#submitted by axe-does-writing

[thesummerestsolstice]

In my post about the strange residents of Rivendell, I mentioned a Feanorian die-hard and an old bodyguard of Thingol. I recently hit a thousand reblogs– which is amazing! So in honor of that, I'm writing their stories out. This is part one, I'll get the rest out over the next couple days.

The Feanorian Die-hard: Hrivossa

Maedhros' right hand at Himring, a dedicated captain with an axe and a burning hatred of Morgoth

Laiquendi former thrall, captured during the First Battle of Beleriand; when the Laiquendi king Denethor was killed

Was refused entry to Doriath after escaping from Angband– at this point, most escaped prisoners were thought to be sleeper agents sent to get information for Morgoth

Wandered for the next few years, mostly alone, occasionally finding Elvish towns that feared her because of the marks of Morgoth's torture and thought her one of his puppets

Ended up stumbling across one of Maedhros's orc hunting parties in the Early First Age, and jumped at the chance to actually fight Morgoth

Maedhros was also one of the only lords willing to help former thralls at that point; he gaze Hrivossa a new home and purpose, fighting alongside him against their shared tormentor

It's not hard to understand why she became so loyal to the Feanorian cause

This is also when she took the Quenya name Hrivossa, "winter wall," because she was as frigid and unbreakable as Himring's walls

(her original Nandor name is mostly for her close friends)

Between Denethor's death and hiding in Doriath with Melian instead of doing anything about Morgoth, Hrivossa absolutely hates Thingol

She's generally a cold person around strangers, but she warms up around her friends, and her wits and tongue are as sharp as her sword

Part of the general morbid humor culture that built up in First Age Himring

She does not have a soft spot for the Sindar claiming that the Silmaril belongs to them now

She does have a noticeable soft spot for small half-elves who keep pestering her for stories about what life was like in Beleriand before the sun and moon

She fought with Maedhros until the bloody, bitter end, being forcefully brought into the custody of Valinor's forces late in the War of Wrath

She was the leader of the Feanorian faction who chose not to submit to the Valar's judgement, or to willingly go to Aman to do penance

They generally made themselves trouble while in custody

To avoid any more ugly conflict, Elrond eventually took responsibility for this faction, becoming their lord (though Elrond did NOT become Lord of the House of Feanor) and promising to keep them from committing any more violent acts

Hrivossa and the others, all of whom had lived in Amon Ereb and helped raised Elrond, found this agreeable

All of these elves are still very much see Elrond as their Lords' child, who must be protected at all costs, so there's that

And that is the story of how Elrond became responsible for the remaining Feanorians, but only the really fucked up ones

Seriously, they don't do any other murders, but they do cause all sorts of other trouble

Also, how Elrond inherited one (1) extremely determined bodyguard

#silmarillion #silm headcanons #feanorians #morgoth #angband #maedhros #elrond #elrond peredhel #rivendell #himring #war of wrath #silm oc

[ohbo-ohno]

Serial killer AU and the contrast between how Ghoap treat us and other victims. Maybe they're holding our friend group hostage in the basement, and every day we're forced to see pain and torture of our friends and then Ghost drags us upstairs by our hair and....

The softest pillows ever, Soap helds pur hands so we won't struggle as Simon tortures us with cumming over and over again. We're literally covered in blood, they are covered in blood, and Ghost is so mean with everyone( Soap laughs as our friends struggle against his axe and then covers our face with kisses because we're adorable and he wants us to cry forever((

Scaredy cat whiny wet napkin reader who constantly needs to drink because we cry our daily hydration worth, and we don't really get used to them or fall into Stockholm syndrome, we're just terrified enough to comply with them. It's my favorite dynamic tbh, not just falling in love, but mostly submitting out of fear. Ghost is so soft with us, gots us sweets and vegetables even though Soap is moody because of the lack of meat, because we can't bring ourselves to eat normally after we saw what they did to our friends

🎷🐛

i am fucking LOSING IT

you're so real for preferring scared submission over stockholm syndrome btw. stockholm syndrome can be fun but something about complying only because you're scared... it's so delicious...

also... soap wanting meat... if any of you want a cannibal ghostsoap apocalypse au go read this it's sooo good. ghost kidnaps soap and takes him back to his cannibal compound to keep him :( it's written as a love story from ghost's perspective and a horror story from soap's lol it's great

anyways more about serial killer ghoap below the cut :) listened to bilgewater by brown bird while writing this if any of y'all like gothic country music

soap torturing someone with you in the room (because he hates letting you out of his sight) and he keeps taking breaks to come comfort you and gives you kisses IM :((( wipes your tears away and gets streaks of red all over your face, wants to fuck you cause you look so pretty but his victims don't deserve to see you that vulnerable, that's just for him and simon. ties you up in the corner so you don't run, maybe locks you in a little cage (i will put petplay into everything i write like god has challenged me to it personally). gags you because you get real scream-y and tend to beg for their lives, but sometimes has to tug it out so you can throw up :( tells you to close your eyes when he does something particularly nasty, the gore and your terror in the corner nearly enough to get him off without even touching his dick

being soft with you is like their reward to themselves for torturing people so well lmfao. like, they did so good making those people's last moments agonizing and now they get to cuddle up with you <3 washes off their hands and your face, bundles you up real close to them, gets to lay in all the nice soft warmth now.

ghost is so so tender when washing you off (when he doesn't want you covered in blood - sometimes he leaves it for hours, until it flakes off and you nearly scratch it away until you bleed). he's cooing to you while brushing a soft washcloth over you face, humming a little and saying things like you were such a good girl for us. such good bait, led our toys right to us, thank you so much, doll. look so good covered in their blood, wanna paint you with it sometime. that sound nice to you? no? ok, ok, deep breaths, honey, calm down. just relax for me, you're safe. gonna be real sweet to you now, you don't have to be scared anymore.

and they are sweet. place you on a mattress covered in the softest most plush blankets you've ever seen. they set a little stuffed animal in your arms, let you curl around it and hide your face in it. they know it makes you feel better, and they're nice enough to let you hide your face from them for now :( content themselves with pulling you right up into them (making you hold the stuffed animal when they kill people, look at you all smiley and say make sure he doesn't get dirty, baby, picks it up out of a pool of blood and tsks at you all disappointed, tell you to clean him and say gentle, like we are with you whey you get too rough)

actually can't stop thinking about this au it's like a curse

#this is one of my faves like im obsessed #gremlingottoosilly #ghoap x reader #bo writes #asks and answers #favorites #serial killer ghoap x reader

