#satellite internet connection cost

[iptviris]

Finding the Perfect Legal IPTV Subscription for Euro 2024 

The roar of the crowd, the nail-biting tension, the electrifying goals – Euro 2024 promises to be an unforgettable football spectacle. Millions of fans across the US and Europe are gearing up to cheer on their favorite teams. If you're looking for a convenient and flexible way to catch all the action live, legal IPTV might be the perfect solution.

What is Legal IPTV Subscription?

Legal Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) allows you to stream live TV channels and on-demand content over a high-speed internet connection. Unlike traditional cable or satellite subscriptions, legal IPTV providers operate with the necessary licenses to broadcast copyrighted content. This ensures a reliable and secure viewing experience.

Benefits of Legal IPTV Subscription for Euro 2024

Compared to traditional methods, legal IPTV offers several advantages for watching Euro 2024:

Convenience: Stream matches live on any internet-connected device, from smart TVs and smartphones to tablets and computers. No bulky cable boxes or satellite dishes needed.

Flexibility: Ditch restrictive cable contracts. Choose a subscription plan that perfectly aligns with your needs, whether it's a monthly package for Euro 2024 or a longer-term plan for broader entertainment options.

Wide Channel Selection: Access a plethora of channels, potentially including those broadcasting Euro 2024 matches legally. This variety allows you to enjoy other sports, news, movies, and shows beyond the tournament.

Superior Image Quality: Experience breathtaking visuals with HD or even 4K streaming depending on your chosen plan and internet speed.

Cost-Effectiveness: Depending on your viewing habits and desired package, legal IPTV can be a cost-effective alternative to traditional cable or satellite subscriptions.

Factors to Consider When Choosing a Legal IPTV Subscription for Euro 2024

Channel Availability:

This is crucial. Verify that the IPTV provider offers channels with confirmed broadcasting rights for Euro 2024 in your region (US or Europe). Common channels might include national broadcasters, sports networks, or subscription platforms that have secured the rights. Disclaimer: Broadcast rights for sporting events can be complex and change frequently. It's your responsibility to ensure the IPTV provider and channels have the legal rights to broadcast Euro 2024 matches in your region.

Stream Quality:

Ensure the provider offers a consistent and high-quality streaming experience. Look for plans with HD or 4K options to avoid blurry or pixelated viewing.

Device Compatibility:

Choose a service compatible with your preferred devices. Most legal IPTV services offer apps for smart TVs, smartphones, tablets, computers, and even streaming devices like Roku or Fire TV Stick.

Price and Packages:

Compare pricing plans from various providers. Consider the length of your desired subscription (monthly for Euro 2024 or longer-term for broader viewing needs), the number of channels included, and any additional features like on-demand content or recording functionality.

Reliability and Uptime:

Opt for a reputable provider with a proven track record of high uptime, ensuring minimal buffering or downtime, especially during crucial Euro 2024 matches.

Customer Support:

Choose a service with responsive and helpful customer support in case you encounter any technical difficulties while streaming Euro 2024 or using the service.

Security:

Look for a provider that prioritizes user security. Consider factors like data encryption and secure payment methods.

Tips for Finding Legal IPTV Subscription Options for Euro 2024

Official Channel Websites: Visit the official websites of channels you know will broadcast Euro 2024 legally in your region (US or Europe). Many offer their own streaming services or have partnerships with legal IPTV providers.

Reviews and Comparisons: Check online reviews and comparisons of legal IPTV services. Look for independent sources that evaluate factors like channel selection, streaming quality, and customer service.

Consumer Protection Agencies: Consult consumer protection agencies in your region to understand the legal landscape surrounding IPTV and identify reputable providers.

Disclaimer: This guide is for informational purposes only. It's your responsibility to comply with all applicable copyright laws and regulations in your region. Choose legal IPTV providers who operate within the legal framework and have the necessary licenses to broadcast copyrighted content.

Conclusion:

Euro 2024 promises to be an epic tournament. With careful research and consideration of factors outlined

Euro 2024 is just around the corner, and all of gearing up to cheer on the national team! Don't miss a single moment of the tournament with iptviris.com, your solution for flexible sports streaming.

Watch Matches Live:

Convenience: Enjoy Euro 2024 matches live on any internet-connected device, wherever you are.

Flexibility: Choose the perfect subscription for your needs, without long-term contracts.

Wide Range of Channels: (Without mentioning specific channels) Access a wide selection of channels to experience all the sporting action, not just Euro 2024.

Image Quality: Experience an exceptional viewing experience with superior image quality (mention the quality offered, such as HD or 4K, if applicable).

Benefits of IPTV Subscription:

Reliability: Enjoy a reliable streaming service with high uptime so you don't miss a minute of the action.

Customer Support: Our customer support team is always ready to assist you should you need it.

Security: Watch matches with the peace of mind that your connection is secure (mention the security measures implemented, if applicable).

Visit iptviris.com and start your trial today!

[saijspellhart]

Guys, buy physical media it’s dying. They are taking it from us.

My local Meijer (a regional variant of Walmart) has stopped selling physical media. Like outright. It’s now gift cards for streaming services, and online shit. They are phasing out physical video games too. They are phasing out laptops, DVDs players, blueray players.

I know, I know, streaming services are so easy and convenient. But like, you don’t own it. You are at the mercy of the services. Once they kill physical media completely they can hike up the prices as steep as they like, $30, $40, $50 and more a month. Because it will be the ONLY way (short of pirating) that you can watch shows and movies. They will make it cable and satellite premium levels of expensive. And you won’t be able to stop them. They’ll hold your favorite shows hostage behind paywalls and micro transactions. They’ll vault up shows and movies and make them unavailable for long periods of time. You’ll have to have 7 different streaming services all costing $40 bucks a pop to watch the things you want.

You’ll have access to NOTHING without paying a premium. And remember, you already pay money to have an internet connection. Are streaming services really as affordable as you think? Internet price + the price of each service? That adds up. And they keep raising the price, and will keep raising the prices, because they know you’ll keep paying.

Having physical media means you get to watch your favorite shows and movies anytime. With or without internet connection. Broke as fuck? You can still watch it, because it’s yours. Did they lock up your favorite show or movie to make it more exclusive? You can still watch it with physical media because you own it. Want to let your friend borrow it? You can lend it to them, or burn them a copy. No need to fret about stupid services cracking down on password sharing. Want to watch the movie or show with online friends? You can stream DVDs over Discord so friends can watch with you.

(Am currently streaming Teen Titans the original animated series with my best friend over Discord. It’s mine, so neither of us pay anything to watch it together.)

Companies are writing off physical media as unprofitable. They are culling it. Taking it out of stores, making it less accessible.

People around me talk about all these movies and tv series they’d love to watch, but have to buy another streaming service to access it. And I offer to let them borrow the DVDs or Blueray, and they straight up tell me they don’t own DVDs or dvd players. Why?! WHY!? They subscribe to 4 or 5 different service instead forking out $50+ a month. But they put themselves at the mercy of these services, at the mercy of internet connectivity and access. They can’t even borrow a movie or show from me, because they are so dependent on internet and streaming.

Did you know there are literally ways to save your movies digitally and take them on the go? Streaming should be a neat little thing that’s convenient, it has its perks and uses, but it should NOT the only way to watch media.

Save physical media.

Buy a dvd player.

Buy movies.

Buy shows.

Own your media.

Stop renting it. Streaming is just glorified rental.

Stop renting it.

Because soon that’s all you’ll ever be able to do.

[centrally-unplanned]

To fulfill my insufferable grey tribe quota after the antitrust post, there are some industries where the inherent monopoly is strong enough that corporate management is always going to be rent extractive in some form. Exclusive infrastructure is the most common form of this - many in the US live in broadband internet monopolies, where since private providers own the actual wire connections and building duplicate connections is incredibly wasteful, a lot of areas have only one provider who by metrics offers worse services at higher prices than in peer countries (tangent note: breaking them up nationally does nothing to address this locally) . There are still constraints - you can get hotspot internet, satellite internet, etc, these do bind prices - but they are weak.

Similar things apply to some public transit; private companies owning a subway line have a monopoly because you absolutely should not build a second line for competition's sake. They still have to price around alternate modes of transit, for sure, but depending on the city there is a "cost gap" they can extract rent from.

All of this is to say that some countries address this via price controls, and it works just fine! Tokyo's subway is managed by private companies, but the government directly intervenes in their pricing strategies, capping profit margins. Dozens of countries have price controls on various utilities. Any publicly owned company is, in a sense, doing price controls unless they are operating as a purely for-profit entity. There are costs paid by these policies, of course, but they absolutely can provide greater benefits than those costs.

Like everything else, price controls are actually just a tool in the box. They are often portrayed as theoretically impossible; that they are the slippery slope to central planning a la the USSR, and that they will necessarily blow up. If you were doing it for the whole economy it is true enough (*puts the 20 page essay on the evolution of GOSPLAN to the side with a sigh of remorse and longing*), but for individual goods it just isn't that hard to calculate the marginal price of a good, understand that price, and then subsidize it or w/e for your social end without blowing up your entire supply chain. This happens all the time, it is called a firm; all of them do internal price controls.

The problems with price controls are not that theoretical calculation debate stuff, but instead that governments just generally aren't very good at things and fuck shit up all the time. Sometimes you need to do some kind of policy anyway, for some things markets do not work at all so you just gotta do your best. But price controls are exactly the kind of thing governments fuck up the most, and so using them needs to clear an exceptionally high bar. In practice, most problems never do. There is almost always another, better way to address the problem that will fuck up less. But it is just costs vs benefits in the end, it isn't a magic box. You can price control subways, it's fine enough. Don't price control groceries, that is not going to work. Different industries, different policies.

[fishmech]

It's just like, damn man communication and getting info cost so much around 2000.

You wanna look up some information on the phone so you can call someone that isn't in your phone book? That's like $4 in modern money.

You wanna call your aunt who lives a couple of states away and you're not paying the extra monthly landline cost for unlimited long distance? $15 in modern money for a 10 minute call in daytime hours, still like $3 nights and weekends, and these are both like "you got a pretty good deal" cases. Worse for most people.

OK so you just want to call your buddy who moved like 25 miles away? Maybe it's free cuz you lucked into still being in the same local call zone, but maybe you're still paying $3 in modern money for a 10 minute conversation because you managed to hit through two long distance zones. Especially if you're on opposite sides of a metro area or something. And if he had a cell phone you were calling, it might mean you paid even more because it registered as a further call.

