Yes. The story here is straight from Associated Press, but I looked around and found a few more details in a Telegraph article:

But he woman’s doctor told police that the defendant had tested positive with a rapid test before telling him that she “certainly won’t let herself be locked up” after the result.

Instead she left her apartment and talked to people without a mask, ignoring her mandatory quarantine and positive test.

Note they say MANDATORY quarantine. At the end of the article they explain that Austria’s far right party, Freedom Party, is hyper-anti-vax, expected to win upcoming elections:

Its manifesto has promised a pardon for anyone convicted of breaching coronavirus rules and to repay any fines imposed during the pandemic.

The manifesto says coronavirus regulations were encroachments on fundamental rights “accompanied by unprecedented indoctrination and brainwashing.”

Refresher on McCabe from The Guardian:

McCabe was part of FBI leadership, briefly as acting director, during investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election and links between Trump and Moscow. Trump fired McCabe in March 2018, two days before he was due to retire. McCabe was then the subject of a criminal investigation, for allegedly lying about a media leak. The investigation was dropped in 2020. In October 2021, McCabe settled a lawsuit against the justice department.

I mention this because y’all know that Trumpers will immediately brush off McCabe’s comments as a known-bad-guy who was fired for being so awful and is now trying to get revenge.

You’re right. I hear you. Intellectually, I understand that the conservative/fundamentalist mindset gives higher importance to following leaders and is more triggered by moral disgust. I understand that a conservative may feel a liberal is less moral because liberals ‘lack’ a moral imperative to follow leaders simply because they are leaders. I even accept that agreeing to a premise has utility by getting everyone to work towards a common goal. Unfortunately, I get stuck on the bit where the premise seems illogical to me, or the leader seems to be obviously lying. That’s the part where any intellectual understanding of why someone might choose to ignore obvious red flags flies to the wayside and I can’t figure out what to do about it.

I’m pretty sure that journalists should continuously report which things are unfounded lies, but I don’t think that will sway those who believe those lies. It might, however, convince the continuously emerging crop of newly interested people to be skeptical.

I spent a good while writing up a reply, but it was long and the main point was: while any group of 100+ people is likely to have a bad actor, you look for credible proof (like Edward Snowden showing evidence rather than Sidney Powell saying she had ‘visions’). Side bit: tales of killing/eating/sexually-exploiting babies and pets by a GROUP should always be taken as a manipulative lie because it always is. When some whacko actually tries that crap, the Boys in Blue get up in arms – even if it means ignoring pressure from their bosses, “He’s Illuminati. Let it go.” No. That sort of thing gets exposed.

I kinda understand how some people fall for conspiracies, but I don’t understand how so many people would VOTE for someone who reliable falls for and promotes so very many obvious conspiracies.

@aihorde@lemmy.dbzer0.com draw for me a Simpsons cartoon of people picnicking while Trump shouts, “In Springfield they’re eating the dogs!”, causing everyone to look on in shock and incredulity.

If you missed it, I highly recommend watching it. High drama. Great visual reactions that you’ll miss if you only hear or read it. Just for fun, here’s a composite image of Daily Beast posts that were flying up as I read reviews elsewhere:

… but even a monster like Dick Cheney – a man who largely created a needless war and supposedly LIKES being compared to Darth Vader – even that monster thinks, “Trump would be horrible for the U.S.”

I basically agree with you, but I took it as both a warning to Democrats to stay vigilant and as permission for Republicans to abandon Trump.

Yet Christine Blasey Ford still came forward to tell us about Brett Kavanaugh, and Congress ignored the victim AGAIN.

But even as President Biden tried to downplay concerns about his mental acuity, he had yet another misstep: Referring to the President of Egypt as the President of Mexico.

“I think that, as you know, initially, the President of Mexico, el-Sisi, did not want to open up the gate to allow humanitarian material to get in,” he said, referring to the border between Egypt and Gaza.

I cringed when I heard him say that, but it is exactly the sort of slip of the tongue I make all the time: I know exactly what I mean, but the wrong word comes out of my mouth. This week, I was talking about oxygen and alveoli but said areolae. No, no, stupid brain. Lungs, not breasts.

Anyway, from context, he obviously meant Egypt when he said Mexico because he was referencing the Hamas/Israeli war and was referring to the border with Israel and opening it up. It isn’t in the linked article, but Biden continued as follows:

I talked to him. I convinced him to open the gate. I talked to Bibi to open the gate on the Israeli side. I’ve been pushing really hard, really hard, to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza. There are a lot of innocent people who are starving. There are a lot of innocent people who are in trouble and dying. And it’s got to stop.