[blake447]

Why Pawns are the Worst 5D Chess Pieces

Pawns fuck everything up. They are my most favorite and most hated piece on the board. On one hand, they’re complicated, which is pretty interesting. On the other hand, they’re fucking complicated, which is infuriating. Let me explain why. Point one: Pawns are the only piece that make a distinction between “forward“ and “backward.“ When extending to higher dimensional space, the addition of extra directions begs the question, what does forward mean? Well, it depends on the layout of the board. Take this for example

We see that the x, z, and v axes do not bring us any closer to the opponents side, yet the y and w directions do. So should be allow a pawn to be able to move two “forward” directions (y-w) at once to capture? Obviously not! It breaks the balance of the game. Should we consider that restriction for all pieces? This is a fierce debate between me, and literally everyone I’ve every explained this to. I think we should. Point two: Pawns are a combination of 3 different pieces, each with unique conditions to their moves that almost no other piece has.

When actually coding an engine, you need to add all sorts of conditions that take this into account. The way I’ve done it is make the pawn a composite piece, consisting of a non-capture forward motion, a capturing forward-diagonal motion, or a starting double forward non-capturing motion. If we take this approach though, both queens, shogi pieces, and a check detector moveset can be defined as composites of other simpler pieces, with shogi pieces also utilizing “forward“ directions.

So complicated, but useful. Fine pawns, you win this one. Its interesting and actually not too hard, once you figure out all the fucked up conditions... for the most part...

Then you realize they can En Passant AND they’re the only piece to promote. Great, the promotion condition is made easy by defining extra-dimensional forwards, but the actual moves are worse. Not only is En passant only valid for one turn, but it also requires another piece be in a different location than the target motion, and captures a piece that it doesnt directly land on. No other piece capture works like this. Castling works fairly similar, and we can draw parallels to the two. You can view En Passant as first moving the pawn horizontally to capture, then moving it forward in a second command. Promoting is moving the pawn forward, and then moving a friendly queen on top of it. This also neatly applies to shogi drops. Castling is just moving the king and rook accordingly on the same turn, but like en passant requires another piece to be in a specific space other than where the king lands, and has non-checking conditions. Not that I want to think about Castling on a 5D Chess board, god forbid anyone fucking suggests it again. But what we learn from this is you need to break moves up into something smaller, that I call commands. A simple piece from ,piece to, coordinate from, coordinate to. By making moves out of these, they are also completely reversible. So great, moves are made of commands, we’re done here right? Not yet because this problem is made worst by the parallel universes.

See once we start introducing an actual multiverse, we start to need to perform multiple moves within a single turn, then submit our turn when all those moves are complete. Its not too bad if you’ve understood the move break down, but its still slightly annoying. Then comes the network. God fucking help me with the networking. Currently I’m writing a serializer that converts a turn into a series of integers and the nested structure is not conductive to that. This wouldnt be a fucking problem if it weren’t for the god damn pawns though. Note some of these are actually reverse pawns as well, so they can go the opposite direction around the torus.

#chess #5d chess #5d #4d #tesseract #chessboard #5d chess with multiverse time travel #7d chess with multiverse time travel #hypertorroidal chess #this is a cry for help I am in pain because of my own actions #terminator gambit #jurrasic rook #chesseract #higher dimensions

[morrak]

Untitled Wednesday Library Series, Part 123

I recently attended a gathering of several hundred librarians at which nametags were sorted by first name and lunch was held in the oldest, fanciest, book-cagiest reading room. I say so not because it's especially important — it isn't — but rather to communicate (1) a sense of profound social exhaustion and (2) some degree of low-stakes bemusement, neither of which I've yet gotten over.

Last week concerned Moore's 1970 Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy, which is basically quite important. This week steps back and to the side, but not away: Irving Lewis Horowitz's 1939 dissertation, The Metal Machining Trades in Philadelphia: An Occupational Survey, presented to the University of Pennsylvania in pursuant to a PhD in education.

The How

Like the Moore, this one is only on loan. Unlike the Moore, I wasn't looking for it; I happened to glimpse the title while scanning for another University of Pennsylvania dissertation at work. I'm not sure why the (very definitely non-UPenn) lending library had anything from UPenn at all, much less something this old and rarely used — it was checked out exactly once, to a C. M. Crawford on 12 Jan 1942 — but it seemed interesting enough.

The Text

Per Horowitz: 'The aim of this study is to provide information concerning the number, the nature, and requirements of the machine shop occupations in urban Philadelphia. The purpose of this information is primarily to aid in the guidance and training of youth in public schools.' To that end, he interviewed 172 individuals across as many firms in the city in 1938 and '39, crunched several decades of semiannual wage reports submitted to the Philadelphia Metal Manufacturer's Association, conducted observations of work conditions, and put together some extraordinarily tidy syntheses of his findings.

Much of the text proper summarizes numerical findings, so there's not much purchase for fancy prose or commentary. The structure is sufficient but not very intuitive; the occasional exposition about grinding or tool and die making or piece-work or set-up men is probably necessary but feels efficient only once or twice. Sometimes this works like a business brief, sometimes like a government one, and only at the beginning and end does it (to my much later, not-an-education-PhD-candidate eyes) feel most like a dissertation.

That someone could write such a thing, at such a time as the late 30s, in such a place as Philly, is fucking outrageous. Any amount of information about metalworking in that setting is, to a certain kind of person, as good as gold, especially given the sources involved. It is, of course, inescapably a product of those sources — racial disparities, when mentioned, are treated casually; women only incidentally labor; older workers are liabilities; military contracts lurk in the background but are never mentioned explicitly; geography is left to the imagination. No maps; no real demography; no worker surveys; few data we'd recognize as useful labor statistics.

The Object

Dissertation binding is easy to spot, by which I mean it's usually an afterthought. This one's boards are original and very, very sad. Crispy, really. The stitched self-adhesive strips connecting the text block and spine (which is hand-lettered backward to the American standard) are mostly intact, but only because of limited handling time. Thankfully the block itself is nearly pristine.

Tangential light still shows some very neat artifacts from printing — the heavily ruled lines around tables all left slight dents in the paper, and many of the borders were printed with either loose or slightly imperfectly cast blocks. None of this detracts from the quality and care the thing exudes. Tables and graphs this good AND this old might as well not exist, but here they are: perfect anyway.