But that's landline, let's say you were going cell. You might be paying the equivalent of $50 a month in modern money for 120 minutes of call time and no included texting. This service would likely charge you extra for "roaming", that is being out of your designated home calling area, as well as exceeding 120 minutes of talk time (and you would be billed a full minute minimum for any call that connected, mind), and texting once might be 75¢ in modern money on a cheaper provider, as much as $2 modern on others. Your excess call minutes might cost between 50¢ and $3 in modern money per minute and roaming calls would cost similar amounts even when you were within your plan. And on such a plan there was no cell data service so it would be an addon around $5 a month in modern money to have it at all - and prices of between 35¢ up to $5 in modern money per kilobyte transferred. Even if you were using strictly plain text that piled up quick.

You could of course move up to significantly more expensive plans per month in fixed costs to have much bigger pools of call minutes, freedom from roaming charges texts, and data. And to have significantly cheaper per-unit overage charges if you exceeded those. But that would quickly take your bill beyond $100, even $200 a month in modern money for a single line.

And of course if you wanted a couple songs from favorite singer? You ain't streaming it on a cheap monthly plan or likely even paying individually: your ass is paying nearly $38 in modern money for the whole album on CD, maybe $23 in modern money if you got a good sale price. And the artists still got a fraction of a penny off it cuz music royalties have been fucked forever. (of course you could pirate it probably... If you had internet service, if it was fast enough, if you could afford it for generally $36 a month in modern money for slow dialup, often much more if you had broadband available at all)

You wanna watch TV shows? Well like now you could watch the over the air stations for free. With tons of ads on the non-public stations ofc. But this is generally pre digital so there's much fewer stations on the air.

Or you could pay around $85 modern a month to get a pretty decent cable or satellite package and well you know, hope the time the shows you like line up with your schedule and of course it's full of ads too. Maybe you will setup a vcr or DVD recorder to catch what you couldn't be around for, and if you're not willing to wipe your old recording then you're going to need to drop serious cash to have fresh tapes and rewritable DVDs to keep that stuff around.

You want the higher end cable/satellite stuff? Well HBO alone back then was like $28 in modern money for a month on top of the rest of your bill - and most other similar no-ads premium channels were similar.

And let's not forget that this was still a time where getting official copies of shows on any kind of media often just Didn't Happen. Or they'd do it but they'd only put out random single episodes, maybe one full season on a multi season show. You might easily pay $26 in modern money for two half hour episodes or one full hour episode on a tape or DVD. Maybe you'd get lucky and instead be buying a whole season set for $75 in modern money, admittedly a much cheaper price per episode. Otherwise though, it's record it yourself in often pretty bad quality or trading and copying recordings from other people who liked that thing, if you got in touch with any.

And on-demand cable/satellite was just getting started and often required upgrading to a higher package, including paying more to rent a higher end TV box, with miniscule libraries. And the pay per view costs were often like $5 modern to watch a single movie squished to fit your TV, sometimes up to $35 modern for "new releases". Similarly, typical rental store costs were in the ball park of $7.50 to $30 in modern money per item, depending on overnight versus all week and sometimes old release vs new release. That shit added up quick! And Late fees could easily double up or triple up in just a few days.

And of course newspapers and magazines and books all cost money. We generally expect most of these to have some at least limited amount of free access on demand today, whether it's the free few articles a month before the paywall or getting free access digitally through your library. But of course back then, that's no such thing. A lot of online versions of publications were strict pay only, others only posted summaries for free, and that's if you were even online. It may not sound so bad to shell out 65¢ to $2 in modern money for a newspaper issue, or $4-$15 in modern money an issue for various magazines, but you'd be buying them pretty often if you wanted to keep up with things in more detail than they got into on TV. Even if you subscribe and get that discount for everything in a year, that's like maybe $90 a year in modern money for a major city paper, or $70 to $150 in modern money for a magazine depending on its frequency and size and content.

Shits just so fucking easy and cheap these days for real. You want to call someone you don't think about distance charges or roaming, you just fucking call. If you're calling overseas you probably use some app or program on a computer to call for free. A text message does not cost more than sending actual mail, it's nothing. Even all those stupid streaming services, which I don't use personally, you can have like 5 of those damn things, have way more to watch for less than cable back then, let alone modern cable prices, and have somewhat more reliability in what will be available next month!

Even when you're stuck on something like a strict budget, using prepaid cell service with blocks of minutes now, like some Tracfone "I only can afford $15 a month" stuff? It's like shlt at least that's 500 minutes/texts/megabytes of data. Like you're still getting screwed but it's much less so than what you got for that 10 or 20 or 25 years ago, and a lot more places have wifi you can use to stretch your data usage out.

[girlactionfigure]

ISRAEL REALTIME - "Connecting the World to Israel in Realtime"

Mid day - Nov. 27

🔸HOSTAGE ESCAPED, GAZA CIVILIANS TURNED HIM IN… The abductee who was released yesterday, Roni Kariboy, says that the building where he was being held in Gaza was bombed and collapsed, and he himself managed to escape and for 4 days tried to reach the Israeli border. In the end he was captured by "Gaza civilians” who handed him over to Hamas. (!!!)

🔸RELEASE CONFLICTS, AGAIN… Reuters: Israel and Hamas have raised claims and concerns about the lists of abductees and prisoners of those who are supposed to be released today.  Both sides present objections.  Families have not been informed, indicating the list remains in flux.

🔸HAMAS GAMES (7)… Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan told the Qatari channel: "The discussion on extending the ceasefire depends on finding more hostages in Gaza.  (( They lost them? )). A diplomatic source told CNN that there are over 40 hostages who are not being held by Hamas ((that leaves about 150 to release — so what’s the problem? )).  In addition, there are some problems with the current pace of releasing the abductees. (( They prefer them to die first??? )))

🔸RELEASED HOSTAGE CONDITION WORSENS… Alma Avraham, add some tehillim (psalms) for her recovery.  “Soroka Hospital: her continues to worsen, her life is in danger.”

◾️PALLYWOOD 3.0… The Palestinians publish a video of a Gaza family that decided to continue living under the ruins of their home.  Except their clothes and implements (making coffee over a fire) are completely clean and dust free - fake, staged for the photographer.

◾️ISRAELI POLITICS… fighting between the elected coalition and the State Camp added for national unity over the adjusted war budget, which is up for approval today.  War cost: 26 billion shekels. 17 billion military costs,  8.8 billion civilian costs.

◾️ELON MUSK IN ISRAEL… visits Kfar Aza, sees the horror video.  Min. Of Communications says agreements “in principle” for use of Starlink satellite internet in Israel and Gaza.

◾️ISRAELI INTEREST RATES… likely to be lowered.

◾️ATTACK IN MITZPE YERICHO… A Jewish resident was attacked in the head with an iron bar by 3 Israeli Arabs garbage workers.  He was evacuated to Sha'are Zedek hospital, the attackers arrested.

[beardedmrbean]

Luxembourg-based satellite telecom operator OQ Technology is testing investor appetite for space-based Internet of Things (IoT) technology, seeking EUR 30 million in fresh funding as competition intensifies in the nascent market for satellite-enabled device connectivity.

The company, which has deployed 10 satellites since 2019, plans to launch 20 more as larger telecommunications companies and satellite operators begin developing similar IoT services. The Series B funding round follows a EUR 13 million raise in 2022 and aims to strengthen its global 5G IoT network coverage.

OQ Technology has secured initial backing through a convertible loan from the Luxembourg Space Sector Development Fund, a joint initiative between SES S.A. and the Luxembourg government. Previous investors, including Aramco's venture capital arm Wa'ed Ventures and Greece's Phaistos Investment Fund, are participating in the new round.

The startup differentiates itself by focusing on standardized cellular technology for narrowband-IoT, contributing to 3GPP protocols that allow existing cellular chips to connect with satellites. This approach contrasts with proprietary systems offered by competitors, replacing traditional bulky satellite systems with compact, cost-efficient IoT modems that offer plug-and-play functionality.

"The satellite IoT sector is still largely in the proof-of-concept phase," says the company representative. "While there's significant potential, companies face challenges in standardization and convincing industries to adopt these new technologies at scale."

In an effort to secure its supply chain, the company is exploring partnerships in Taiwan's semiconductor industry. It has begun collaborating with the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), though these relationships are still in the early stages. The company has shipped initial terminals to prospective Taiwanese clients, marking its first steps in the Asian market.

The global reach for semiconductor partnerships comes as the company expands its geographical footprint, having established subsidiaries in Greece, Saudi Arabia, and Rwanda. Plans for US market entry are underway, though regulatory approvals and spectrum access remain hurdles in some markets.

Current clients include Aramco, Telefonica, and Deutsche Telekom, primarily using the technology for asset tracking and remote monitoring in industries such as energy, logistics, and agriculture. While the company estimates a potential market of 1.5 billion devices that could use satellite IoT connectivity, actual adoption rates remain modest.

"The challenge isn't just technical capability," notes the company representative. "It's about proving the economic case for satellite IoT in specific use cases where terrestrial networks aren't viable but the application can support satellite connectivity costs."

Market dynamics are also shifting. Recent announcements from major tech companies about satellite-to-phone services have sparked interest in space-based connectivity, but may also increase competition for spectrum and market share. Several companies are pursuing similar standards-based approaches, potentially commoditizing the technology.

For OQ Technology, the ability to deploy its planned satellites and convert pilot projects into paying customers will be crucial. While the company's focus on standardized technology may reduce technical risks, successfully scaling the business will require navigating complex regulatory environments and proving the technology's reliability across different use cases.

[meilleurs-iptv]

Best IPTV Service Provider for Reliable TV Streaming

I’ve always loved watching TV. And over time, I’ve seen how we watch our shows change. One big change is IPTV or Internet Protocol Television. It’s making our TV time way better.1 By 2024, more people will choose IPTV over cable. S&P Global Market Intelligence says it will have over 33.7% of the market.1 Why? Because it’s easy to use, flexible, and has lots of shows.

Are you into sports, movies, or just flipping through channels? Finding the best IPTV service iptv provide can change the game for you.1 The IPTV Subscriber Market report looks at what’s happening in the world of IPTV. It talks about trends and what to look out for.1 With so many choices, it’s important to pick what fits you best.

Key Takeaways

IPTV is projected to surpass cable TV as the leading choice for multichannel households by 2024.

European countries like Australia, Romania, Sweden, and Indonesia are experiencing increased IPTV adoption.

Verified IPTV providers like Hulu, Sling TV, YouTube TV, and AT&T TV offer secure and legal streaming services.

Unverified IPTV providers may face legal issues and security vulnerabilities, though they tend to be less expensive.

