https://youtu.be/T6dmMUR9TVI

The entire administration is made up of ridiculously insecure men flexing to themselves in the mirror.

“The United States is decimating the radical Iranian regime’s military in a way the world has never seen before,”

he said, masturbating furiously.

Can someone please make this creep take a cold shower before doing these briefings?

Yeah, we definitely need a replacement for archive.today. If anything, though, you’d think it not being spammed by wikipedians would improve performance.

I think in this case the NYT might have changed something specifically to make it fail. It’s working for other sites and it’s failing in a really strange way. It starts archiving, gets part way through, then it fails and kicks it back to the archive queue. It just loops like that for maybe 15 minutes before giving that weird ‘doesn’t exist (yet?)’ error.

Okay archive.today is just dead set on being completely useless today. The main link is a gift link now.

Your mom’s an undisclosed bot.

I posted this before archive today was finished, just removing “/wip” from the url but archive today failed. It’s been dogshit for the past few days for some reason. Generating a new link now and I’ll update it when it’s done. Thanks for letting me know it was broken.

My bad. Sometimes I forget that the Mayor of News has decreed there shall only be ONE HEADLINE and that any attempt at knowledge outside of the official bumper sticker is strictly forbidden.

It’s not primarily to do with Israel, which is what headlines are about. A headline about Israel invading would be misleading. You’d expect an article about Israel invading and not one about the Lebanese government’s efforts to disentangle itself from Hezbollah.

Why are you even arguing this? You didn’t read the article. You incorrectly assumed it was about something it isn’t. Like, those amateur NYT editors just haven’t stumbled upon the brilliant headline writing method of making shit up without reading anything? What are you talking about.

The article is about the internal politics of Lebanon.

1. This isn’t an article about Israel invading a country.

2. “Israel” appears in the article 27 times (once in the post body, even!), including this sentence that also includes “invaded”:

Israeli forces have also invaded and seized parts of southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah militants have engaged them in clashes over the past two days.

Right?

‘If you agree to everything we want and nothing you want… that’s the kind of deal we can get behind!’

Unless the goal is to help Peter Thiel demolish the remainder of the free press, paying those men millions in libel lawsuit money would be more stupid than brave.

https://archive.is/SV9HY

Scroll down. Archive.today can archive things other services can’t. That’s why Wikipedia was in a panic about the verifiability crisis removing their 700 000 links would cause. Most can’t be replaced.

Okay, I’m just gonna explain where I’m at with this right now and why.

This isn’t a huge issue for this community but for our hard news discussion communities, abandoning archive.today would instantly make a large amount of news inaccessible (probably 1/3 or more, but that’s just a guess) to the vast majority. It could limit being fully informed to those with means. That would suck. It’s a real harm.

We’re in agreement that archive.today is problematic. We really need a working alternative. The ddos attack is shitty and immature. It’s a betrayal of trust. However, the victim stated in the Ars article you linked to that this hasn’t really had any discernible impact on them. So for now it’s a theoretical harm (and an abhorrent practice) vs a real harm.

For me, as it stands now, I’ll use alternatives where I can and use archive.today where I can’t because I care a lot about that harm. I’ll be ecstatic when a real alternative emerges. Like Wikipedia fell into different camps, we’re probably similar. I respect that you come down on this differently, but that’s where I’m at with this.

You know that’s not a real alternative. I wish it was – it’d make all of this a hell of a lot easier to navigate. But it just isn’t.

Thanks!

I’d take an alternative if you’ve got one. Otherwise, unless there’s a serious change for the worse, I’m probably going to keep posting them. Sorry!

I wasn’t attacking you. You took issue with the language used and I didn’t understand why. Still don’t – it seems like a common way to describe a common occurrence to me – but you don’t have to explain it if you don’t want to.

https://archive.is/fELBv

I dunno, seems like a perfectly fine way to describe what he was doing. What’s your issue with it?

He wasn’t diversifying trade in his speech at Davos, even if that was ultimately his goal.