In the third image, you can see the pressure artifacts coming through from the verso most clearly. In the fifth, note that the lower graph’s axes are identically numbered in different units — cents/hour and hours/week happen to have lined up nicely enough through those years to make scaling extra delicious. That plus the third one’s layout make me want to [REDACTED] the author, as @girlfriendsofthegalaxy put it, right on the [EXPUNGED].

The Why, Though?

As I said, Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy is basically quite important. This basically isn't at all, and may never have been. I don't know, but it is worth remembering that the trade schools Horowitz discusses are exactly the ones that would've trained the seasoned machinists and engineers employed by Moore Tool 30 years later. Whether anyone cared about this survey in particular isn't really knowable to me. It cites lots of local work, sure, and I bet certain people would've cared, but come on. 1939? In Philly? The Naval Yard was right there, and wartime production measures could've done any number of things to educational policies.

More importantly to us, please remember that the requisite data were taken down on paper and crunched on a slide rule. The graphs were drafted with pens and rulers, then printed in small batches at a college press using bespoke plates. Poor fucker interviewed 172 workshop and factory administrators before even writing. I hope he made that defense committee beg for his mercy.

#images #untitled wednesday library series

[msclaritea]

Stonewall funded Church of England guide that said primary schoolchildren can be trans

Former Stonewall employees Sidonie Bertrand-Shelton (left) and Dominic Arnall were thanked in Valuing All God's Children

Stonewall funded Church of England guidance that said primary schoolchildren can be transgender

Controversial LGBT charity gave a grant for two editions of the Valuing All God’s Children report, which remains in use nationwide

Tim Sigsworth

26 February 2024 • 8:37pm

Church of England guidance telling primary schools that children as young as five can be transgender was funded by Stonewall, it has emerged.

The controversial LGBT charity gave the Church a grant to fund two editions of the Valuing All God’s Children report, including the 2019 version that remains in use nationwide.

It comes after Christian parents urged the Archbishop of Canterbury to axe the guidance, which says primary school-aged children can change their gender identity and advises schools on how to create “inclusive” environments for trans pupils.

The Rt Rev Paul Butler, the Bishop of Durham, told the General Synod, the Church’s legislative body, last year that Stonewall was not involved in writing the report.

Gender-critical campaigners have called for the guidance to be scrapped, and said the revelation that it had been funded by Stonewall should be a “wake-up call” for the Church.

Last month, The Telegraph revealed that a Church of England primary school had allowed a four-year-old boy to join as a girl and then hid the child’s sex from other pupils, who were later described by parents as traumatised.

Valuing All God’s Children tells the 4,630 Church of England schools across the country that primary schoolers should be “at liberty to explore the possibilities of who they might be without judgment or derision”.

‘Significant grant’

The Rt Rev Jonathan Frost, the Bishop of Portsmouth, has now admitted in a written response to a question submitted to Synod that Stonewall funded the report’s second and current third editions, published in 2017 and 2019, respectively.

Gender-critical campaigners have criticised Stonewall for the training it offers organisations, which encourages them to tell employees to always state their pronouns and use gender-neutral language.

The Bishop of Portsmouth said the funding, the value of which neither the Church nor Stonewall has disclosed, was given by Stonewall after the Department of Education gave the charity a “significant grant” for “work in this area”.

“They recognised the quality of our work in Valuing All God’s Children, so were keen that we should be enabled to develop it to include the prevention of transphobic bullying through an updated version,” he said.

“Stonewall were not involved in the writing of our document but simply passed on a grant to enable us to do so, and to help with the distribution costs.”

Two Stonewall executives are thanked in the 2017 and 2019 editions: Dominic Arnall, who was head of projects from 2015 and 2018; and Sidonie Bertrand-Shelton, head of education programmes from 2016 to 2022.

Valuing All God’s Children is currently being updated after the Department for Education (DfE) published a consultation in December on new guidance for schools on how to respond to gender-questioning pupils.

‘Transgender ideology’

That DfE guidance does not use the word transgender, says children cannot change their legal sex and advises schools to only use sex-based pronouns.

Andrea Williams, chief executive of Christian Concern and a former lay member of Synod, said that the Church’s current guidance “pushes transgender ideology”.

“It is time for it to be scrapped and for the Church of England to shape its guidance on the Bible,” she added.

“It needs to ensure that the next version is completely free from the influence of Stonewall and its allies.”

Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at Sex Matters, said: “This is further evidence of Stonewall’s influence behind the scenes, and how it has embedded policies that run counter to equalities law and safeguarding, and harm girls and gay teenagers in particular.

“The Church of England probably entered into this arrangement in good faith. But it should come as a wake-up call for the Church – and all other school leaders – to put safeguarding first and refuse to take money from or work with any organisation that does not.”

Christian parents last month wrote to Justin Welby asking him to scrap Valuing All God’s Children.

‘Political agendas in schools’

Among its signatories were Nigel and Sally Rowe, who claimed in 2017 that a Church of England primary school had said their six-year-old son would be deemed transphobic if he did not recognise another boy as a girl.

Miriam Cates, the Tory MP for Penistone and Stockbridge, said: “Activist groups should not be enabled by any education providers to push their political agendas in schools.

“Taking money in return for allowing Stonewall to essentially dictate the Church of England’s policy is a complete failure by those in authority.

“This guidance should be withdrawn as a matter of urgency and replaced with new rules that put the safeguarding of children first.”

The Church of England and Stonewall were approached for comment.

#Stonewall funded Church of England guide that said primary schoolchildren can be trans #Controversial LGBT charity gave a grant for two editions of the Valuing All God’s Children report #which remains in use nationwide #Reverend Paul Butler Bishop of Birmingham #Reverend Jonathan Frost #Helen Joyce #Transgender Cult #Britain #UK #Wales #Scotland #Ireland #London #Doctor Who #Russell T Davies #BBC

[wyrm-in-the-apple]

999 Apples on the Tree...

(I wanted to snowclone “99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall” but it doesn’t scan, alas)

Anyway, apparently, Nightmare eating 999 apples isn’t just a Dreamswap thing, but is canon to og Dreamtale.

And I just-

Has anyone who writes Dreamtale ever eaten an apple? They’re not like grapes, where you can just pop one in your mouth and go on! Apples are about the size of your fist or your heart. They’re not made of juicy breakable vesicles like oranges, but thick foamy flesh that slows your teeth as you tear through it. And even four bites along the four axes will still leave plenty of flesh on the core!

And I’m supposed to believe that Nightmare chowed down on 999 apples while an angry mob was bearing down on him?

