Fadavi crowed that the Obama administration was extremely accommodating: “However, the Americans realized very soon that they were the accused, that they were the criminals on death row, and that they are at risk of being targeted by the full force of the IRGC. So they acted quickly.” Clearly the Obama team was trying to smooth over the situation, and Fadavi saw this as a sign of submission: “They replaced the person communicating with us from the aircraft carrier with a woman who spoke Persian. Two out of every three words she said was ‘fine,’ which translated into ‘I am obeying your orders.’ They did very quickly what we asked them to do.”

That incident, Fadavi asserted, was an indication of the nature of the relationship between Iran and the United States today: “This is the status of the Americans, this is the status of the enemies of Allah, and this is the status of those who stand with the axis of Falsehood. We do not have the slightest doubt that at the right time, when we strike America — the Great Satan — and its Zionist followers, we will strike them with great force.” //

Fadavi crowed that the Obama administration was extremely accommodating: “However, the Americans realized very soon that they were the accused, that they were the criminals on death row, and that they are at risk of being targeted by the full force of the IRGC. So they acted quickly.” Clearly the Obama team was trying to smooth over the situation, and Fadavi saw this as a sign of submission: “They replaced the person communicating with us from the aircraft carrier with a woman who spoke Persian. Two out of every three words she said was ‘fine,’ which translated into ‘I am obeying your orders.’ They did very quickly what we asked them to do.”

That incident, Fadavi asserted, was an indication of the nature of the relationship between Iran and the United States today: “This is the status of the Americans, this is the status of the enemies of Allah, and this is the status of those who stand with the axis of Falsehood. We do not have the slightest doubt that at the right time, when we strike America — the Great Satan — and its Zionist followers, we will strike them with great force.”

It’s one thing for a media outlet to issue a correction after a political figure and/or their handlers have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the outlet was factually incorrect. It’s another thing entirely for a media outlet to reframe a story and their promotion of it to something more favorable to that politician just because their inner circle had hurt feelings over it.

We saw a similar disturbing instance of the media colluding with Democrats to soften coverage of Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign when the New York Times admitted they changed how they described Biden’s alleged inappropriate touching of women because the Biden campaign complained about it.

“How often do we hear,” Baudet says, “that 97% of scientists agree that humans are the cause of climate change; that this climate change is severe, posing a major threat to the planet; and that we need a drastic reduction in our carbon dioxide emissions.”

“All of this, and I do mean all of it, is false. It’s a blatant lie that 97% of scientists agree with it. In reality, only 1.6% agree with [those] statements,” he goes on, after which he explains that there are major disagreements on this among climatologists, geologists, chemists, physicians, and so on.

“This myth” about the 97% was famously propagated by former U.S. President Barack Obama. “On May 16, 2013, he posted, and I quote,” Baudet explains, “’97 percent of scientists agree, climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.’ With this tweet, Obama referred to a paper published the same year by a man named John Cook.”

And that’s where it goes wrong. Because Cook is a “controversial” climate activist who even runs a ridiculous alarmist website called scepticalscience.com. “In this paper, he aims to demonstrate an overwhelming scientific consensus with the obvious intention of strengthening the environmentalist cause. To do so he analyzed 12,000 articles published in learned journals containing the words ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change.’ He then subdivided these articles into seven different categories.” //

That’s right. In fact, only 1.6% of papers stated that mankind plays a significant role in global warming.

Cook made that 1.6% look like 97%, however, and he did so by using some handy statistical tricks. As they say: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. //

As a result, Baudet concludes, you can only say that a majority of scientists believe that there has been “a slow, marginal warming trend since the 1850s. But the end result that 97% of scientists would agree that man is mainly responsible for this is utter nonsense.

The other piece of news, less well-covered but still important, emerged during a news conference on Saturday. NASA's Mission Systems Engineer for the Webb telescope, Mike Menzel, said the agency had completed its analysis of how much "extra" fuel remained on board the telescope. Roughly speaking, Menzel said, Webb has enough propellant on board for 20 years of life.