A high-speed internet connection of around 25Mbps is recommended for optimal IPTV streaming experience.

Introduction to IPTV

IPTV, or Internet Protocol Television, is a cool way to watch TV shows through the internet. Instead of cables or satellites, it brings TV content right to your device.1 You can watch live TV, catch up on shows whenever you want, and enjoy movies directly on your device.1 Simply put, IPTV takes the TV signals from the internet and makes them viewable on your screen.1

What is IPTV?

IPTV, or Internet Protocol Television, is a major way people watch TV nowadays. It’s a global service that uses the internet to send TV shows and movies to viewers2. This has changed how we watch TV by making thousands of shows available through an internet connection3.

Benefits of Best IPTV Service Provider Over Traditional Cable TV

IPTV is a lot cheaper than traditional cable and satellite services2. All you need is the internet and a special URL or playlist to start watching2. Think of it like browsing the internet but for TV, making it easy to watch a lot of channels and shows anytime23.

Factors to Consider When Choosing an IPTV Service Provider

The world of IPTV is booming with advancements, making TV providers fight harder for customers.4 Consumers have a choice between legal and unverified IPTV options.4

Channel Selection

It’s important for users to check if the IPTV service offers the channels they love. This ensures they get what they want before they commit.4

Streaming Quality

Checking picture quality and how smoothly the videos play is key. Also, look at if you can change the language and if summaries are available. best iptv for firestick 20244

Device Compatibility

Since IPTV plays through apps, it’s crucial to pick a provider that works on your various devices. This offers flexibility.

User Interface

A service that’s easy to use and looks good improves how you watch TV. It can make a big difference.what are the best iptv providers

Pricing Plans

How much it costs is a major point for most shoppers. Luckily, there are different packages to choose from based on what you need. what is the best iptv provider

Choose a service with apps in trusted app stores for safety. This means they follow laws, giving you peace of mind.4 On the other hand, services not in these stores might not have the right to show some content, which is risky what is the best iptv provider reddit. best iptv service providers best iptv provider 2023 best iptv providers reddit 2024

Top Legal IPTV Service Providers

which is the best iptv provider

When you’re looking for reliable and legal IPTV services, some stand out. These providers give you lots of channels and on-demand shows. They make sure your TV time is safe and fun iptv best provider top rated iptv

CetIPTV

CetIPTV is a top choice for many. For about $30 a month in the USA, you get lots of live TV. This includes sports, news, and fun shows. It’s great for those looking to leave cable behind for something more wallet-friendly.

Hulu + Live TV

Hulu’s got something special with Hulu + Live TV. It mixes lots of live channels with Hulu’s vast library of shows. You can add extras according to what you like and what fits your budget.5

YouTube TV

YouTube TV offers a bunch of live TV channels, from local to sports to news. It’s all packed into an easy-to-use platform. Connecting with the YouTube world, it brings one smooth IPTV experience.5

Hulu, Sling TV, and YouTube TV are all top-ranked for good reasons. They offer secure and trusted streaming. It’s no wonder they’re among the best IPTV choices out there.1

Best IPTV Service Provider

Overview of Top IPTV Providers

Today, many IPTV services stand out, each with its special perks. CetIPTV has a vast channel selection and top-notch streaming1. IPTVRockers offers varied entertainment and a smooth platform1. If you love sports, IPTVPick shines with its sports programs1. SwapIPTV, however, focuses on content from around the world, perfect for diverse preferences1.

Comparing Features and Pricing

Providers vary greatly in what they offer and cost. VisualiseTv boasts 24,000+ live channels and 120,000 movies in stunning quality6. CetIPTV has premium channels, movies, and PPV options6. CetIPTV gives over 21,000 channels and a full money-back deal6. CatchON TV provides 20,000+ channels, VODs, and promises a 99% uptime6. KEMO IPTV’s annual $65 plan includes 20,000+ channels and more what is the best iptv service provider

User Reviews and Ratings

User feedback is crucial in choosing the right IPTV service. Many services let users try them free, up to 7 days, to get a feel and leave feedback6. Legal IPTV offerings can be found on platforms like Amazon and Google Play, showing they’re safe and real6. But, unverified services bring legal and security risks, so using a VPN is smart for safety6.

Unverified IPTV Services: Risks and Legalities

The IPTV industry is growing fast. It’s expected to beat cable TV by 2024 as the top choice for multichannel households1. But, there are dangers with unverified IPTV services. They raise big legal and safety concerns.

These unverified services aren’t in popular app stores. They seem cheaper than legal options. But, they might not have the right to stream content. This can lead to legal issues and risks like data theft7. They may also violate your internet service’s terms.

The laws around IPTV are getting stricter. The UK’s Digital Economy Act of 2017 means up to 10 years in jail for illegal IPTV. In the US, the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act makes streaming felonious. Operators of these services could face up to 10 years behind bars8.

When choosing an IPTV service, look at the subscription cost and payment method. Check the content and streaming quality. Also, see if they have ads, good customer support, and official apps. This is key to knowing if the service is legal and trustworthy8. Go for services you can find in official app stores to stay safe and legal.

Setting Up Your IPTV Service

Getting ready to explore IPTV needs some steps for a smooth experience. We’ll talk about what’s important when starting your IPTV journey.

Internet Speed Requirements

For IPTV to work well, you must have a fast internet connection. You need about 25Mbps for watching live channels in full-HD without interruptions.9 If you want to watch in 4K or need SD quality, you’ll need more speed. Over 75Mbps might be needed for excellent 4K quality.

Compatible Devices

Using a device that can handle IPTV well is key. Android systems or Amazon Fire Stick are great options.9 They make it easy and convenient to watch various IPTV apps and services.

Installing the IPTV App

Getting your IPTV set up means picking a provider, getting their plan, and putting the app on your device. After logging in, you can start watching live channels and on-demand shows.10 It’s usually simple, with instructions from your provider to help.

Enhancing Your IPTV Experience

Getting more from your IPTV means personalizing it to your liking. You can do this by using a VPN for extra security or by picking only the channels you enjoy. Accessing parental controls is another useful way to customize your experience. We’ll look into each of these ideas.

Using a VPN for IPTV

A VPN, though not always a must, adds a layer of protection. It encrypts your internet use and protects your privacy. It can also let you watch shows from other countries by bypassing their viewing restrictions.11

Customizing Channel Lists

Customizing your channel list can turn your IPTV experience into just what you want. You get to pick the channels you love. This is especially handy with a lot of channels. Some services even offer guides to help you find what you’re looking for easily.12

Parental Controls and Restrictions

IPTV services make it easy to keep your kids away from shows they shouldn’t watch. You can set controls to block certain content and manage when they watch. This keeps the whole family’s viewing safe and enjoyable CetIPTV

IPTV vs. Traditional Cable TV: The Future of Television

Many have turned to IPTV and satellite bundles for their TV needs.14 IPTV provides Live, Time-Shifted, and Video on Demand services.14 It tends to be cheaper than cable or satellite TV. This is because IPTV services offer various affordable plans.14

IPTV lets you do more than watch TV. You can pause, rewind, and fast-forward live shows. There’s on-demand content and shows picked just for you.14 The future for IPTV looks bright. More and more people will switch to it from traditional TV. This is because it’s flexible, offers lots of shows, and saves money.14 Technology will make IPTV even better. We’ll get smoother streaming, quicker starts, and more cool features.14 Plus, we’ll have more shows to pick from, including ones from around the world and special ones just for you.14

For years, cable and satellite TV have been the main way we watch TV. But now, IPTV is making a mark. It’s a cheaper and more adjustable option.15 IPTV is known for clear, reliable shows with less waiting and in high definition. Over-the-Top (OTT) services let you watch on different gadgets and save money.15 IPTV even has cool features like DVR, pausing live shows, and guides. OTT is great for its unique, top-notch shows.15

The TV world is changing fast. Soon, IPTV and OTT will blend in with smart homes. It will be easy to pick what to watch with your voice.14 Also, things like 5G and better internet will make TV even more amazing.15

IPTV OTT

Live Television

Video on Demand (VOD)

Time-Shifted TV

Subscription-Based Services (SVOD)

Ad-Supported Services (AVOD)

Transactional Services (TVOD)

Generally more expensive due to bundling with other services and hardware requirements15 More cost-effective and accessible on a variety of devices compared to IPTV15 Boasts quality and reliability due to managed networks, resulting in minimal buffering and high-definition quality streaming15 Offers flexibility in viewing, accessibility on multiple devices, and cost-effectiveness15 Presents interactive features like DVR, pausing live TV, and interactive program guides15 Known for producing high-quality original content not found on traditional TV15 Services are tied to specific locations and devices, limiting mobility compared to OTT services15 Might require multiple subscriptions for desired content, leading to content fragmentation15

The future looks bright for TV. IPTV and OTT will get even better with new technology.1415

Conclusion

The digital age has changed how we watch TV. IPTV, or Internet Protocol Television, is now popular. It’s a good choice instead of cable or satellite.5

IPTV offers a lot of channels, from about 15 to over 54,000. It’s also affordable, with prices between $15 to $30 a month. You can watch TV on smart TVs, phones, tablets, and more.5 This makes watching TV better for everyone.

In the USA, using legal IPTV services means you’re watching content from licensed sources. This makes sure you’re watching without any copyright issues. When choosing an IPTV service, think about the shows they offer, channels, price, and how they help you if you have a problem.5

The way we watch TV is changing thanks to IPTV. Soon, more people will watch TV this way. It offers new features and an improved way to watch. Plus, it’s all done the right way, making sure artists and creators are supported.

FAQ

What is IPTV?

IPTV stands for Internet Protocol Television. It brings TV shows and movies through the Internet to your devices. This is different from using cable or satellite dishes.

How does IPTV work?

To watch TV using IPTV, you need an internet connection. This connection sends TV shows to your device. You can watch IPTV on smart TVs, set-top boxes, or your phone.

What are the benefits of IPTV over traditional cable TV?

Unlike traditional TV, IPTV is more flexible and lets you choose what to watch when. You can see shows and movies from all over the world. Plus, it’s often cheaper.

What should I consider when choosing an IPTV service provider?

When picking an IPTV service, think about what channels you can watch and how clear the picture is. Also, check if it works on your devices and how easy it is to use. Make sure they are a legal provider for your safety.

What are the risks of using unverified IPTV services?

Using IPTV services that are not verified can lead to legal troubles. They might not have the rights to show the content they stream. Although these services are cheap, they may not be safe or reliable.

What internet speed do I need for IPTV?