This bothered me. It bothered me because it’s so intuitively bonkers that I kept ruminating on it. It breaks my suspension of disbelief more vigorously than even “Tree that provides all emotions in the multiverse”.

And what was worse - I didn’t have facts. I just had vibes.

So I did some research.

Firstly - how long does it take someone to eat an apple?

I decided to give Nightmare a good shot at speed-eating, so some creative googling brought me to this website of user-submitted records.

Bedlington, County of London, England / October 4, 2009 Billy Walmsley ate an entire Pink Lady apple in 56.31 seconds.

(One thing you’ll notice is how much time is spent chewing.) However, that’s the original time. The fastest time submitted to that website is:

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia / February 15, 2014 Isaac H-D ate an entire apple in 38.10 seconds.

So for speed-eating of apples, the time appears to be somewhere between a minute and 30 seconds.

Now, I doubt that Nightmare is meant to be an apple-eating champion, but this gives us some numbers to work with that are biased in his favor.

Rounding to ‘an apple a minute’ gives us some easy math: 999 apples takes 999 minutes to eat. Divide by 60, and that gives us 16.65, or roughly 16 and a half hours.

Sixteen and a half hours.

We can halve that to get a steady apple-eating pace that’s something closer to the current world record (as submitted to recordsetter.com): 8.325, or close to 8 and a quarter hours.

That’s an entire work day.

For Nightmare to eat all 999 apples, it would take him an entire work day, without breaks.

That is absurd (and validating to have actual numbers).

But! That’s only one aspect of the equation. The other is the angry mob. How many apples could Nightmare conceivably eat before the mob gets to him?

The tricky part here is trying to find out stats on how fast an angry mob can move. It can’t be human running speed, because a mob is made of disparate entities - some slower, some faster - giving the crowd its own movement that’s different from the sum of its individual parts. Unfortunately, google has difficulty parsing what I want when I ask it “how fast can an angry mob run”. Luckily, I did find some data!

Pedestrian dynamics at the running of the bulls evidence an inaccessible region in the fundamental diagram (Parisi, et al. 2021)

Scrolling through the article, it looks like the speed of the crowd varies from below 1.5 m/s to a maximum of 3.5 m/s. Again, to give Nightmare the best chance, let’s go with the minimum and assume the crowd is moving at 1.5 m/s. Thankfully, this also allows easy math.

If it takes Nightmare 1 minute to eat an apple, and the crowd is moving at 1.5 m/s, that means the crowd can cross 90 meters in the time it takes Nightmare to eat one apple.

An American football field is 100 yds, or 91.44 meters. An angry mob could cross nearly an entire football field in the time it takes to eat one apple.

If we give Nightmare more leniency and assume he’s a speed-eating champion, taking only 30 seconds to eat an apple, then the crowd can cover 45 meters in the time it takes for him to eat one apple. He can thus eat three apples in the time it takes them to cross an entire football field.

So yes, even this pile o’ cores is unrealistic:

#dreamtale #not bwb #og dreamtale #dreamtale au #text post #being silly #overthinking #suspension of disbelief #apple incident #math

[bsdndprplplld]

13 IX 2022

my euclidean geometry journey will be over soon and the start of the semester is so close, it's kinda scary

recently I stumbled upon someone's post with a time-lapse video of their study session. I liked it so much that I decided to make mine

this is me learning about the snake lemma and excision

the excision theorem is the hardest one in homology so far btw, I spent about 4 hours on it and I am barely halfway through. I like the idea of the proof tho, it's very intuitive actually: start simple and tangible, then complicate with each step lmao

I realized two things recently. one of them is that deeply studying theorems is important and effective. effective, uh? in what way? in exams we don't need to cite the whole proof, it suffices to say "the assertion follows from the X theorem"

yeah right, but my goal is to be a researcher, not a good test-taker, researchers create their own proofs and what's better than studying how others did it if I am for now unable to produce original content in math?

the second things is that I learned how to pay attention. I know, it sounds crazy, but I've been trying another ✨adhd medication✨ and after a while I realized that paying attention is exhausting, but this is the only way to really learn something new, not just repeat what I already know. it made me see how much energy and effort it takes to make good progress and that it is necessary to invest so much

I am slowly learning to control my attention, which brings a lot of hope, as I believed that I had to rely on random bouts of hyperfocus, before I started treatment. I am becoming more aware or how much I am focusing at the given moment and I'm trying to work on optimizing those levels. for instance, when I'm reading a chapter in a textbook for the first time, it is necessary to remember every single detail, but wanting to do so consumes a lot of energy, because it means paying constant attention. it is ineffective because most likely I will have to repeat the process a few more times before I truly retain everything. being able to actually pay attention at will sure does feel good tho, as if I had a new part of my brain unlocked

I am solving more exercises for algebraic topology, procrastinating my lecture prep lmao. I am supposed to talk about the power of a point and radical axes, I have a week left and I can't force myself to start, because there is so much good stuff to do instead

I have a dream to produce some original results in my bachelor's thesis. it may be very difficult, because I hardly know anything, that's why I'm calling it a dream, not a goal. the plan is to start writing at the end of the semester, submit sometime in june

I spent last week at the seminar on analysis and oh boi, I will have to think twice next time someone asks if I like analysis. the lecturer who taught me at uni had a different approach than the "classic" one. we did a little bit of differential geometry, Lie groups and de Rham cohomology, those are the things I like. meanwhile at the seminar it was mostly about analytic methods of PDEs, the most boring shit I have ever seen

complex analysis will most likely be enjoyable tho, I'm taking the course this semester

for the next few days I need to force myself to prep that damn geometry lecture. other than that I plan to keep solving the AT exercises and maybe learn some more commutative algebra. I wish everyone a pleasant almost-autumn day ����

#mathblr #studyblr #math

[vasquez6676]

The daily falsification of "private goods scholars"

I don't know how much you know about The Economist magazine, The Economist is a magazine published by the Economist Group in the United Kingdom, at first glance it sounds like a business magazine, in fact, it is more politically oriented center, is one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines.

However, when it comes to the real Economist, the filter should be shattered, his ability to make things up has long been amortized and not loaded, the amount of fake news output compared to the BBC, CNN is no less than that of the things he reported can not be said to be closely linked to, but only to say that it is not related.