This is twice the conservative pre-launch estimate for Webb's lifetime of a decade, and it largely comes down to the performance of the European Ariane 5 rocket that launched Webb on a precise trajectory on Christmas Day.

Prior to launch, the telescope was fueled with 240 liters of hydrazine fuel and dinitrogen tetroxide oxidizer. Some of this fuel was needed for course adjustments along the journey to the point in space, about 1.5 million km from Earth, where Webb will conduct science observations. The remainder will be used at Webb's final orbit around the L2 Lagrange point for station-keeping and to maintain its orbit.

So every kilogram of fuel saved on Webb's journey to the Lagrange point could be used to extend its life there. Because ten years seemed like a fairly short operational period for such an expensive and capable space telescope, NASA had already been contemplating a costly and risky robotic refueling mission. But now that should not be necessary, as Webb has at least two decades of life.

A lot of this comes down to the performance of the venerable Ariane 5 rocket. NASA and the European Space Agency reached an agreement more than a decade ago by which Europe would use its reliable Ariane 5 rocket to lift the telescope into space, and in exchange, European scientists would get time to use the telescope. //

The Ariane 5 program also selected the best components for Webb based upon pre-flight testing. For example, for the Webb-designated rocket, the program used a main engine that had been especially precise during testing. "It was one of the best Vulcain engines that we've ever built," Albat said. "It has very precise performance. It would have been criminal not to do it." //

Albat admitted that the days prior to launch were exhausting and nerve-wracking. But soon after the launch, Albat said he and the entire European space community could take pride as Webb took flight and began to unfurl its wings. Now, he said, "I feel totally relaxed." The same can be said for a lot of scientists who have been watching Webb's development for two decades.

As we recently detailed in a 25,000-word article, Google's messaging history is one of constant product startups and shutdowns. Thanks to a lack of product focus or any kind of top-down mandate from Google's CEO, no division is really "in charge" of messaging. As a consequence, the company has released 13 halfhearted messaging products since iMessage launched in 2011. If Google has anyone to blame for the iMessage's dominance, it should start with itself, since it has continually sabotaged and abandoned its own plans to make an iMessage competitor.

Messaging is important, and even if it isn't directly monetizable, a dominant messaging app has real, tangible benefits for an ecosystem. The rest of the industry understood this years ago. Facebook paid $22 billion to buy WhatsApp in 2014 and took the app from 450 million users to 2 billion users. Along with Facebook Messenger, Facebook has two dominant messaging platforms today, especially internationally. Salesforce paid $27 billion for Slack in 2020, and Tencent's WeChat, a Chinese messaging app, is pulling in 1.2 billion users and yearly revenues of $5.5 billion. Snapchat is up to a $67 billion market cap, and Telegram is getting $40 billion valuations from investors. Google keeps trying ideas in this market, but it never makes an investment that is anywhere close to the competition. //

Google once had a functional competitor to iMessage in the past, called Google Hangouts. Circa 2015, Hangouts was a messaging powerhouse, which in addition to the native Hangouts messaging, also received SMS and Google Voice messages. Hangouts did group video calls five years before Zoom blew up, and it had clients on Android, iOS, the web, Gmail, and every desktop OS via a Chrome extension.

As usual though, Google lacked any kind of long-term plan or ability to commit to a single messaging strategy, and Hangouts only survived as the "everything" messenger for a single year. By 2016, Google moved on to the next shiny messaging app and left Hangouts to rot. //

Despite Google's whining about iMessage, it seems to have learned nothing from its years of messaging failure. Today, Google messaging is the worst and most fragmented it has ever been. As of press time, the company runs eight separate messaging platforms, none of which talk to each other: there is Google Messages/RCS, which is being promoted today, but there's also Google Chat/Hangouts, Google Voice, Google Photos Messages, Google Pay Messages, Google Maps Business Messages, Google Stadia Messages, and Google Assistant Messaging. Those last couple apps aren't primarily messaging apps but have all ended up rolling their own siloed messaging platform because no dominant Google system exists for them to plug into.

It is an incredible mess, and no single Google product is as good as Hangouts was in 2015