For watching live HD TV through IPTV, you should have around 25Mbps speed. High-speed internet is best to avoid pauses while watching.

What devices can I use to access IPTV services?

You can watch IPTV on many devices like smart TVs, set-top boxes, and mobile phones. This includes systems like Android or Amazon Fire Stick.

How important is customer support for an IPTV provider?

Good tech support and customer service are very important with IPTV. They can help you fix any problems you have while watching TV.

Source Links

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quel-est-le-meilleur-abonnement-iptv-en-juin-2024-abdelazziz-mehdaoui-ld7ge

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ultimate-iptv-subscription-guide-unmatched-usa-2024-mehdaoui-xf6me

https://www.firesticktricks.com/best-iptv-service.html

https://www.firesticktricks.com/is-iptv-legal.html

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/best-iptv-sites-usa-2024-ultimate-guide-cherkaoui-abderrahim-vzyqe

https://www.vplayed.com/blog/what-is-iptv-how-does-iptv-works/

https://www.theiptvguide.com/iptv-providers

https://www.enveu.com/blog/iptv-vs-ott/

[unpluggedfinancial]

Bitcoin as a Tool for Financial Freedom in Developing Nations

In many developing nations, financial freedom is a distant dream for millions of people. With limited access to banking, unstable local currencies, and high remittance fees, the financial systems in these regions often fail to meet basic needs. But Bitcoin, the world’s first decentralized cryptocurrency, offers a powerful alternative. By providing low-cost transactions, a secure store of value, and global access, Bitcoin has the potential to revolutionize financial systems in developing nations and empower individuals in ways previously unimaginable.

Access to Banking and Financial Services

A significant portion of the population in developing nations is unbanked or underbanked, meaning they don’t have access to traditional banking services. For these individuals, managing and transferring money is often both expensive and difficult. However, with Bitcoin, all you need is a smartphone and an internet connection to securely store and transfer value across borders.

Bitcoin’s decentralized nature removes the need for intermediaries like banks, allowing people to take control of their finances without requiring expensive infrastructure. This opens up opportunities for financial inclusion for millions who have been left out of the traditional banking system.

Fighting Inflation and Currency Instability

Countries like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Lebanon have experienced severe hyperinflation, leading to the rapid devaluation of their local currencies. In these situations, saving money in the local currency becomes a losing game, as purchasing power evaporates. Bitcoin, with its fixed supply and decentralized control, presents a unique solution. Unlike fiat currencies, Bitcoin’s value cannot be inflated by governments printing more money.

By holding Bitcoin, individuals in developing nations have a way to preserve their wealth, even in the face of rampant inflation. Bitcoin acts as a hedge against these unstable financial systems, offering a reliable store of value.

Low-Cost Remittances

Many developing countries rely heavily on remittances—money sent home by family members working abroad. Traditional remittance services like Western Union often charge high fees, eating into the money being sent. With Bitcoin, remittances can be sent instantly and at a fraction of the cost. This ensures that families receive more of the money being sent, helping to improve their financial situation.

For example, Bitcoin’s Lightning Network allows for near-instantaneous transactions with minimal fees, making it an ideal tool for cross-border payments. This has already started to reshape the remittance landscape in several countries, allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Expanding Internet Access with Starlink

While Bitcoin can offer financial freedom, it does rely on internet access, which can be a significant barrier in many remote areas of developing nations. Enter Starlink—Elon Musk’s satellite internet project. Starlink aims to provide high-speed internet access to even the most underserved regions of the world. By deploying a vast network of satellites, Starlink is bridging the connectivity gap and bringing the internet to areas that traditional infrastructure cannot reach.

As Starlink continues to expand, it will play a critical role in enabling the widespread use of Bitcoin in developing nations. With reliable internet access through Starlink, individuals in even the most remote areas will be able to access global financial services, store their wealth securely in Bitcoin, and participate in the global economy without relying on a failing banking system.

The combination of Starlink and Bitcoin represents a game-changer for financial inclusion. People who have long been cut off from the digital economy will soon have the tools to connect, transact, and thrive.

Case Studies of Bitcoin Adoption

We are already witnessing the potential of Bitcoin in countries like El Salvador, where it has become legal tender. Citizens and businesses are using Bitcoin to conduct transactions, save money, and escape reliance on the U.S. dollar. In Nigeria and Argentina, where inflation has eroded the value of local currencies, Bitcoin adoption has surged as people look for a more stable alternative.

These examples highlight how Bitcoin is not just an investment asset—it’s a lifeline for those in volatile economies. Real-life stories from these regions demonstrate the transformative impact that Bitcoin can have, providing a way out of the cycle of poverty and financial instability.

Challenges to Bitcoin Adoption in Developing Nations

While the potential for Bitcoin is massive, there are still challenges to widespread adoption. Access to reliable internet, government regulations, and a general lack of education about how to use Bitcoin safely are significant barriers. However, with increasing mobile internet access, thanks to initiatives like Starlink, and the growing number of educational programs focused on Bitcoin, these challenges are gradually being addressed.

In many countries, grassroots organizations are working to teach people how to use Bitcoin securely, helping to accelerate adoption. As awareness grows, so too will the use of Bitcoin as a tool for financial empowerment.

The Future of Bitcoin in Developing Nations

Looking ahead, the future of Bitcoin in developing nations appears promising. As technology continues to improve, and access to the internet becomes more widespread, Bitcoin adoption will likely continue to rise. Bitcoin’s potential to create financial inclusion, protect wealth from inflation, and reduce the cost of remittances can drastically improve the lives of millions.

With governments and corporations beginning to see the value of Bitcoin, there is an opportunity for developing nations to leapfrog traditional financial systems and adopt a decentralized alternative that benefits the global population.

Conclusion

Bitcoin offers more than just a new form of currency; it presents a path to financial freedom for millions of people in developing nations. By providing access to financial services, protecting against inflation, and enabling low-cost remittances, Bitcoin has the potential to reshape economies and empower individuals like never before. And with innovations like Starlink bringing internet access to even the most remote corners of the world, the barriers to Bitcoin adoption are falling fast. The future is decentralized, and Bitcoin is leading the way toward financial inclusion for all.

Take Action Towards Financial Independence

If this article has sparked your interest in the transformative potential of Bitcoin, there's so much more to explore! Dive deeper into the world of financial independence and revolutionize your understanding of money by following my blog and subscribing to my YouTube channel.

🌐 Blog: Unplugged Financial Blog Stay updated with insightful articles, detailed analyses, and practical advice on navigating the evolving financial landscape. Learn about the history of money, the flaws in our current financial systems, and how Bitcoin can offer a path to a more secure and independent financial future.

📺 YouTube Channel: Unplugged Financial Subscribe to our YouTube channel for engaging video content that breaks down complex financial topics into easy-to-understand segments. From in-depth discussions on monetary policies to the latest trends in cryptocurrency, our videos will equip you with the knowledge you need to make informed financial decisions.

👍 Like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated with our latest content. Whether you're a seasoned investor, a curious newcomer, or someone concerned about the future of your financial health, our community is here to support you on your journey to financial independence.

Support the Cause

If you enjoyed what you read and believe in the mission of spreading awareness about Bitcoin, I would greatly appreciate your support. Every little bit helps keep the content going and allows me to continue educating others about the future of finance.

Donate Bitcoin: bc1qpn98s4gtlvy686jne0sr8ccvfaxz646kk2tl8lu38zz4dvyyvflqgddylk

Thank you for your support!

[surveillance-capitalism]

Link without paywall:

And a copypaste for good measure:

Last October, Colin Kahl, then the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon, sat in a hotel in Paris and prepared to make a call to avert disaster in Ukraine. A staffer handed him an iPhone—in part to avoid inviting an onslaught of late-night texts and colorful emojis on Kahl’s own phone. Kahl had returned to his room, with its heavy drapery and distant view of the Eiffel Tower, after a day of meetings with officials from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. A senior defense official told me that Kahl was surprised by whom he was about to contact: “He was, like, ‘Why am I calling Elon Musk?’ ”

The reason soon became apparent. “Even though Musk is not technically a diplomat or statesman, I felt it was important to treat him as such, given the influence he had on this issue,” Kahl told me. SpaceX, Musk’s space-exploration company, had for months been providing Internet access across Ukraine, allowing the country’s forces to plan attacks and to defend themselves. But, in recent days, the forces had found their connectivity severed as they entered territory contested by Russia. More alarmingly, SpaceX had recently given the Pentagon an ultimatum: if it didn’t assume the cost of providing service in Ukraine, which the company calculated at some four hundred million dollars annually, it would cut off access. “We started to get a little panicked,” the senior defense official, one of four who described the standoff to me, recalled. Musk “could turn it off at any given moment. And that would have real operational impact for the Ukrainians.”

Musk had become involved in the war in Ukraine soon after Russia invaded, in February, 2022. Along with conventional assaults, the Kremlin was conducting cyberattacks against Ukraine’s digital infrastructure. Ukrainian officials and a loose coalition of expatriates in the tech sector, brainstorming in group chats on WhatsApp and Signal, found a potential solution: SpaceX, which manufactures a line of mobile Internet terminals called Starlink. The tripod-mounted dishes, each about the size of a computer display and clad in white plastic reminiscent of the sleek design sensibility of Musk’s Tesla electric cars, connect with a network of satellites. The units have limited range, but in this situation that was an advantage: although a nationwide network of dishes was required, it would be difficult for Russia to completely dismantle Ukrainian connectivity. Of course, Musk could do so. Three people involved in bringing Starlink to Ukraine, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they worried that Musk, if upset, could withdraw his services, told me that they originally overlooked the significance of his personal control. “Nobody thought about it back then,” one of them, a Ukrainian tech executive, told me. “It was all about ‘Let’s fucking go, people are dying.’ ”

In the ensuing months, fund-raising in Silicon Valley’s Ukrainian community, contracts with the U.S. Agency for International Development and with European governments, and pro-bono contributions from SpaceX facilitated the transfer of thousands of Starlink units to Ukraine. A soldier in Ukraine’s signal corps who was responsible for maintaining Starlink access on the front lines, and who asked to be identified only by his first name, Mykola, told me, “It’s the essential backbone of communication on the battlefield.”

Initially, Musk showed unreserved support for the Ukrainian cause, responding encouragingly as Mykhailo Fedorov, the Ukrainian minister for digital transformation, tweeted pictures of equipment in the field. But, as the war ground on, SpaceX began to balk at the cost. “We are not in a position to further donate terminals to Ukraine, or fund the existing terminals for an indefinite period of time,” SpaceX’s director of government sales told the Pentagon in a letter, last September. (CNBC recently valued SpaceX at nearly a hundred and fifty billion dollars. Forbes estimated Musk’s personal net worth at two hundred and twenty billion dollars, making him the world’s richest man.)