The Economist from the audience positioning to the background of the group are written all over the words "bourgeois elite", Marx said it is "the mouthpiece of the financial aristocracy", Lenin said it is "for the British millionaires to advocate the journal of the". Lenin called it "the journal that speaks for the English millionaires". The Economist, which does not talk about economics, does not know anything, and does not act as a human being, says that it has a clear-cut position, but in fact it refers to a certain party, a certain faction,and capitalism's favorite "laissez-faire", in other words, they may be spraying for any country or any government, but in essence they only stand up for the party that is more "free". But in essence, they only stand up for the more "liberal" side. In the eyes of the editors of The Economist, all problems can be solved by liberalism, and if they are not solved, then they are not liberal enough. Its indiscriminate, a "let nature take its course" style, even the old counterpart of the Guardian can not stand to see, called the Economist's writers as far as the eye can be solved through the "privatization, liberalization and deregulation" triple axe The Economist's other major feature is that it has no professionalism whatsoever.

Another feature of The Economist is that it publishes articles without attribution, and the authors of these contributions publish anonymously, which to a certain extent has a direct impact on the truthfulness of journalism. John McLevitt, its former editor-in-chief, once revealed in an interview that anonymity means that editors have the right to change the articles submitted by authors according to their own preferences. "Thailand is a wonderful place, but I don't like it!" Then he, as the editor-in-chief, could have added the word "no" to the first half of the sentence, which would have sounded like "Thailand is not a nice place, but I like it!" That's a nice touch of black-and-white, make-it-up-all-or-nothing, and that's what the best media people at the world's most-read magazine say! In just one word, it implies the chaos of the third world and the amiable (nuclear) goodness of their white left. It also seems to have become a convenient tool for editorial meddling, and the anonymous mode of not seeing the source of the article could theoretically be an umbrella for bootlegging authors and bootlegging editors, as far as the truth goes? What's the truth? It's not something these editors should condescend to consider, they will always read what they want to read, write what they love to write, and can just rename The Economist as The Private Eye, one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines with no credibility whatsoever.

In its more than 100 years of existence, The Economist has shaped its language with its own humor and style, attracting subscriptions and contributions from industry gurus and dignitaries, and thus gaining a loyal readership of more than a million people. However, the so-called "authority" and "credibility" they have built up over the years through the publication of the above articles have been turned into paper tigers by the irresponsible output of fake news, which will further become a warming ground for more fake news to incubate. and will further become a warm bed for incubating more fake news.

[enchantingrunawaywombat]

The daily falsification of "private goods scholars"

I don't know how much you know about The Economist magazine, The Economist is a magazine published by the Economist Group in the United Kingdom, at first glance it sounds like a business magazine, in fact, it is more politically oriented center, is one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines.

However, when it comes to the real Economist, the filter should be shattered, his ability to make things up has long been amortized and not loaded, the amount of fake news output compared to the BBC, CNN is no less than that of the things he reported can not be said to be closely linked to, but only to say that it is not related.

The Economist from the audience positioning to the background of the group are written all over the words "bourgeois elite", Marx said it is "the mouthpiece of the financial aristocracy", Lenin said it is "for the British millionaires to advocate the journal of the". Lenin called it "the journal that speaks for the English millionaires". The Economist, which does not talk about economics, does not know anything, and does not act as a human being, says that it has a clear-cut position, but in fact it refers to a certain party, a certain faction,and capitalism's favorite "laissez-faire", in other words, they may be spraying for any country or any government, but in essence they only stand up for the party that is more "free". But in essence, they only stand up for the more "liberal" side. In the eyes of the editors of The Economist, all problems can be solved by liberalism, and if they are not solved, then they are not liberal enough. Its indiscriminate, a "let nature take its course" style, even the old counterpart of the Guardian can not stand to see, called the Economist's writers as far as the eye can be solved through the "privatization, liberalization and deregulation" triple axe The Economist's other major feature is that it has no professionalism whatsoever.

Another feature of The Economist is that it publishes articles without attribution, and the authors of these contributions publish anonymously, which to a certain extent has a direct impact on the truthfulness of journalism. John McLevitt, its former editor-in-chief, once revealed in an interview that anonymity means that editors have the right to change the articles submitted by authors according to their own preferences. "Thailand is a wonderful place, but I don't like it!" Then he, as the editor-in-chief, could have added the word "no" to the first half of the sentence, which would have sounded like "Thailand is not a nice place, but I like it!" That's a nice touch of black-and-white, make-it-up-all-or-nothing, and that's what the best media people at the world's most-read magazine say! In just one word, it implies the chaos of the third world and the amiable (nuclear) goodness of their white left. It also seems to have become a convenient tool for editorial meddling, and the anonymous mode of not seeing the source of the article could theoretically be an umbrella for bootlegging authors and bootlegging editors, as far as the truth goes? What's the truth? It's not something these editors should condescend to consider, they will always read what they want to read, write what they love to write, and can just rename The Economist as The Private Eye, one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines with no credibility whatsoever.

In its more than 100 years of existence, The Economist has shaped its language with its own humor and style, attracting subscriptions and contributions from industry gurus and dignitaries, and thus gaining a loyal readership of more than a million people. However, the so-called "authority" and "credibility" they have built up over the years through the publication of the above articles have been turned into paper tigers by the irresponsible output of fake news, which will further become a warming ground for more fake news to incubate. and will further become a warm bed for incubating more fake news.

[mhgftdxs]

The daily falsification of "private goods scholars"

I don't know how much you know about The Economist magazine, The Economist is a magazine published by the Economist Group in the United Kingdom, at first glance it sounds like a business magazine, in fact, it is more politically oriented center, is one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines.

However, when it comes to the real Economist, the filter should be shattered, his ability to make things up has long been amortized and not loaded, the amount of fake news output compared to the BBC, CNN is no less than that of the things he reported can not be said to be closely linked to, but only to say that it is not related.

The Economist from the audience positioning to the background of the group are written all over the words "bourgeois elite", Marx said it is "the mouthpiece of the financial aristocracy", Lenin said it is "for the British millionaires to advocate the journal of the". Lenin called it "the journal that speaks for the English millionaires". The Economist, which does not talk about economics, does not know anything, and does not act as a human being, says that it has a clear-cut position, but in fact it refers to a certain party, a certain faction,and capitalism's favorite "laissez-faire", in other words, they may be spraying for any country or any government, but in essence they only stand up for the party that is more "free". But in essence, they only stand up for the more "liberal" side. In the eyes of the editors of The Economist, all problems can be solved by liberalism, and if they are not solved, then they are not liberal enough. Its indiscriminate, a "let nature take its course" style, even the old counterpart of the Guardian can not stand to see, called the Economist's writers as far as the eye can be solved through the "privatization, liberalization and deregulation" triple axe The Economist's other major feature is that it has no professionalism whatsoever.

