"BAN HIM!" Kai Cenat Hanging Prank Scandal Has The Internet Divided, Elon Musk vs The Onion, & More
PDS Published 11/27/2024
-
That is what a lot of people are saying after a stunt aired on his stream where it appeared Kai pulled a rope that hung someone.
So, Kai has been doing a subathon, and last night he was joined by magician Max Major, who seemingly had a surprise trick for him.
Because when Kai walked outside to find Max, Max was on a platform accompanied by three nooses, and when Kai first saw this, he seemed shocked:
“Yo, what the fuck? Bro what the, what is wrong with you, what the fuck are you doing up there Max?” (4:24:35-4:24:43)
Then, as they got closer to Max, he explained the stunt, noting there were three nooses up with him, and three chords with handles down by Kai.
And even though Kai could not see what chord belonged to which noose, he was going to pull one when Max told him to, with Max attached to one of the nooses.
But first, he also warned the audience:
“I have to say that I am a professional. This is my decision to do this. I am supervised by professionals, I have emergency personnel standing by, and absolutely no one should try anything like this or anything dangerous at home.” (4:26:41-4:26:56)
They then do a test pull, where Kai pulled one of the chords to see what would happen, and sure enough, one of the nooses went up.
And after that test, Max put his head through one of the nooses, and with only two chords left to pull, that meant there was a 50/50 shot Kai would pull the one Max was attached to.
And Kai initially seemed worried, as he saw Max getting into the noose he said:
“If I kill you, I go to jail, right? NOOOO!” (4:29:14-4:29:19)
Everyone in Kai’s group starting to get uneasy with this, but Kai did as Max instructed and pulled one of the handles, and he pulled the one attached to the noose with Max in it.
So Max went up into the air for a few seconds, but his crew quickly dropped him down and got him out.
And we obviously cannot show you someone getting hung up with a noose, but in the aftermath, we saw Kai’s reaction:
“What the fuck? Wait, oh no. What? I might get banned. N— I might get banned. Is he good?” (4:31:35-4:31:57)
“Shit’s gotta be a prank, it has to be a prank. On my life I did not mean to pull the wrong chord. On my life.” (4:34:18-4:34:27)
Kai’s team is then instructed to go back inside, Kai continues to wonder if he was pranked, asking if Max is okay, and he then finds a note from Max instructing him to watch a video where he essentially explains that this was pre-planned.
“If you’re watching this, that means that something has gone terribly wrong, but what you don’t know is that was all according to my plan. At the start of my performance, I said that tonight was all about choices, but not just the choices you made tonight, the choices you made since the day that we met.” (0:00-0;18)
“All along, I planned to influence you to make the wrong choice, and I knew you would pick the red handle.” (1:01-1:06)
And after Kai saw this, he was pretty upset with Max for setting this up, as well as for trying to leave right after before they could talk about it:
“I did not know what this n— was doing, on my life.” (4:43:18-4:43:34)
“Max, that shit is not funny, I ain't gonna lie bro.” (4:47:41-4:47:45)
“He literally told my team a whole other…so he really playing for real for real?..Yes! (5:10:34-5:34:42)
“You got a while bunch of Black n—- around a fucking noose!(5:11:12-5:11:17)
“That shit got me looking crazy.” (5:12:54-5:12:56)
Kai also worried he would face a ton of backlash, and well, he did.
With people thinking prank or not, whether Kai knew or not, he should not have let this happen, writing:
“It doesn't take a genius to know once a man was on a stage with a noose around his neck you probably shouldn't continue with the stunt. No matter if the magician tricked him or not, there comes a point you need to use LOGIC in your brain and call things off. I'm not saying Kai is a bad guy, but he needs to be held accountable..”[]
“kai cenat had someone almost break their neck for his enjoyment and his first words are ‘i might get banned.’"[]
People saying that because of this, and other recent controversial elements of his stream, he should be banned, xQc adding:[]
“Its not a skit, it’s just fucking weird.” (0:38-0:40)
“Imagine inducing like, mental torment on people like oh dude, you pull the wire, you kill somebody, oh, it’s just a prank!” (0:45-0:55)
And you did have some people defending Kai, saying he did not know what was going to happen, he got set up, some thinking that Max was intentionally sabotaging him.[][][]
But some have pushed back, speculating every element was staged, and others saying Kai’s knowledge going into this doesn’t even matter, explaining:[]
“Kai saw the dude with a noose around his neck, recorded it, whether it was a stunt or not, and then made the judgement call to then pull the rope and hang the dude for a skit while recording it live, planned or not like be real there was never a good outcome for that.”[]
Though, others are more mad at Max, calling him out in his YouTube comments, saying he owes Kai and his viewers an apology for this prank.[]
But I would love to know your thoughts on this one, on the situation, on the backlash.