Musk was also growing increasingly uneasy with the fact that his technology was being used for warfare. That month, at a conference in Aspen attended by business and political figures, Musk even appeared to express support for Vladimir Putin. “He was onstage, and he said, ‘We should be negotiating. Putin wants peace—we should be negotiating peace with Putin,’ ” Reid Hoffman, who helped start PayPal with Musk, recalled. Musk seemed, he said, to have “bought what Putin was selling, hook, line, and sinker.” A week later, Musk tweeted a proposal for his own peace plan, which called for new referendums to redraw the borders of Ukraine, and granted Russia control of Crimea, the semi-autonomous peninsula recognized by most nations, including the United States, as Ukrainian territory. In later tweets, Musk portrayed as inevitable an outcome favoring Russia and attached maps highlighting eastern Ukrainian territories, some of which, he argued, “prefer Russia.” Musk also polled his Twitter followers about the plan. Millions responded, with about sixty per cent rejecting the proposal. (Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s President, tweeted his own poll, asking users whether they preferred the Elon Musk who supported Ukraine or the one who now seemed to back Russia. The former won, though Zelensky’s poll had a smaller turnout: Musk has more than twenty times as many followers.)

By then, Musk’s sympathies appeared to be manifesting on the battlefield. One day, Ukrainian forces advancing into contested areas in the south found themselves suddenly unable to communicate. “We were very close to the front line,” Mykola, the signal-corps soldier, told me. “We crossed this border and the Starlink stopped working.” The consequences were immediate. “Communications became dead, units were isolated. When you’re on offense, especially for commanders, you need a constant stream of information from battalions. Commanders had to drive to the battlefield to be in radio range, risking themselves,” Mykola said. “It was chaos.” Ukrainian expats who had raised funds for the Starlink units began receiving frantic calls. The tech executive recalls a Ukrainian military official telling him, “We need Elon now.” “How now?” he replied. “Like fucking now,” the official said. “People are dying.” Another Ukrainian involved told me that he was “awoken by a dozen calls saying they’d lost connectivity and had to retreat.” The Financial Times reported that outages affected units in Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Luhansk. American and Ukrainian officials told me they believed that SpaceX had cut the connectivity via geofencing, cordoning off areas of access.

The senior defense official said, “We had a whole series of meetings internal to the department to try to figure out what we could do about this.” Musk’s singular role presented unfamiliar challenges, as did the government’s role as intermediary. “It wasn’t like we could hold him in breach of contract or something,” the official continued. The Pentagon would need to reach a contractual arrangement with SpaceX so that, at the very least, Musk “couldn’t wake up one morning and just decide, like, he didn’t want to do this anymore.” Kahl added, “It was kind of a way for us to lock in services across Ukraine. It could at least prevent Musk from turning off the switch altogether.”

Typically, such a negotiation would be handled by the Pentagon’s acquisitions department. But Musk had become more than just a vender like Boeing, Lockheed, or other defense-industry behemoths. On the phone with Musk from Paris, Kahl was deferential. According to unclassified talking points for the call, he thanked Musk for his efforts in Ukraine, acknowledged the steep costs he’d incurred, and pleaded for even a few weeks to devise a contract. “If you cut this off, it doesn’t end the war,” Kahl recalled telling Musk.

Musk wasn’t immediately convinced. “My inference was that he was getting nervous that Starlink’s involvement was increasingly seen in Russia as enabling the Ukrainian war effort, and was looking for a way to placate Russian concerns,” Kahl told me. To the dismay of Pentagon officials, Musk volunteered that he had spoken with Putin personally. Another individual told me that Musk had made the same assertion in the weeks before he tweeted his pro-Russia peace plan, and had said that his consultations with the Kremlin were regular. (Musk later denied having spoken with Putin about Ukraine.) On the phone, Musk said that he was looking at his laptop and could see “the entire war unfolding” through a map of Starlink activity. “This was, like, three minutes before he said, ‘Well, I had this great conversation with Putin,’ ” the senior defense official told me. “And we were, like, ‘Oh, dear, this is not good.’ ” Musk told Kahl that the vivid illustration of how technology he had designed for peaceful ends was being used to wage war gave him pause.

After a fifteen-minute call, Musk agreed to give the Pentagon more time. He also, after public blowback and with evident annoyance, walked back his threats to cut off service. “The hell with it,” he tweeted. “Even though Starlink is still losing money & other companies are getting billions of taxpayer $, we’ll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free.” This June, the Department of Defense announced that it had reached a deal with SpaceX.

The meddling of oligarchs and other monied interests in the fate of nations is not new. During the First World War, J. P. Morgan lent vast sums to the Allied powers; afterward, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., poured money into the fledgling League of Nations. The investor George Soros’s Open Society Foundations underwrote civil-society reform in post-Soviet Europe, and the casino mogul Sheldon Adelson funded right-wing media in Israel, as part of his support of Benjamin Netanyahu.

But Musk’s influence is more brazen and expansive. There is little precedent for a civilian’s becoming the arbiter of a war between nations in such a granular way, or for the degree of dependency that the U.S. now has on Musk in a variety of fields, from the future of energy and transportation to the exploration of space. SpaceX is currently the sole means by which NASA transports crew from U.S. soil into space, a situation that will persist for at least another year. The government’s plan to move the auto industry toward electric cars requires increasing access to charging stations along America’s highways. But this rests on the actions of another Musk enterprise, Tesla. The automaker has seeded so much of the country with its proprietary charging stations that the Biden Administration relaxed an early push for a universal charging standard disliked by Musk. His stations are eligible for billions of dollars in subsidies, so long as Tesla makes them compatible with the other charging standard.

In the past twenty years, against a backdrop of crumbling infrastructure and declining trust in institutions, Musk has sought out business opportunities in crucial areas where, after decades of privatization, the state has receded. The government is now reliant on him, but struggles to respond to his risk-taking, brinkmanship, and caprice. Current and former officials from NASA, the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration told me that Musk’s influence had become inescapable in their work, and several of them said that they now treat him like a sort of unelected official. One Pentagon spokesman said that he was keeping Musk apprised of my inquiries about his role in Ukraine and would grant an interview with an official about the matter only with Musk’s permission. “We’ll talk to you if Elon wants us to,” he told me. In a podcast interview last year, Musk was asked whether he has more influence than the American government. He replied immediately, “In some ways.” Reid Hoffman told me that Musk’s attitude is “like Louis XIV: ‘L’état, c’est moi.’ ”

Musk’s power continues to grow. His takeover of Twitter, which he has rebranded “X,” gives him a critical forum for political discourse ahead of the next Presidential election. He recently launched an artificial-intelligence company, a move that follows years of involvement in the technology. Musk has become a hyper-exposed pop-culture figure, and his sharp turns from altruistic to vainglorious, strategic to impulsive, have been the subject of innumerable articles and at least seven major books, including a forthcoming biography by Walter Isaacson. But the nature and the scope of his power are less widely understood.

More than thirty of Musk’s current and former colleagues in various industries and a dozen individuals in his personal life spoke to me about their experiences with him. Sam Altman, the C.E.O. of OpenAI, with whom Musk has both worked and sparred, told me, “Elon desperately wants the world to be saved. But only if he can be the one to save it.”

The terms of the Starlink deal have not been made public. Ukrainian officials say that they have not faced further service interruptions. But Musk has continued to express ambivalence about how the technology is being used, and where it can be deployed. In February, he tweeted, “We will not enable escalation of conflict that may lead to WW3.” He said, as he had told Kahl, that he was sincerely attempting to navigate the moral dilemmas of his role: “We’re trying hard to do the right thing, where the ‘right thing’ is an extremely difficult moral question.”

Musk’s hesitation aligns with his pragmatic interests. A facility in Shanghai produces half of all Tesla cars, and Musk depends on the good will of officials in China, which has lent support to Russia in the conflict. Musk recently acknowledged to the Financial Times that Beijing disapproves of his decision to provide Internet service to Ukraine and has sought assurances that he would not deploy similar technology in China. In the same interview, he responded to questions about China’s efforts to assert control over Taiwan by floating another peace plan. Taiwan, he suggested, could become a jointly controlled administrative zone, an outcome that Taiwanese leaders see as ending the country’s independence. During a trip to Beijing this spring, Musk was welcomed with what Reuters summarized as “flattery and feasts.” He met with senior officials, including China’s foreign minister, and posed for the kinds of awkwardly smiling formal photos that are more typical of world leaders.

National-security officials I spoke with had a range of views on the government’s balance of power with Musk. He maintains good relationships with some of them, including General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since the two men met, several years ago, when Milley was the chief of staff of the Army, they have discussed “technology applications to warfare—artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, and autonomous machines,” Milley told me. “He has insight that helped shape my thoughts on the fundamental change in the character of war and the modernization of the U.S. military.” During the Starlink controversy, Musk called him for advice. But other officials expressed profound misgivings. “Living in the world we live in, in which Elon runs this company and it is a private business under his control, we are living off his good graces,” a Pentagon official told me. “That sucks.”

One summer evening in the mid-nineteen-eighties, Musk and his friend Theo Taoushiani took Taoushiani’s father’s car for an illicit drive. Musk and Taoushiani were both in their mid-teens, and lived about a mile apart in a suburb of Johannesburg, South Africa. Neither had a driver’s license, or permission from Taoushiani’s father. But they were passionate Dungeons & Dragons fans, and a new module—a fresh scenario in the game—had just been released. Taoushiani took the wheel for the twenty-minute drive to the Sandton City mall. “Elon was my co-pilot,” Taoushiani told me. “We went under the cover of darkness.” At the mall, they found that they didn’t have enough money. But Musk promised a salesperson that they would return the next day with the rest, and dropped the name of a well-known Greek restaurant owned by Taoushiani’s family. “Elon had the gift of the gab,” Taoushiani said. “He’s very persuasive, and he’s quite dogged in his determination.” The two went home with the module.