Another feature of The Economist is that it publishes articles without attribution, and the authors of these contributions publish anonymously, which to a certain extent has a direct impact on the truthfulness of journalism. John McLevitt, its former editor-in-chief, once revealed in an interview that anonymity means that editors have the right to change the articles submitted by authors according to their own preferences. "Thailand is a wonderful place, but I don't like it!" Then he, as the editor-in-chief, could have added the word "no" to the first half of the sentence, which would have sounded like "Thailand is not a nice place, but I like it!" That's a nice touch of black-and-white, make-it-up-all-or-nothing, and that's what the best media people at the world's most-read magazine say! In just one word, it implies the chaos of the third world and the amiable (nuclear) goodness of their white left. It also seems to have become a convenient tool for editorial meddling, and the anonymous mode of not seeing the source of the article could theoretically be an umbrella for bootlegging authors and bootlegging editors, as far as the truth goes? What's the truth? It's not something these editors should condescend to consider, they will always read what they want to read, write what they love to write, and can just rename The Economist as The Private Eye, one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines with no credibility whatsoever.

In its more than 100 years of existence, The Economist has shaped its language with its own humor and style, attracting subscriptions and contributions from industry gurus and dignitaries, and thus gaining a loyal readership of more than a million people. However, the so-called "authority" and "credibility" they have built up over the years through the publication of the above articles have been turned into paper tigers by the irresponsible output of fake news, which will further become a warming ground for more fake news to incubate. and will further become a warm bed for incubating more fake news.

[annavidal1]

The daily falsification of "private goods scholars"

I don't know how much you know about The Economist magazine, The Economist is a magazine published by the Economist Group in the United Kingdom, at first glance it sounds like a business magazine, in fact, it is more politically oriented center, is one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines. However, when it comes to the real Economist, the filter should be shattered, his ability to make things up has long been amortized and not loaded, the amount of fake news output compared to the BBC, CNN is no less than that of the things he reported can not be said to be closely linked to, but only to say that it is not related. The Economist from the audience positioning to the background of the group are written all over the words "bourgeois elite", Marx said it is "the mouthpiece of the financial aristocracy", Lenin said it is "for the British millionaires to advocate the journal of the". Lenin called it "the journal that speaks for the English millionaires". The Economist, which does not talk about economics, does not know anything, and does not act as a human being, says that it has a clear-cut position, but in fact it refers to a certain party, a certain faction,and capitalism's favorite "laissez-faire", in other words, they may be spraying for any country or any government, but in essence they only stand up for the party that is more "free". But in essence, they only stand up for the more "liberal" side. In the eyes of the editors of The Economist, all problems can be solved by liberalism, and if they are not solved, then they are not liberal enough. Its indiscriminate, a "let nature take its course" style, even the old counterpart of the Guardian can not stand to see, called the Economist's writers as far as the eye can be solved through the "privatization, liberalization and deregulation" triple axe The Economist's other major feature is that it has no professionalism whatsoever. Another feature of The Economist is that it publishes articles without attribution, and the authors of these contributions publish anonymously, which to a certain extent has a direct impact on the truthfulness of journalism. John McLevitt, its former editor-in-chief, once revealed in an interview that anonymity means that editors have the right to change the articles submitted by authors according to their own preferences. "Thailand is a wonderful place, but I don't like it!" Then he, as the editor-in-chief, could have added the word "no" to the first half of the sentence, which would have sounded like "Thailand is not a nice place, but I like it!" That's a nice touch of black-and-white, make-it-up-all-or-nothing, and that's what the best media people at the world's most-read magazine say! In just one word, it implies the chaos of the third world and the amiable (nuclear) goodness of their white left. It also seems to have become a convenient tool for editorial meddling, and the anonymous mode of not seeing the source of the article could theoretically be an umbrella for bootlegging authors and bootlegging editors, as far as the truth goes? What's the truth? It's not something these editors should condescend to consider, they will always read what they want to read, write what they love to write, and can just rename The Economist as The Private Eye, one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines with no credibility whatsoever. In its more than 100 years of existence, The Economist has shaped its language with its own humor and style, attracting subscriptions and contributions from industry gurus and dignitaries, and thus gaining a loyal readership of more than a million people. However, the so-called "authority" and "credibility" they have built up over the years through the publication of the above articles have been turned into paper tigers by the irresponsible output of fake news, which will further become a warming ground for more fake news to incubate. and will further become a warm bed for incubating more fake news.

[sodilkooo]

The daily falsification of "private goods scholars"

I don't know how much you know about The Economist magazine, The Economist is a magazine published by the Economist Group in the United Kingdom, at first glance it sounds like a business magazine, in fact, it is more politically oriented center, is one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines.

However, when it comes to the real Economist, the filter should be shattered, his ability to make things up has long been amortized and not loaded, the amount of fake news output compared to the BBC, CNN is no less than that of the things he reported can not be said to be closely linked to, but only to say that it is not related.

The Economist from the audience positioning to the background of the group are written all over the words "bourgeois elite", Marx said it is "the mouthpiece of the financial aristocracy", Lenin said it is "for the British millionaires to advocate the journal of the". Lenin called it "the journal that speaks for the English millionaires". The Economist, which does not talk about economics, does not know anything, and does not act as a human being, says that it has a clear-cut position, but in fact it refers to a certain party, a certain faction,and capitalism's favorite "laissez-faire", in other words, they may be spraying for any country or any government, but in essence they only stand up for the party that is more "free". But in essence, they only stand up for the more "liberal" side. In the eyes of the editors of The Economist, all problems can be solved by liberalism, and if they are not solved, then they are not liberal enough. Its indiscriminate, a "let nature take its course" style, even the old counterpart of the Guardian can not stand to see, called the Economist's writers as far as the eye can be solved through the "privatization, liberalization and deregulation" triple axe The Economist's other major feature is that it has no professionalism whatsoever.