-
You don’t own your own X account.
Elon Musk does.
Right, that’s basically what the company is saying in a new legal filing in the bankruptcy case of Alex Jones – the conspiracy theorist behind InfoWars.
And with that, let’s start there.
Right, in 2022, a judge ordered Jones to pay more than $1.4 billion in damages for falsely claiming the Sandy Hook mass shooting was a hoax.
He quickly filed for bankruptcy.
And this month, The Onion bought InfoWars at a bankruptcy auction with the backing of Sandy Hook families.
With the satirical news publication saying it’d turn the site into a parody of itself.
Except that sale? It’s not yet final.
Right, Jones and his backers allege the sale was a result of fraud and collusion.
For example, the other bidder – a company that runs a website selling “nutritional supplements” in Jones’ name?
It pointed out in an emergency filing that it offered $3.5 million in cash — but the Onion only offered $1.75 million.[]
Though, notably, the auction process approved by the judge didn’t require the company be sold to the highest bidder.
It said that the trustee could reject the bid that was "contrary to the best interests" of the Sandy Hook families.[]
And in this case, the trustee determined that “the creditors ended up significantly better off” under The Onion’s bid.
With one reason being that the majority of Sandy Hook families were willing to pass on their share of the sale proceeds.
Right, instead they’d take a percentage of future revenues from the new Infowars, leaving more money for the others to get right now.[]
Not to mention it means Jones won’t get to keep peddling conspiracy theories on the same platform he spread lies about Sandy Hook.
But in any case, Jones’s side has taken issue with other aspects of the sale as well, and there’ll be a hearing about it all in December.
With the judge saying he may decide to approve the sale, order another auction, or hold additional hearings.[]
He also may weigh in on what assets can be sold.
And this is where Musk and X come in.
Right, when we’re talking about the sale of Infowars, or technically, its parent company Free Speech Systems, we’re generally talking about all its assets:
Its physical studio and its equipment, but also less tangible things like its video archive, website, and social media accounts. []
But X is now saying Alex Jones, Infowars, or anyone else don’t actually own their accounts on the platform.
With the company writing:
“X Corp.’s [terms of service] make clear that it owns the X Accounts, as the [terms of service] is explicit that X Corp. merely grants its users a non-exclusive license to use their accounts. Ownership of the accounts remains with X Corp. at all times.”[]
And with that, while not opposing the sale in general, the company is opposing the “sale or other purported transfer of any account used by Jones or FSS that is maintained on the X platform.” []
And while X acknowledged that users own the content they post, the company's argument could obviously have massive implications for the site's users.[]
Jones, for his part, who had his X account reinstated by Musk, has been celebrating X’s involvement in the bankruptcy proceedings. []
With him resharing one post, for example, saying:
“So important X wins this one so we don’t have an ungodly legal precedent set where as soon as you bankrupt someone with lawfare you get to steal all their social media accounts.” []
But of course, one, that’s not an entirely accurate summary of what’s happened.
And two, a lot of people’s reaction to this is that the real scary legal precedent would be saying one company controlled by Elon Musk owns everyone’s accounts.
With one person commenting:
“X's legal filing in the InfoWars bankruptcy case is both batshit crazy and also what you'd expect. It asserts that X owns every account, can do whatever it wants with them, and can inject itself into legal proceedings that have nothing to do with Twitter.” []
Another saying:
“His claim that users only have use of their accounts, would mean (according to Musk) he owns all government and lawmaker X accounts.
Gives a person pause… “ []
But with all that, I gotta pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts on all this? Both the Infowars, The Onion stuff but also the idea that you don’t actually own your X account?