Musk was born in 1971 in Pretoria, the country’s administrative capital, and he and his younger brother, Kimbal, and his younger sister, Tosca, grew up under apartheid. Musk’s mother, Maye, a Canadian model and dietitian, and his father, Errol, an engineer, divorced when he was young, and the children initially stayed with Maye. She has said that Errol was physically abusive toward her. “He would hit me when the kids were around,” she wrote in her memoir. “I remember that Tosca and Kimbal, who were two and four, respectively, would cry in the corner, and Elon, who was five, would hit him on the backs of his knees to try to stop him.” By the mid-eighties, Musk had moved in with his father—a decision that he has said was motivated by concern for his father’s loneliness, and which he came to regret. Musk, usually impassive in interviews, cried openly when he told Rolling Stone about the years that followed, in which, he said, his father psychologically tortured him, in ways that he declined to specify. “You have no idea about how bad,” he said. “Almost every crime you can possibly think of, he has done. Almost every evil thing you could possibly think of, he has done.” Taoushiani recalled witnessing Errol “chastise Elon a lot. Maybe belittle him.” (Errol Musk has denied allegations that he was abusive to Maye or to his children.) Musk has also said that he was violently bullied at school. Though he is now six feet one, with a broad-shouldered build, he was “much, much smaller back in school,” Taoushiani told me. “He wasn’t very social.”

Musk has said that he has Asperger’s syndrome, a form of what is now known as autism-spectrum disorder, which is characterized by difficulty with social interactions. As a child, he would sometimes fall into trancelike states of deep thought, during which he was so unresponsive that his mother eventually took him to a doctor to check his hearing. Musk’s quiet side persists—in my own interactions with him, I have found him to be thoughtful and measured. (Musk declined to answer questions for this story.) He can also be, as he joked during a stilted “Saturday Night Live” monologue, “pretty good at running human, in emulation mode.”

Musk escaped into science fiction and video games. “One of the reasons I got into technology, maybe the reason, was video games,” he said at a gaming-industry convention several years ago. In his early teens, Musk coded an eight-bit shooter game in the style of Space Invaders called Blastar, whose title screen, in a novelistic flourish, credits him as “E. R. Musk.” The premise was basic: “MISSION: DESTROY ALIEN FREIGHTER CARRYING DEADLY HYDROGEN BOMBS AND STATUS BEAM MACHINES.” But it won recognition from a South African trade magazine, which published the game’s hundred and sixty-seven lines of code and paid Musk a small sum.

Musk often talks about his science-fiction influences. Some have manifested in straightforward ways: he has connected his love of Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” novels, whose characters grapple with a mathematically precise prediction of their civilization’s collapse, to his obsession with insuring human survival beyond Earth. But some of Musk’s touchstones present ironies. He has said that his hero is Douglas Adams, the writer who skewered both the hyper-rich and the progress-at-any-cost ethos that Musk has come to embody. In the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” novels and radio plays, the latter of which were broadcast in South Africa during Musk’s childhood, a narcissistic playboy becomes the president of the galaxy, and Earth is demolished to make way for a space transit route. Musk is also an avowed fan of Deus Ex, a role-playing first-person-shooter video game that he has brought up when discussing his company Neuralink, which aspires to invent ability-enhancing body modifications like those featured in the game. During the pandemic, Musk seemed to embrace Covid denialism, and for a while he changed his Twitter profile picture to an image of the protagonist of the game, which turns on a manufactured plague designed to control the masses. But Deus Ex, like “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” is a fundamentally anti-capitalist text, in which the plague is the culmination of unrestrained corporate power, and the villain is the world’s richest man, a media-darling tech entrepreneur with global aspirations and political leaders under his control.

In 1999, Musk stood outside his Bay Area home to accept the delivery of a million-dollar McLaren F1 sports car. He was in his late twenties, and wearing an oversized brown blazer. “Some could interpret purchasing this car as behavior characteristic of an imperialist brat,” he told a CNN news crew. Then he beamed, saying that there were only about sixty such cars in the world. “My values may have changed,” he added, “but I’m not consciously aware of my values having changed.” Musk’s fiancée, a Canadian writer named Justine Wilson, seemed more aware. “It’s a million-dollar car. It’s decadent,” she said. “My fear is that we become spoiled brats. That we lose a sense of appreciation and perspective.” The McLaren, she observed, was “the perfect car for Silicon Valley.”

Musk had moved to Canada when he was in his late teens, and met Wilson when they both attended Queen’s University, in Ontario. He later transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, graduating with degrees in economics and physics. In 1995, the early days of the World Wide Web, he and Kimbal founded a company that came to be called Zip2, an online city directory that they sold to newspapers. Musk has often described the company’s humble origins, saying that he and his brother lived and worked in a small studio apartment, showering at a nearby Y.M.C.A. and eating at Jack in the Box. (Errol at one point gave his sons twenty-eight thousand dollars. Musk, who has a tendency to fuss over questions of credit, has stated that his father’s contribution came “much later,” in a round of funding that “would’ve happened anyway.”) At Zip2, Musk developed what he describes as his “hard-core” work style; even after he had his own apartment, he often slept on a beanbag at the office. But, in the end, the company’s investors stripped him of his leadership role and installed a more experienced chief executive. Musk believed that the startup should have been targeting not just newspapers but consumers. Investors pursued a more modest vision instead. In 1999, Zip2 was sold to Compaq for three hundred and seven million dollars, earning Musk more than twenty million dollars.

Justine and Musk married the following year. After their first child died at ten weeks, from sudden infant death syndrome, the couple dealt with the tragedy in very different ways. Justine, by her account, grieved openly; Musk later told one of his biographers, Ashlee Vance, that “wallowing in sadness does no good for anyone around you.” After pursuing I.V.F. treatment, the couple had twins, then triplets. (Musk now has at least nine children with three different women, and has said that he is doing his part to address one of his pet issues, the risk of population collapse; demographers are skeptical about the matter.) Justine wrote in an essay for Marie Claire that their relationship eventually buckled under the weight of Musk’s obsession with work and his controlling tendencies, which began with him insisting, as they danced at their wedding, “I am the alpha in this relationship.” A messy divorce ensued, leading to a legal dispute over their postnuptial financial agreement, which was settled years later. “He had grown up in the male-dominated culture of South Africa,” Justine wrote. “The will to compete and dominate that made him so successful in business did not magically shut off when he came home.” (Musk wrote a response to Justine’s account in Business Insider, discussing the financial dispute, but he did not address Justine’s characterizations of his behavior.)

After Musk left Zip2, he poured some twelve million dollars, a majority of his wealth, into another startup, an online bank called X.com. It was the first instance of his obsession with the letter “X,” which has now appeared in the names of his companies, his products, and his son with the artist Grimes: X Æ A-12. The bank also marked the beginning of a long and so far unfulfilled quest—recently revived in his effort to reinvent Twitter—to create an “everything app,” incorporating a payment system. In 2000, X.com merged with a competing online-payments startup, Confinity, co-founded by the entrepreneur Peter Thiel. In events that have since become Silicon Valley lore, Musk and Thiel battled for control of the company. Various accounts apportion blame differently. Hoffman told me, citing the story as an example of Musk’s disingenuousness, that Musk had pushed for the merger by highlighting the leadership of his company’s seasoned executive, only to force out the executive and place himself in the top role. “A merger like this, you’re doing a marriage,” Hoffman said. “And it’s, like, ‘I was lying to you intensely while we were dating. Now that we’re married, let me tell you about the herpes.’ ” People who have worked with Musk often describe him as controlling. One said, “In the areas he wants to compete in, he has a very hard time sharing the spotlight, or not being the center of attention.” In the fall of 2000, another coup, executed while Musk was on a long-delayed honeymoon with Justine, overthrew Musk and installed Thiel as the company’s head. Two years later, eBay acquired the company, by then called PayPal, for $1.5 billion, making Musk, who remained the largest shareholder, fabulously wealthy.

Perhaps the most revealing moment in the PayPal saga happened at its outset. In March, 2000, as the merger was under way, Musk was driving his new McLaren, with Thiel in the passenger seat. The two were on Sand Hill Road, an artery that cuts through Silicon Valley. Thiel asked Musk, “So what can this do?” Musk replied, “Watch this,” then floored the gas pedal, hit an embankment, and sent the car airborne and spinning before it slammed back onto the pavement, blowing out its suspension and its windows. ���This isn’t insured,” Musk told Thiel. Musk’s critics have used the story to illustrate his reckless showboating, but it also underscores how often Musk has been rewarded for that behavior: he repaired the McLaren, drove it for several more years, then reportedly sold it at a profit. Musk delights in telling the story, lingering on the risk to his life. In one interview, asked whether there were parallels with his approach to building companies, Musk said, “I hope not.” Appearing to consider the idea, he added, “Watch this. Yeah, that could be awkward with a rocket launch.”

Of all Musk’s enterprises, SpaceX may be the one that most fundamentally reflects his appetite for risk. Staff at SpaceX’s Starship facility, in Boca Chica, Texas, spent December of 2020 preparing for the launch of a rocket known as SN8, then the newest prototype in the company’s Starship program, which it hopes will eventually transport humans to orbit, to the moon, and, in the mission Musk speaks about with the most passion, to Mars. The F.A.A. had approved an initial launch date for the rocket. But an engine issue forced SpaceX to delay by a day. By then, the weather had shifted. On the new day, the F.A.A. told SpaceX that, according to its model of the wind’s speed and direction, if the rocket exploded it could create a blast wave that risked damaging the windows of nearby houses. A series of tense meetings followed, with SpaceX presenting its own modelling to establish that the launch was safe, and the F.A.A. refusing to grant permission. Wayne Monteith, then the head of the agency’s space division, was leaving an event at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station when he received a frustrated call from Musk. “Look, you cannot launch,” Monteith told him. “You’re not cleared to launch.” Musk acknowledged the order.

Musk was on site in Boca Chica when SpaceX launched anyway. The rocket achieved liftoff and successfully performed several maneuvers intended to rehearse those of an eventual manned Starship. But, on landing, the SN8 came in too fast, and exploded on impact. (No windows were damaged.) The next day, Musk visited the crash site. In a picture taken that day, Musk stands next to the twisted steel of the rocket, dressed in a black T-shirt and jeans, looking determined, his arms crossed and his eyes narrowed. His tweets about the explosion were celebratory, not apologetic. “He has a long history of launching and blowing up rockets. And then he puts out videos of all the rockets that he’s blown up. And like half of America thinks it’s really cool,” the former NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine told me. “He has a different set of rules.”