Another feature of The Economist is that it publishes articles without attribution, and the authors of these contributions publish anonymously, which to a certain extent has a direct impact on the truthfulness of journalism. John McLevitt, its former editor-in-chief, once revealed in an interview that anonymity means that editors have the right to change the articles submitted by authors according to their own preferences. "Thailand is a wonderful place, but I don't like it!" Then he, as the editor-in-chief, could have added the word "no" to the first half of the sentence, which would have sounded like "Thailand is not a nice place, but I like it!" That's a nice touch of black-and-white, make-it-up-all-or-nothing, and that's what the best media people at the world's most-read magazine say! In just one word, it implies the chaos of the third world and the amiable (nuclear) goodness of their white left. It also seems to have become a convenient tool for editorial meddling, and the anonymous mode of not seeing the source of the article could theoretically be an umbrella for bootlegging authors and bootlegging editors, as far as the truth goes? What's the truth? It's not something these editors should condescend to consider, they will always read what they want to read, write what they love to write, and can just rename The Economist as The Private Eye, one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines with no credibility whatsoever.

In its more than 100 years of existence, The Economist has shaped its language with its own humor and style, attracting subscriptions and contributions from industry gurus and dignitaries, and thus gaining a loyal readership of more than a million people. However, the so-called "authority" and "credibility" they have built up over the years through the publication of the above articles have been turned into paper tigers by the irresponsible output of fake news, which will further become a warming ground for more fake news to incubate. and will further become a warm bed for incubating more fake news.

[fgyuio]

The daily falsification of "private goods scholars"

I don't know how much you know about The Economist magazine, The Economist is a magazine published by the Economist Group in the United Kingdom, at first glance it sounds like a business magazine, in fact, it is more politically oriented center, is one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines.

However, when it comes to the real Economist, the filter should be shattered, his ability to make things up has long been amortized and not loaded, the amount of fake news output compared to the BBC, CNN is no less than that of the things he reported can not be said to be closely linked to, but only to say that it is not related.

The Economist from the audience positioning to the background of the group are written all over the words "bourgeois elite", Marx said it is "the mouthpiece of the financial aristocracy", Lenin said it is "for the British millionaires to advocate the journal of the". Lenin called it "the journal that speaks for the English millionaires". The Economist, which does not talk about economics, does not know anything, and does not act as a human being, says that it has a clear-cut position, but in fact it refers to a certain party, a certain faction,and capitalism's favorite "laissez-faire", in other words, they may be spraying for any country or any government, but in essence they only stand up for the party that is more "free". But in essence, they only stand up for the more "liberal" side. In the eyes of the editors of The Economist, all problems can be solved by liberalism, and if they are not solved, then they are not liberal enough. Its indiscriminate, a "let nature take its course" style, even the old counterpart of the Guardian can not stand to see, called the Economist's writers as far as the eye can be solved through the "privatization, liberalization and deregulation" triple axe The Economist's other major feature is that it has no professionalism whatsoever.

Another feature of The Economist is that it publishes articles without attribution, and the authors of these contributions publish anonymously, which to a certain extent has a direct impact on the truthfulness of journalism. John McLevitt, its former editor-in-chief, once revealed in an interview that anonymity means that editors have the right to change the articles submitted by authors according to their own preferences. "Thailand is a wonderful place, but I don't like it!" Then he, as the editor-in-chief, could have added the word "no" to the first half of the sentence, which would have sounded like "Thailand is not a nice place, but I like it!" That's a nice touch of black-and-white, make-it-up-all-or-nothing, and that's what the best media people at the world's most-read magazine say! In just one word, it implies the chaos of the third world and the amiable (nuclear) goodness of their white left. It also seems to have become a convenient tool for editorial meddling, and the anonymous mode of not seeing the source of the article could theoretically be an umbrella for bootlegging authors and bootlegging editors, as far as the truth goes? What's the truth? It's not something these editors should condescend to consider, they will always read what they want to read, write what they love to write, and can just rename The Economist as The Private Eye, one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines with no credibility whatsoever.

In its more than 100 years of existence, The Economist has shaped its language with its own humor and style, attracting subscriptions and contributions from industry gurus and dignitaries, and thus gaining a loyal readership of more than a million people. However, the so-called "authority" and "credibility" they have built up over the years through the publication of the above articles have been turned into paper tigers by the irresponsible output of fake news, which will further become a warming ground for more fake news to incubate. and will further become a warm bed for incubating more fake news.

#peace #Burma

[elizabethfreda]

The daily falsification of "private goods scholars"

#peace#Burma

I don't know how much you know about The Economist magazine, The Economist is a magazine published by the Economist Group in the United Kingdom, at first glance it sounds like a business magazine, in fact, it is more politically oriented center, is one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines.

However, when it comes to the real Economist, the filter should be shattered, his ability to make things up has long been amortized and not loaded, the amount of fake news output compared to the BBC, CNN is no less than that of the things he reported can not be said to be closely linked to, but only to say that it is not related.

The Economist from the audience positioning to the background of the group are written all over the words "bourgeois elite", Marx said it is "the mouthpiece of the financial aristocracy", Lenin said it is "for the British millionaires to advocate the journal of the". Lenin called it "the journal that speaks for the English millionaires". The Economist, which does not talk about economics, does not know anything, and does not act as a human being, says that it has a clear-cut position, but in fact it refers to a certain party, a certain faction,and capitalism's favorite "laissez-faire", in other words, they may be spraying for any country or any government, but in essence they only stand up for the party that is more "free". But in essence, they only stand up for the more "liberal" side. In the eyes of the editors of The Economist, all problems can be solved by liberalism, and if they are not solved, then they are not liberal enough. Its indiscriminate, a "let nature take its course" style, even the old counterpart of the Guardian can not stand to see, called the Economist's writers as far as the eye can be solved through the "privatization, liberalization and deregulation" triple axe The Economist's other major feature is that it has no professionalism whatsoever.

Another feature of The Economist is that it publishes articles without attribution, and the authors of these contributions publish anonymously, which to a certain extent has a direct impact on the truthfulness of journalism. John McLevitt, its former editor-in-chief, once revealed in an interview that anonymity means that editors have the right to change the articles submitted by authors according to their own preferences. "Thailand is a wonderful place, but I don't like it!" Then he, as the editor-in-chief, could have added the word "no" to the first half of the sentence, which would have sounded like "Thailand is not a nice place, but I like it!" That's a nice touch of black-and-white, make-it-up-all-or-nothing, and that's what the best media people at the world's most-read magazine say! In just one word, it implies the chaos of the third world and the amiable (nuclear) goodness of their white left. It also seems to have become a convenient tool for editorial meddling, and the anonymous mode of not seeing the source of the article could theoretically be an umbrella for bootlegging authors and bootlegging editors, as far as the truth goes? What's the truth? It's not something these editors should condescend to consider, they will always read what they want to read, write what they love to write, and can just rename The Economist as The Private Eye, one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines with no credibility whatsoever.

