ancient grains are gluten-free. Millet, teff, buckwheat, quinoa, and amaranth are gluten-free, but oats and the ancient kinds of wheat like Khorasan and Spelt are not. GERBS White Sorghum Grain, 64 ounce Bag, Top 14 Food Allergen Free, Non GMO, Vegan, Keto, Paleo Friendly Sorghum may slow and reduce carbohydrate digestion and...Sorghum may be cooked and served alone, popped, or used in... Buy Now Ancient Grains For Survival As we have time and again pointed out, every homesteader is practically a survivalist. It should be clear by now that ancient grains are not only hardy, for indeed they have withstood the test of time. They grow in some of the harshest conditions and they practically thrive on neglect. Most heritage grains are also long-storing, like buckwheat, kamut, and spelt which survive for as long as 30 years or longer when stored properly. With that said, ancient grains are definitely your ultimate survival food item. Now, I can safely conclude that these ancient food sources could be the food of today and tomorrow. Not only did these foods survive without intervention and manipulation, they've nourished our ancestors and can nourish us just as well. Get familiar with these ancient grains out in their natural environment so you know where and what to look for in any survival situation. Knowing about ancient grains can definitely save your life, health-wise and survival-wise. Spectrum Essentials Organic Ground Chia Seed, 10 Oz Ground chia seeds, a nutritional powerhouse used by ancient...Good source of ala omega-3 essential fatty acid that helps... $10.99 Buy Now Follow some of the most celebrated ancient grains here in this video: Now you know a great deal more about the ‘super grains' ancient grains. Whether you are looking forward to a healthier lifestyle, looking for variety in your food choices, or looking for a survival food item, you got it with ancient grains! What do you think about the ancient grains? Share your thoughts about it in the comments section below! Up Next: Maca Powder Magic | Why Add This Superfood To Your Diet  

The Left's Manhunt Is On

The task would take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years on a regular computer.

Despite the fact most of us tie knots every day, we fail to guess their strength.