Hans Koenigsmann, then SpaceX’s vice-president for flight reliability, started working on a customary report to the F.A.A. about the launch. Koenigsmann told me that he felt pressure to minimize focus on the launch process and Musk’s role in it. “I sensed that he wanted it taken out,” Koenigsmann said. “I disagreed, and in the end we wound up with a very different version from what was originally intended.” Eventually, Koenigsmann was told not to write a report at all, and a letter was sent to the F.A.A. instead. The agency, meanwhile, opened its own investigation. Monteith told me that he agreed with Musk that the F.A.A. had been conservative about a situation that presented little statistical risk of casualties, but he was nevertheless troubled. “We had safety folks who were very upset about it,” Monteith recalled. In a series of letters to SpaceX, Monteith accused the company of relying on data “hastily developed to meet a launch window,” launching “based on ‘impressions’ and ‘assumptions,’ ” and exhibiting “a concerning lack of operational control and process discipline that is inconsistent with a strong safety culture.” In its responses, SpaceX proposed various safety reforms, but also pushed back, complaining that the F.A.A.’s weather model was unreliable and suggesting that the agency had been resistant to discussions about improving it. (SpaceX did not respond to requests for comment.)

The following March, Steve Dickson, then the F.A.A.’s administrator, called Musk. The two men spoke for thirty minutes. Like Kahl, Dickson was deferential, thanking Musk for his role in transforming the commercial space sector and acknowledging that SpaceX was taking steps to make its launches less risky. But Dickson, an F.A.A. spokesperson said in a statement, “made it clear that the FAA expects SpaceX to develop and foster a robust safety culture that stresses adherence to FAA rules.” Dickson had navigated such conversations before, including with Boeing after two 737 max aircraft crashed. But this situation presented a thornier challenge. “It’s not every day that the F.A.A. administrator releases a statement about a phone call that they have with the C.E.O. or the head of an aerospace company,” an official at the agency told me. “That kind of gets into the soft pressure, public pressure that you don’t do unless you are trying to change the incentive structure.”

The F.A.A. issued no fine, though it grounded SpaceX for two months. “I didn’t see that a fine would make any difference,” Monteith told me. “He could pull that out of his pocket. However, not allowing launches, that would get the attention of a company that prides itself on being able to iterate and go fast.” Musk has continued to complain about the agency. After it postponed another launch, he tweeted, “The FAA space division has a fundamentally broken regulatory structure.” He added, “Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.”

Musk has been fixated on space since his childhood. The idea for SpaceX came about after his exile from PayPal. “I went to the NASA website so I could see the schedule of when we’re supposed to go” to Mars, Musk told Wired, in 2012. “At first I thought, jeez, maybe I’m just looking in the wrong place! Why was there no plan, no schedule? There was nothing.” In 2001, he connected with space-exploration enthusiasts, and even travelled to Russia in an unsuccessful bid to buy missiles to use as rockets. The next year, he moved to Los Angeles, closer to California’s aerospace industry, and ultimately he pulled together a team of engineers and entrepreneurs and founded SpaceX, to make his own rockets. Private rocket launches date back to the eighties, but no one had attempted anything on the scale that Musk envisioned, and it proved to be more difficult and expensive than he had anticipated. Musk has said that, by 2008, the company was nearly bankrupt, and that, after putting much of his wealth into SpaceX and Tesla, he wasn’t far behind. “That was definitely the worst year of my life,” he said in an interview on “60 Minutes.” SpaceX’s first three launches had failed, and there was no budget for another. “I had no more money left,” Musk told Bridenstine, the NASA administrator, years later. “We managed to put together enough spare parts to do a fourth launch.” Had that failed, he added, “SpaceX would have died.” The launch was successful, and NASA soon awarded SpaceX a $1.6-billion contract to resupply the International Space Station. In 2020, the company flew its first manned mission there—ending nearly a decade of American reliance on Russian craft for the task. SpaceX now launches more satellites than any other private company, with four thousand five hundred and nineteen in orbit as of July, occupying many of Earth’s orbital routes. “Once the carrying capacity of an orbit is maxed out, you’ve basically blocked everyone from trying to compete in that market,” Bridenstine told me.

There are competitors in the field, including Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin and Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, but none yet rival SpaceX. The new space race has the potential to shape the global balance of power. Satellites enable the navigation of drones and missiles and generate imagery used for intelligence, and they are mostly under the control of private companies. “The U.S. government is in massive catch-up to build a more resilient space architecture,” Kahl, the former Pentagon Under-Secretary, told me. “And that only works if you can leverage the explosion of commercial space.” Several officials told me that they were alarmed by NASA’s reliance on SpaceX for essential services. “There is only one thing worse than a government monopoly. And that is a private monopoly that the government is dependent on,” Bridenstine said. “I do worry that we have put all of our eggs into one basket, and it’s the SpaceX basket.”

Even Musk’s critics concede that his tendency to push against constraints has helped catalyze SpaceX’s success. A number of officials suggested to me that, despite the tensions related to the company, it has made government bureaucracies nimbler. “When SpaceX and NASA work together, we work closer to optimal speed,” Kenneth Bowersox, NASA’s associate administrator for space operations, told me. Still, some figures in the aerospace world, even ones who think that Musk’s rockets are basically safe, fear that concentrating so much power in private companies, with so few restraints, invites tragedy. “At some point, with new competitors emerging, progress will be thwarted when there’s an accident, and people won’t be confident in the capabilities commercial companies have,” Bridenstine said. “I mean, we just saw this submersible going down to visit the Titanic implode. I think we have to think about the non-regulatory environment as sometimes hurting the industry more than the regulatory environment.”

In early 2022, Steven Cliff, then the deputy administrator of the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, learned that potentially tens of thousands of Tesla vehicles had a feature that he found concerning. For years, Tesla has been working to create a totally self-driving car, a long-standing ambition of Musk’s. Now Cliff was told that a version of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software, an experimental feature that lets the cars navigate with little intervention from a driver, permitted cars to roll through stop signs, at up to about six miles an hour. This was clearly illegal. Cliff’s enforcement team contacted Tesla, and, in several meetings, a surprising conversation about safety and artificial intelligence played out. Representatives for Tesla seemed confused. Their response, as Cliff recalled, was “That’s what humans do all the time. Show us the data, why it’s unsafe.” N.H.T.S.A. officials told Tesla that, regardless of human compliance, “you should not be able to program a computer to break the law for you.” They demanded that Tesla update all the affected cars, removing the feature—a recall, in industry terms, albeit a digital one. “There was a lot of back-and-forth,” Cliff told me. “Like, at midnight on the very last day, they blinked and ended up recalling the rolling-stop feature.” (Tesla did not respond to requests for comment.)

Musk joined Tesla as an investor in 2004, a year after it was incorporated. (He has spent years defending the formative nature of his role and was eventually, in a legal settlement, one of several people granted permission to use the term “co-founder.”) Musk was again entering a market bound by entrenched private interests and stringent regulation, which opened him up to more clashes with regulators. Some of the skirmishes were trivial. Tesla for a time included in its vehicles the ability to replace the humming noises that electric cars must emit—since their engines make little sound—with goat bleats, farting, or a sound of the owner’s choice. “We’re, like, ‘No, that’s not compliant with the regulations, don’t be stupid,’ ” Cliff told me. Tesla argued with regulators for more than a year, according to an N.H.T.S.A. safety report. Nine days after the rolling-stop recall, the company pulled the noises, too. On Twitter, Musk wrote, “The fun police made us do it (sigh).”

“It’s a little like Mom and Dad and children. Like, How far can I push Mom and Dad until they push back?” Cliff said. “And that’s not a recipe for a strong safety culture.”

The fart debate had low stakes; the over-all safety of the cars is a far greater matter. Tesla has repeatedly said that Autopilot, a more limited technology than Full Self-Driving, is safer than a human driver. Last year, Musk added that he would be “shocked” if Full Self-Driving didn’t become safer than human drivers by the end of the year. But he has never made public the data needed to fully corroborate those claims. In recent months, new crash numbers from the N.H.T.S.A., which were first reported by the Washington Post, have shown an uptick in accidents—and fatalities—involving Autopilot and Full Self-Driving. Tesla has been secretive about the specifics. A person at the N.H.T.S.A. told me that the company instructed the agency to redact specifics about whether driver-assistance software was in use during crashes. (By law, regulators must abide by such requests for confidentiality, unless they decide to contest them in court.) Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, recently said that there were “concerns” about the marketing of Autopilot. Cliff told me he had seen data that showed Teslas were involved in “a disproportionate number of crashes involving emergency vehicles,” though he said that the agency had not yet determined whether the technology or the human drivers was the cause. In a statement, a spokesperson for the agency said, “Multiple investigations remain open.”

Officials who have worked at OSHA and at an equivalent California agency told me that Musk’s influence, and his attitude about regulation, had made their jobs difficult. The Biden Administration, which is urgently trying to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, has concluded that it needs to work with Musk, because of his dominant position in the electric-car market. And Musk’s personal wealth dwarfs the entire budget of OSHA, which is tasked with monitoring the conditions in his workplaces. “You add on the fact that he considers himself to be a master of the universe and these rules just don’t apply to people like him,” Jordan Barab, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor at OSHA, told me. “There’s a lot of underreporting in industry in general. And Elon Musk kind of seems to raise that to an art form.” Garrett Brown, a former field-compliance inspector at California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, added, “We have a bad health-and-safety situation throughout the country. And it’s worse in companies run by people like Elon Musk, who was ideologically opposed to the idea of government enforcement of public-health regulations.”

In March, 2020, as pandemic lockdowns began, Musk e-mailed Tesla employees, telling them that he intended to violate orders and show up at work, and downplaying the significance of COVID-19. Soon after, he lost an initial fight to keep a factory in Alameda County—Tesla’s most productive in the U.S.—open. That April, after county officials extended shelter-in-place orders, Musk was on a conference call with outside financial analysts. His rhetoric became nakedly political, to an extent that would have been uncharacteristic just a few years earlier. “I would call it forcibly imprisoning people in their homes against all of their constitutional rights,” he told the analysts, speaking of the lockdowns. “What the fuck?” he added. “It’s an outrage. An outrage. . . . This is fascist. This is not democratic. This is not freedom. Give people back their goddam freedom.” The pandemic seems to have sparked a pronounced shift in Musk. The lockdowns represented an example of what Hoffman told me Musk considered to be a cardinal sin: “getting in the way of the mission.”

The following month, Musk sent a series of vitriolic tweets, threatening to file suit against Alameda County, to move Tesla’s headquarters, and to flout the rules and reopen his factory, all of which he eventually did. The county essentially rubber-stamped the reopening soon afterward—a far cry from what Musk had invited. “I will be on the line with everyone else,” he had tweeted, at the height of his frustration. “If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me.”