-
North Carolina Gov. vetoes “hurricane relief bill” that does little for storm aid and strips power from incoming Dems, queuing up showdown and potential veto-override
There is a major showdown going down in North Carolina.
Right, yesterday, the state’s Democratic Governor, Roy Cooper, vetoed a hurricane relief bill passed by both chambers of the GOP-controlled legislature.
And if you’re wondering: “why the hell would the governor veto legislation that could help his state as it continues to cope with the devastation brought by Hurricane Helene?”
Well, it’s because hurricane relief is actually just a small part of what this proposal would do.
Right, despite the fact that the legislation was titled as a disaster relief bill, just 13 of its 131 pages actually deal with storm relief.
What’s more, it only allocates an additional $252 million for hurricane relief.
And while that is on top of the roughly $900 million that lawmakers had already put towards recovery, that total is less than a third of the $3.9 billion that Cooper has asked for.
And even then, it’s not like this money is going out the door immediately — no, it’s just being shuffled to rainy-day fund that won’t be accessible until the General Assembly appropriates it.
So what the hell does this bill actually do then?
Well, the bulk of the bill would strip the state’s incoming governor, Josh Stein, (he says it “styn” NOT “steen”) and other key Democrats of power.
And the timing here is super important because while the governorship is just being passed from one Democrat to another, this move comes as Republicans in the legislature are expected to lose their veto-proof supermajority.
And I say “expected” because there are still some close races undergoing recounts.
And the timing here is super important because while the governorship is just being passed from one Democrat to another, Republicans in the legislature also suffered another major defeat in the election — they lost their veto-proof supermajority.
Now, that said, Republicans will still be able to maintain a strong simple majority.
But the loss of the slim, 1-vote supermajority means that they will not have enough votes to override the Democratic governor’s vetoes.
A tool that they have used numerous times during Cooper's term.
So, in other words, when Styn assumes office, he will have more power to keep the Republican agenda in check.
Which is exactly why the GOP is now trying to limit his authority — and while they still have the ability to override Cooper’s veto.
Right, among other measures, one of the most significant provisions in this bill would take away the governor’s ability to appoint members to the State Board of Elections.
Instead giving that power to the incoming state auditor who — you guessed it — is a Republican
With him widely expected to create a Republican majority on the panel, which is currently controlled by Democrats.
The legislation would also seriously undermine the governor’s ability to fill vacancies on the state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
This by making it so he can only choose candidates approved by the political party of the outgoing judge.
A move that will prevent Styn from appointing Democrats to fill any future openings on the Republican-controlled state Supreme Court.
But Styn isn’t the only top Democrat this bill targets.
The proposal would also ban the state’s incoming Democratic attorney general from challenging laws passed by the Republican legislature.
And it would also bar North Carolina’s Democratic superintendent of public instruction from appealing decisions by a state board that reviews charter school applications.
And that's also on top of a host of new election restrictions, including some that would make it harder for voters to fix errors with their mail-in ballots.
Right, and so with this, you have a lot of Democrats slamming the measure as a blatant power grab.
Others also condemned Republicans for trying to hide this behind a hurricane relief bill, accusing them of politicizing essential aid for their own political gain while also failing to actually provide adequate resources.
And that last point is actually something that’s been echoed by Republicans who represent some of the areas of Western North Carolina that were hit hardest by the hurricane.
In fact, three Republican House members actually voted against the measure, with one explaining:
“Well, I didn't see anything in there that really did a lot for Western North Carolina. I'm not sure why it had 'disaster' in the title, and even I asked that that be removed.”
And adding: “I am not going to vote for something that when I get home and go to the grocery store at 9 am the next morning that if someone asks, I can't explain what I did and what the bill is going to do.”
And the its actually insanely significant that three Republicans voted against the bill because it could mean that those same members would not support a veto override.
Right, because the current Republican supermajority is so slim, they will need ALL members to vote in favor of overriding Cooper’s veto.
And they don’t have much time to whip those numbers — it's unclear when they’ll even be able to hold a vote before the new legislature is seated in January and they lose their supermajority.
So for now, we’ll just have to keep our eyes on this one.
