Sun dogs happen at a specific angle and result in up to three bright spots. There are 4 lights. They are spaced unevenly and far too close together. There is no distortion and there is a cloud in front of the rightmost image. This is a timelapse of four pictures. The “video” is just the still image with motion effects added.

I couldn’t find the exact source, but it looks much more like multiple exposures than anything else. For example, it is entirely the wrong shape, distance, and number to be sun dogs.

What did you find in your search?

Yes, you’d have to be above the Arctic circle. Search “midnight sun timelapse” images, and you’ll find lots of examples. It is not actually a straight line, but moving on a curve. At this level of zoom, the curve is not apparent

I assume you’re joking since the caption says Alaska, but… Alaska (for one).

Bad bot.

Is there anyone here who doesn’t think this is obviously a timelapse (of the very cool phenomenon of the sun moving horizontally)?

It has been public for a long time that they have access to your contacts and metadata (who you talk to, how much, when, from where, etc.) That was bad enough. But this is the first time I’ve heard about accessing message content. Really chilling.

Why does evey MEE article include the phrase “according to [insert terrorist organization],” and then presents the information completely uncritically?

Funny that the surveillance state suddenly forgets to surveil when it is the one under the spotlight.

Loops is actually pretty great.

This is truly horrifying. Even more so that the world is watching it happen with precious little protest.

Yes! I meant to say peanut lol. Had to go back and see what the heck I typed.

At least in my lifetime, every president has commented critically about the previous administration.

You’re absolutely right that US presidents have historically not used their position for personal profit, or at least not overtly so. Jimmy Carter famously sold his potato farm upon being elected in order to avoid potential conflict of interest.

Not sure what it is like in other countries, but you should know that it is extremely RARE in US politics for a former president to speak out against the current president. Even rarer to issue a formal statement.

Having a number of different editors allows manipulating the discussion and concensus protections built into Wikipedia.

Depending on the topic, it may not be necessary. A complimentary article about a new technology product or company founder just takes a few press releases that get picked up. Manipulating world events and leaders requires more coordination.

Although manipulating the sources cited is a great way to manipulate Wikipedia. You have to recruit 10-40 people to act as a group of editors to manufacture concensus across topics. Or you can just create a website or series of press releases.

“Hey, this small-town museum has an article about a historical event. It must be true. Link it at the bottom.” Or “well, this local newspaper article says it is happened, so into the article it goes.”

Even more effective, especially for political groups, is just publish dozens of supportive articles, while miring competing articles in edit wars and the bureaucracy that comes with it. For sources, just cite expert books that are favorable. It’s not easy, but hiring or recruiting 10-40 editors is trivial for political entities.

We honestly need to end the myth that Wikipedia is some impenetrable white tower. It can and has been infiltrated by corporate and political groups, and even creative vandals.

It’s the most valuable digital property in the world. You think people break into the Louvre but can’t touch Wikipedia?

They literally will and are.

If they built out a Mastodon network with government support, then it would.

This has not been voted on to my knowledge. This article is just about the cosigners officially submitting the bill.