So I don’t doubt that Biden meant Egypt, but it was unfortunate timing that he’d say the wrong country in a conference questioning his memory.

This.

I don’t see how they can cry, “States’ Rights!” all this time and now try to say states DON’T have the right to set their ballots. They do. They keep various 3rd party candidates off ballots all the time for stuff like not having enough signatures to get them ON the ballot.

I heard Trump’s lawyer argue that requiring candidates not-be-insurrectionists was adding a requirement not in the Constitution – except it IS in the Constitution and even though 2/3 of Congress could give a pardon/waiver on that, the fact that they MIGHT do so in the future does not disqualify Trump in the now, which the Colorado lawyer brought up. Later, TV commentators brought up that after the Civil War, a bunch of guys DID preemptively ask Congress for waivers. If Trump got that through now, it sounds like Colorado would have to put him on the ballot.

The Supreme Court decided Bush V. Gore on just the state of Florida. It sounds like they are now deciding Trump V. [Constitution] and trying to blame it on Colorado. Sadly, they seem to want the Constitution to lose. My last hope is that they don’t make this about letting ‘one state decide the president’ because that already happens just based on who each state allows to vote. I’m hoping their decision stems from something actually in the Constitution.

It isn’t as important as a war starting, but it is significantly less common than, say, a mass shooting. I’d rate it along side whether groundhog Punxsutawney Phil sees his shadow: we know it is going to happen, that it has no meaningful impact, but there are still a bunch of people who want to know how the tradition turned out.

I haven’t seen the show, but my guess is that the script numbers the kids in order of appearance – because it would be really confusing to get stuff ready if they weren’t numbered in order of appearance. Imagine reading the script and seeing a first mention of the kids like:

Ghoulish child #2 darts across the hall and disappears.

You wonder, “Was there a #1?” Then you see more ghoulish kids on the pages: 4, 7, 1, 5. Are there numbers 2 and 3? 6 or 8? How many costumes do we need, and are theses kids going to appear together? Were some cut? Did the script editor forget something?

If they are in order of appearance, then the kids with bigger/speaking parts might get higher billing, but they wouldn’t get earlier numbers since non-speaking/smaller parts appeared earlier.

The “set up” is that students were NOT calling for genocide, and she was answering in regards to what was actually said (which, again, was not a call for genocide). She was saying that in the context of a peace rally, wanting Palestinians to be free is a call for equality and not the same as a call to eliminate all Jewish people – though if you said the same thing while firing rockets from Gaza, it would be a call to violence (but then it would not be in English). And they were all completely incompetent and making that distinction for the cameras.

But isn’t public speaking part of leading a University?

Yes, you are right, they were set up, but they should have been repeating over and over that much, if not all, of the speech was free from violent content with NO actual calls to kill or harm anyone. They should have made it clear that chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” at a peace rally may well be a call for equal citizenship (particularly when said by Euro/American types rallying against a distant aggression) despite sounding like a dog whistle to others.

They completely failed at that.

I missed the beginning of that hearing, but caught a fair chunk of it before turning it off as awful grandstanding by some of my least-liked politicians. I noticed the news only carried the worst bits, but honestly, I didn’t really hear any ‘best’ bits that were overlooked. I hope they had some better moments at the beginning, but while I was watching? No. As a group the University heads were just falling into traps or getting a brief reprieve without them recovering or clarifying anything.

Per reuters, the 5 unaccounted for coast guard crew have been reported as dead: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/fire-breaks-out-plane-runway-japans-tokyo-haneda-airport-nhk-2024-01-02/

The bits that hit me most:

It wasn’t just author profiles that the magazine repeatedly replaced. Each time an author was switched out, the posts they supposedly penned would be reattributed to the new persona, with no editor’s note explaining the change in byline.

authors at TheStreet with highly specific biographies detailing seemingly flesh-and-blood humans with specific areas of expertise — but … these fake writers are periodically wiped from existence and their articles reattributed to new names, with no disclosure about the use of AI.

We caught CNET and Bankrate, both owned by Red Ventures, publishing barely-disclosed AI content that was filled with factual mistakes and even plagiarism;

“Godfather of AI” Geoff Hinton, in recent public talks, explains that one of the greatest risks is not that chatbots will become super-intelligent, but that they will generate text that is super-persuasive without being intelligent, in the manner of Donald Trump or Boris Johnson. In a world where evidence and logic are not respected in public debate, Hinton imagines that systems operating without evidence or logic could become our overlords by becoming superhumanly persuasive, imitating and supplanting the worst kinds of political leader.

Why is “superhumanly persuasive” always being done for stupid stuff and not, I don’t know, getting people to drive fuel efficient cars instead of giant pickups and suvs?