Go to Bokksu and use code DEFRANCO to get $15 off your Bokksu Japanese snack subscription box!
Go to Raycon to get up to 30% off sitewide! Brought to you by Raycon.
-
Y’all, with Christmas coming up, it’s nearly time to give all the naughty kids what they deserve: choking hazards.
I mean, can you believe we used to give kids these delicious-looking, sprinkle-sized beads that expand into squishy balls when placed in water, or in their stomachs? It’s genius. [B roll, 00:28]
No, but seriously, as many as 150,000 kids under 14 suffer toy-related deaths and injuries treated in emergency rooms every year. [Quote, find “150,000”]
And choking’s not the only risk; there’s also lead and phthalate [Pronounce 00:12] exposure, button-sized batteries, and flammable materials. [Image]
So you want to make sure the gifts you get this Black Friday are safe, but very often it’s hard to tell.
And as it turns out, there’s a loophole in U.S. trade law that makes it even harder: the de minimis [Pronounce 00:12] exception.
Right, de minimis is a Latin expression that means trivial or so minor that something can be disregarded.
So in trade, that means low-value items which are allowed to enter the country tax and duty-free, and with less stringent inspections and paperwork, than higher-value imports. [Image]
With that meant to grease the wheels of trade for what’s seen as more minor cargo.
And this is a pretty normal thing; right, about 100 countries have de minimis exceptions. [Quote, find “100”]
With the United States formerly drawing the line at 200 dollars in value. [Quote, find “200”]
But in 2016, then President Obama signed a law raising the threshold to 800 dollars, one of the highest in the world. [Same quote and Obama photo]
Thanks Obama. [Punch in on Obama’s face]
So from 2014 to 2023, the number of de minimis shipments each year rose from 140 million to one billion. [Quote, find “140”]
With them now comprising some 92% of all cargo entering the United States, and primarily coming from China. [quote, find “92”]
And Customs and Border Protection inspectors simply don’t have the resources to deal with this never-ending avalanche of goods. [Image]
Especially if they’re mislabeled, smuggled among other stuff or counterfeit legit products.
Now to be fair, the vast majority of Chinese toys are fine, especially if they’re made by a reputable company. [Quote, find “80%”]
But a small minority of shady exporters aggressively exploit the loophole, and not just to sell toys. [Same quote]
Right, they use it to smuggle in everything from narcotics precursors and weapons parts to illegal meats and clothing made with slave labor from Uyghur [Wee-ger] Muslims.
Hell, just last year, someone tried to ship a disassembled helicopter from Venezuela to Florida by squeezing each part through the de minimis loophole and labeling the whole thing as "personal effects.” [Image and quote]
So what can we do to fix this? Well, first of all, the government needs to act.
Whether that means more tightly regulating de minimis shipments, hiring more CBP inspectors, or penalizing online retailers who distribute unsafe products.
But in the meantime, and especially as the holidays approach, there are several things you can personally do to keep yourself and your family safe.
First, try to buy through retailers or other trusted middlemen who vet products before selling them to you. [B roll, 00:09, keep playing this for as long as it makes sense]
Second, if you insist on going straight to the source, only buy from companies you know are reputable.
Third, Resist the temptation of rock-bottom prices.
If it’s too good to be true, it probably is.
Fourth, just because you see something on social media, an advertisement or online marketplace, that doesn’t mean it’s credible.
Fifth, check if a product has been recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Sixth, check if it has reviews on the SaferProducts.gov site.
And seventh, closely examine labels and packaging to make sure you’re getting the real thing and not a counterfeit.
Then, once you’ve done all those things, you can enjoy the fruits of global capitalism knowing that your children are safe.
And maybe send a very angry tweet to Obama.
Links:
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/26/nx-s1-5197592/cheap-toys-imports-de-minimis-rules-dangerous
https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/buyer-beware-bad-actors-exploit-de-minimis-shipments
https://pirg.org/resources/trouble-in-toyland-2024-unsafe-toys-that-slip-through-border/
-
Did you know there’s a cosmic war among astrophysicists going on far above the heads of all the puny little humans down in the muck and mud like you and me?
Well today, we are going to crack this conspiracy open; we are not gonna take it anymore from these egg-headed scientists who think we’re too stupid to wrap our heads around their “genius” ideas.