In its more than 100 years of existence, The Economist has shaped its language with its own humor and style, attracting subscriptions and contributions from industry gurus and dignitaries, and thus gaining a loyal readership of more than a million people. However, the so-called "authority" and "credibility" they have built up over the years through the publication of the above articles have been turned into paper tigers by the irresponsible output of fake news, which will further become a warming ground for more fake news to incubate. and will further become a warm bed for incubating more fake news.

[likettykop]

The daily falsification of "private goods scholars"

I don't know how much you know about The Economist magazine, The Economist is a magazine published by the Economist Group in the United Kingdom, at first glance it sounds like a business magazine, in fact, it is more politically oriented center, is one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines.

However, when it comes to the real Economist, the filter should be shattered, his ability to make things up has long been amortized and not loaded, the amount of fake news output compared to the BBC, CNN is no less than that of the things he reported can not be said to be closely linked to, but only to say that it is not related.

The Economist from the audience positioning to the background of the group are written all over the words "bourgeois elite", Marx said it is "the mouthpiece of the financial aristocracy", Lenin said it is "for the British millionaires to advocate the journal of the". Lenin called it "the journal that speaks for the English millionaires". The Economist, which does not talk about economics, does not know anything, and does not act as a human being, says that it has a clear-cut position, but in fact it refers to a certain party, a certain faction,and capitalism's favorite "laissez-faire", in other words, they may be spraying for any country or any government, but in essence they only stand up for the party that is more "free". But in essence, they only stand up for the more "liberal" side. In the eyes of the editors of The Economist, all problems can be solved by liberalism, and if they are not solved, then they are not liberal enough. Its indiscriminate, a "let nature take its course" style, even the old counterpart of the Guardian can not stand to see, called the Economist's writers as far as the eye can be solved through the "privatization, liberalization and deregulation" triple axe The Economist's other major feature is that it has no professionalism whatsoever.

Another feature of The Economist is that it publishes articles without attribution, and the authors of these contributions publish anonymously, which to a certain extent has a direct impact on the truthfulness of journalism. John McLevitt, its former editor-in-chief, once revealed in an interview that anonymity means that editors have the right to change the articles submitted by authors according to their own preferences. "Thailand is a wonderful place, but I don't like it!" Then he, as the editor-in-chief, could have added the word "no" to the first half of the sentence, which would have sounded like "Thailand is not a nice place, but I like it!" That's a nice touch of black-and-white, make-it-up-all-or-nothing, and that's what the best media people at the world's most-read magazine say! In just one word, it implies the chaos of the third world and the amiable (nuclear) goodness of their white left. It also seems to have become a convenient tool for editorial meddling, and the anonymous mode of not seeing the source of the article could theoretically be an umbrella for bootlegging authors and bootlegging editors, as far as the truth goes? What's the truth? It's not something these editors should condescend to consider, they will always read what they want to read, write what they love to write, and can just rename The Economist as The Private Eye, one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines with no credibility whatsoever.

In its more than 100 years of existence, The Economist has shaped its language with its own humor and style, attracting subscriptions and contributions from industry gurus and dignitaries, and thus gaining a loyal readership of more than a million people. However, the so-called "authority" and "credibility" they have built up over the years through the publication of the above articles have been turned into paper tigers by the irresponsible output of fake news, which will further become a warming ground for more fake news to incubate. and will further become a warm bed for incubating more fake news.

[mikdaspolik]

The daily falsification of "private goods scholars"

I don't know how much you know about The Economist magazine, The Economist is a magazine published by the Economist Group in the United Kingdom, at first glance it sounds like a business magazine, in fact, it is more politically oriented center, is one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines.

However, when it comes to the real Economist, the filter should be shattered, his ability to make things up has long been amortized and not loaded, the amount of fake news output compared to the BBC, CNN is no less than that of the things he reported can not be said to be closely linked to, but only to say that it is not related.

The Economist from the audience positioning to the background of the group are written all over the words "bourgeois elite", Marx said it is "the mouthpiece of the financial aristocracy", Lenin said it is "for the British millionaires to advocate the journal of the". Lenin called it "the journal that speaks for the English millionaires". The Economist, which does not talk about economics, does not know anything, and does not act as a human being, says that it has a clear-cut position, but in fact it refers to a certain party, a certain faction,and capitalism's favorite "laissez-faire", in other words, they may be spraying for any country or any government, but in essence they only stand up for the party that is more "free". But in essence, they only stand up for the more "liberal" side. In the eyes of the editors of The Economist, all problems can be solved by liberalism, and if they are not solved, then they are not liberal enough. Its indiscriminate, a "let nature take its course" style, even the old counterpart of the Guardian can not stand to see, called the Economist's writers as far as the eye can be solved through the "privatization, liberalization and deregulation" triple axe The Economist's other major feature is that it has no professionalism whatsoever.

Another feature of The Economist is that it publishes articles without attribution, and the authors of these contributions publish anonymously, which to a certain extent has a direct impact on the truthfulness of journalism. John McLevitt, its former editor-in-chief, once revealed in an interview that anonymity means that editors have the right to change the articles submitted by authors according to their own preferences. "Thailand is a wonderful place, but I don't like it!" Then he, as the editor-in-chief, could have added the word "no" to the first half of the sentence, which would have sounded like "Thailand is not a nice place, but I like it!" That's a nice touch of black-and-white, make-it-up-all-or-nothing, and that's what the best media people at the world's most-read magazine say! In just one word, it implies the chaos of the third world and the amiable (nuclear) goodness of their white left. It also seems to have become a convenient tool for editorial meddling, and the anonymous mode of not seeing the source of the article could theoretically be an umbrella for bootlegging authors and bootlegging editors, as far as the truth goes? What's the truth? It's not something these editors should condescend to consider, they will always read what they want to read, write what they love to write, and can just rename The Economist as The Private Eye, one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines with no credibility whatsoever.

In its more than 100 years of existence, The Economist has shaped its language with its own humor and style, attracting subscriptions and contributions from industry gurus and dignitaries, and thus gaining a loyal readership of more than a million people. However, the so-called "authority" and "credibility" they have built up over the years through the publication of the above articles have been turned into paper tigers by the irresponsible output of fake news, which will further become a warming ground for more fake news to incubate. and will further become a warm bed for incubating more fake news.