So open up your minds, because we’re gonna take a deep dive into the expansion of the universe. [B roll, 00:00 - 00:15]
And if you’re like, hold up, the universe is expanding? Indeed it is, and here’s how we know. [Same B roll]
So first of all, the faster an object, say a galaxy, moves away from us, the more the light we see from it stretches and appears more red. [Image]
Right, you can understand this more easily if you think about how when a cop car or a speeding vehicle races past you, the pitch of the siren or the engine increases as it gets closer and decreases as it goes farther away. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:04 - 00:08]
So instead of distorting the frequency of sound, distant galaxies elongate the wavelength of light, shifting it toward the red end of the spectrum. [Image]
Now in 1929, a BAMF by the name of Edwin Hubble discovered that the galaxies farthest from us actually appear redder than the ones closer to us. [Screenshot, 00:06]
Suggesting that they’re moving outward faster as well, a discovery known as the cosmological red shift. [Lead into B roll]
And it led to the conclusions that (1) the universe is expanding, and (2) the universe must have started from a single, unexpanded point. [B roll, 00:45 - 00:50, start this when Phil says “two”]
Hence, we get the big bang theory. [Continue B roll])
Now astronomers all agree on those basic points, but where the war’s taking place is a follow-up question: how fast is that expansion? [B roll, 00:00 - 00:14]
Right, because depending on how you try to answer it, you get different numbers. [Same B roll]
So let’s start with the method you may have heard of before: analyzing the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. [B roll, 01:47 - 02:10]
Right, basically this is just the oldest light in the universe, and by measuring teeny tiny fluctuations in its temperature, scientists estimate the rate of expansion right after the big bang. [Same B roll]
Then from there, they extrapolate to the present, factoring in the influence of dark matter and dark energy to come up with a current rate. [Same B roll and Quote, find “cosmic forces”]
And that number, known as the Hubble Constant, is about 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec. [Image]
But wait, before you shit your pants and cry, let me explain; it’s not as complicated as it sounds.
So the first part, 67 kilometers per second, is simple; it means a galaxy moves 67 kilometers further from us every second. [Show “67 kilometers per second per megaparsec” on screen and highlight first part]
But remember, galaxies further away are moving faster than those nearer to us, so we have to adjust the rate of expansion as they travel outward. [B roll, 00:00]
So for every megaparsec, or just over three million lightyears of distance, between Earth and another galaxy, that 67 kilometers number doubles. [Same B roll]
Meaning a galaxy two megaparsecs away recedes 134 kilometers per second, three megaparsecs away recedes 201 kilometers per second, and so on. [Show “67 kilometers per second” on one side and “megaparsecs” on the other, then adjust the numbers]
But for simplicity’s sake, 67 is the Hubble Constant given by measurements of the cosmic microwave background. [Revert back to 67 kilometers and one megaparsec]
But it turns out there’s another method astronomers came up with to measure the expansion rate, and it takes the exact opposite approach.
Right, instead of starting with the oldest observable thing and coming to the present, this method starts with what’s right in front of us and extrapolates outward and back in time. [B roll, 00:00, then B roll, 00:13]
So here’s how it works.
First, astronomers find a nearby star that’s close enough and whose brightness is predictable enough that they can get a really solid measurement of its distance and velocity. [B roll, 02:52]
Right, usually they pick a star called a Cepheid [Pronounce 01:07), because it routinely pulses, and the pulse rate indicates its brightness and therefore its distance. [Same B roll]
Then, using that as a standard yardstick, astronomers leave behind the Milky Way and look for nearby galaxies that have cepheids as well as even brighter, exploding stars known as type 1 A supernovae [Pronounce 01:19]. [B roll]
Right, because when they explode, they have a predictable maximum brightness. [Same B roll]
So by comparing the distance measurement given by the cepheid to the brightness given by the supernova, we can turn the supernovae into our new standard yardstick.
Which is useful because astronomers can venture out to even further galaxies that don’t have any cepheids, using the supernovae instead.
So with this method, which is known as the cosmic distance ladder since each step builds off the last, [Image]
One team of astronomers led by the Nobel Laureate Adam Riess [Reese] estimated the Hubble Constant to be about 73. [B roll, 00:20 and Quote, find “H0 at 73”]
Which, and this is math you can do on your fingers, is notably higher than 67.
And even when Riess repeated the same analysis using data from the James Webb Telescope, which is far more precise than Hubble, he still got 73. [Image]
Now here’s where the war begins, because despite trying for well over a decade, scientists haven’t been able to resolve this discrepancy. [Screenshot, 02:20]
In fact, it’s become such a stubborn problem that they gave it a name: the Hubble Tension. [Same asset]
With another figure taking the role of Riess’s archnemesis: Wendy Freedman. [B roll, 07:16]
Right, in 2019, she and her own team of astronomers put forth another Hubble Constant using an altogether different method. [Same B roll]
With them examining red giant stars, which peak at the same predictable brightness at a certain point in their evolution. [B roll, 03:26]
And according to those measurements, the Hubble Constant is just under 70. [Quote, find “under 70”]
So, you know, right in the middle of the tension.
Which raises more questions than it answers.
But then, in August of this year, Freedman’s team took another shot at the problem, this time combining three different methods together.
First, measuring cepheid stars, then measuring red giant stars, then measuring a newer type called carbon stars, which have consistent colors and brightnesses in the near-infrared spectrum of light. [B roll, 02:52, then B roll, 03:26, then Screenshot, 03:52]
So by using these methods independently but within the same 10 galaxies, Freedman hoped to cross-verify them against one another. [Screenshot, 02:39]
And their estimates for the Hubble Constant ranged from 68 to 72. [Quote, find “ranging”]
With their measurements for the red giants and the carbon stars agreeing very closely to about 1%, and both differing from those for the Cepheids by 2.5 to 4%. [Quote, find “4%”]
Though putting the numbers together, the team arrived at a Hubble Constant of just under 70.
Which falls within the margin of error for the estimates given by the cosmic microwave background method. [Quote, find “margin of error”]
Or in other words, Riess’s numbers are possibly wrong.
But Riess shot back at Freedman’s paper, criticizing it for analyzing too small a sample of supernovae. [Quote, find “small set”]
With Freedman in turn criticizing Riess’s method, arguing that the crowding of many stars close together could throw off measurements of the Cepheids. [Quote, find “crowding”]
To which Riess responded that his team found no evidence of any such crowding in the data they used. [Same quote]
But Freedman argues back that crowding might have more prominent effects at larger distances than the ones studied by Riess. [Same quote]
And so back and forth they go, like two big-brained siblings bickering about the fundamental nature of the universe.
Meanwhile, in 2019 a third team at UC Davis tried a totally different method called gravitational lensing to get the Hubble Constant. [B roll, 02:14]
And I’m gonna decline to explain how this one works because I frankly don’t have the mental stamina for it right now.
But the important thing is, they came back with a wild estimate of 77. [Quote, find “77”]
So what are we to do with all these conflicting numbers?
Well, basically, there are two main ways to interpret this.
The first is to claim that the 67 estimate is essentially correct and the others are simply wrong, whether because of errors in the data or faulty methods.
With that being the conclusion that Freedman tends to endorse, predicting that as more advanced telescopes provide more precise data, the Hubble Tension will vanish.
And to back her up, neither her nor Riess’s latest studies have been peer-reviewed yet, and we’ve only just begun to analyze data from the James Webb Telescope, so further research could vindicate her suspicion.
But the second way of looking at all this is to claim that the higher estimates are correct, the tension is very real, and therefore something is deeply wrong about the standard model of cosmology.
Right, because that initial 67 number is the foundation for so much else that we think we know about the universe.
From its 13.8-billion-year age to its 93-billion-lightyear diameter.
And astronomers came to that number using certain assumptions about the nature and distribution of dark energy, the mysterious force thought to be driving the expansion.
So if the real Hubble Constant turns out to be much different, that could imply we need to radically rethink our current understanding of physics.
But for now, normies like you and I just have to sit back and wait for the eggheads to crunch the numbers and think really hard.
And the result is either going to be really boring or really fucking awesome.
Links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/11/11/how-fast-is-the-universe-expanding/