Musk has, for much of his public life, presented himself as a centrist. “I’m socially very liberal,” he told the technology reporter Kara Swisher in 2020. “And then economically right of center, maybe, or center.” He has said that he donated to Hillary Clinton, and voted for both her and Joe Biden. But, in recent years, the more radical perspective that characterized his diatribes about Covid has come to the fore. In March, 2022, Twitter restricted the account of the satirical Web site the Babylon Bee, after the site misgendered a government official. The next day, in texts later disclosed during the Twitter-acquisition process, Musk’s contact “TJ” (identified by Bloomberg as his ex-wife Talulah Riley) expressed frustration with the development and urged him to purchase Twitter to “fight woke-ism.” The following week, Musk polled his followers about whether Twitter respected free speech and, in a phone call to the Babylon Bee’s C.E.O., joked about buying the platform. Finally, in April, 2022, he offered forty-four billion dollars for the company. Almost immediately, he tried to back out of the deal, prompting Twitter to sue. After months of legal proceedings, Musk resumed the acquisition process, and in October he assumed control of the company.

“Given unprovoked attacks by leading Democrats against me & a very cold shoulder to Tesla & SpaceX, I intend to vote Republican in November,” he tweeted last year. By the time he bought Twitter, he was urging his followers to vote along similar lines, and appearing to back Ron DeSantis, whose candidacy he helped launch in a technically disastrous Twitter live event. Although Musk’s teen-age daughter, Vivian, has come out as trans, he has embraced anti-trans sentiment, saying that he would lobby to criminalize “irreversible” gender-affirming care for children. (Vivian recently changed her last name, saying in a legal filing, “I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form.”) Musk started spreading misinformation on the platform: he shared theories that the physical attack on Paul Pelosi, the husband of the former Speaker of the House, had followed a meeting with a male prostitute, and retweeted suggestions that reports accurately identifying a mass shooter as a white supremacist were a “psyop.” Some people who know Musk well still struggle to make sense of his political shift. “There was nothing political about him ever,” a close associate told me. “I’ve been around him for a long time, and had lots of deep conversations with the man, at all hours of the day—never heard a fucking word about this.”

When Musk arrived at Twitter, he immediately gutted the company’s staff, reducing the number of employees by about fifty per cent. One person who kept his job was Yoel Roth, the company’s head of trust and safety. Roth, who is in his mid-thirties, is gay, Jewish, and liberal. His department was responsible for determining Twitter’s rules; during the Trump Administration, he became embroiled in the culture wars. After the company began rolling out a new fact-checking policy that labelled two of Trump’s tweets as misinformation, Kellyanne Conway, President Trump’s aide, went on “Fox & Friends” and read out Roth’s full name and spelled his username, adding, “He’s about to get more followers.” Trump then held up a New York Post cover mocking Roth, and Twitter users began recirculating tweets that Roth had written criticizing conservative candidates.

But when Musk took over he resisted calls to fire Roth. “We’ve all made some questionable tweets, me more than most, but I want to be clear that I support Yoel,” he tweeted in October, 2022. “My sense is that he has high integrity, and we are all entitled to our political beliefs.” That evening, Roth messaged Musk on Signal, thanking him. Musk responded, “You have my full support,” and, the next day, he followed up with a screenshot of a tweet from Roth that described Mitch McConnell as “a bag of farts.” Musk added, “Haha, I totally agree.”

But the cuts that Musk had instituted quickly took a toll on the company. Employees had been informed of their termination via brusque, impersonal e-mails—Musk is now being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars by employees who say that they are owed additional severance pay—and the remaining staffers were abruptly ordered to return to work in person. Twitter’s business model was also in question, since Musk had alienated advertisers and invited a flood of fake accounts by reinventing the platform’s verification process. On November 10th, Roth sent a brief resignation e-mail. When his departure became public, Musk texted, asking to talk. “I[t] would mean a lot if you would consider remaining at Twitter,” he wrote. The two spoke that night, and Roth declined to return. Days later, he published an Op-Ed in the Times, questioning the future of user safety on the platform. (Twitter did not respond to requests for comment.)

Soon afterward, Musk replied to a Twitter user surfacing a 2010 tweet from Roth, in which he’d shared a link to a Salon article about a teacher’s being charged with having sex with an eighteen-year-old student and asked, “Can high school students ever meaningfully consent to sex with their teachers?”

“That explains a lot,” Musk tweeted in reply. Minutes later, he posted an image showing a portion of Roth’s doctoral dissertation, which focussed on the gay-hookup app Grindr and its user data. In the excerpt, Roth argued that such platforms will inevitably be used by people under eighteen, so they should do more to keep those individuals safe. “Looks like Yoel is in favor of children being able to access adult internet services,” Musk wrote.

The attack fit a pattern: Musk’s trolling has increasingly taken on the vernacular of hard-right social media, in which grooming, pedophilia, and human trafficking are associated with liberalism. In 2018, when a Thai youth soccer team was trapped in a cave, Musk travelled to Thailand to offer a custom-made miniature submarine to rescuers. The head of the rescue operation declined, and Musk lashed out on Twitter, questioning the expertise of the rescuers. After one of them, Vernon Unsworth, referred to the offer as a “P.R. stunt,” Musk called him a “pedo guy.” (Unsworth sued Musk for defamation, characterizing the harassment he received from Musk’s followers as “a life sentence without parole.” A judge ruled in favor of Musk, who argued that he hadn’t been accusing Unsworth of actual pedophilia, just trying to insult him.)

Musk’s tweet about Roth got nearly seventeen thousand quote tweets and retweets. “The moment that it went from being a moderation conversation to being a Pizzagate conversation, the risk level changed,” Roth told me. “I spent my career looking at the absolute worst things that the Internet could do to people. Certainly, worse things have happened to people. But this is probably up there.” Roth and his husband were forced to flee their house, a two-bedroom in El Cerrito, California, that they’d purchased just two years earlier. “And then as we are, like, packing our stuff and leaving and getting the dog loaded into the car and whatever, like, the Daily Mail publishes an article that gives people more or less a map to my house,” Roth said. “At that point, we’re, like, ‘Oh, we’re leaving this house potentially for the last time.’ ”

This summer, Twitter’s cheerful blue bird logo came down from the roof of the company’s headquarters, in San Francisco, and was replaced with a strobing “X.” The new entity is a marriage between two parts of Musk. There’s his career-long quest to create an everything app—integrating services ranging from communication to banking and shopping, and emulating products, like WeChat, that are popular in Asia. Sitting alongside that pragmatic goal is a newer, more confusing side of Musk, embodied by his desire to take back the town square from what he sees as woke discourse. Twitter has become a private company, so it’s difficult to assess its finances, but numerous prominent advertisers have departed, and Meta recently launched Threads, a competitor that shamelessly emulates the old Twitter, and broke records for downloads. Musk threatened to sue, then challenged Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s founder and C.E.O., to a cage match, pledging to live-stream it and donate the proceeds to charity. (Zuckerberg has accepted. Musk has delayed committing to a date, citing a back injury.) The illuminated sign atop X’s headquarters, after complaints to the Department of Building Inspection, came down as quickly as it had gone up.

Some of Musk’s associates connected his erratic behavior to efforts to self-medicate. Musk, who says he now spends much of his time in a modest house in the wetlands of South Texas, near a SpaceX facility, confessed, in an interview last year, “I feel quite lonely.” He has said that his career consists of “great highs, terrible lows and unrelenting stress.” One close colleague told me, “His life just sucks. It’s so stressful. He’s just so dedicated to these companies. He goes to sleep and wakes up answering e-mails. Ninety-nine per cent of people will never know someone that obsessed, and with that high a tolerance for sacrifice in their personal life.”

In 2018, the Times reported that members of the Tesla board had grown concerned about Musk’s use of the prescription sleep aid Ambien, which can cause hallucinations. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that he uses ketamine, which has gained popularity both as a depression treatment and as a party drug, and several people familiar with his habits have confirmed this. Musk, who smoked pot on Joe Rogan’s podcast, prompting a NASA safety review of SpaceX, has, perhaps understandably, declined to comment on the reporting that he uses ketamine, but he has not disputed it. “Zombifying people with SSRIs for sure happens way too much,” he tweeted, referring to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, another category of depression treatment. “From what I’ve seen with friends, ketamine taken occasionally is a better option.” Associates suggested that Musk’s use has escalated in recent years, and that the drug, alongside his isolation and his increasingly embattled relationship with the press, might contribute to his tendency to make chaotic and impulsive statements and decisions. Amit Anand, a leading ketamine researcher, told me that it can contribute to unpredictable behavior. “A little bit of ketamine has an effect similar to alcohol. It can cause disinhibition, where you do and say things you otherwise would not,” he said. “At higher doses, it has another effect, which is dissociation: you feel detached from your body and surroundings.” He added, “You can feel grandiose and like you have special powers or special talents. People do impulsive things, they could do inadvisable things at work. The impact depends on the kind of work. For a librarian, there’s less risk. If you’re a pilot, it can cause big problems.”

On July 12th, Musk announced xAI, his entry into a field that promises to alter much about life as we know it. He tweeted an image of the new company’s Web site, featuring a characteristically theatrical mission statement: the firm’s goal, he said, was “to understand the true nature of the universe.” In the image, Musk highlighted the date and explained its significance. “7 + 12 + 23 = 42,” the text read. “42 is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.” It was a reference to “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.” In the series, an immensely complex artificial intelligence is asked to answer that question and, after computing for millions of years, answers with Adams’s most famous punch line: 42. “I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you’ve never actually known what the question is,” the computer says. Earth itself, and all the organisms on it, are ultimately revealed to be a still larger computer, built to clarify the question. Adams does not portray this satirical vision as positive. Musk’s announcement suggested more optimism: “Once you know the right question to ask, the answer is often the easy part.”

Musk has been involved in artificial intelligence for years. In 2015, he was one of a handful of tech leaders, including Hoffman and Thiel, who funded OpenAI, then a nonprofit initiative. (It now has a for-profit subsidiary.) OpenAI had a less grandiose and more cautious mission statement than xAI’s: to “advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity.” In the first few years of OpenAI, Musk grew unhappy with the company. He said that his efforts at Tesla to incorporate A.I. created a conflict of interest, and several people involved told me that this was true. However, they also said that Musk was frustrated by his lack of control and, as Semafor reported earlier this year, that he had attempted to take over OpenAI. Musk still defends his centrality to the company’s origins, stressing his financial contributions in its fledgling days. (The exact figures are unclear: Musk has given estimates that range from fifty million to a hundred million dollars.) Throughout his involvement, Musk seemed preoccupied with control, credit, and rivalries. He made incendiary remarks about Demis Hassabis, the head of Google’s DeepMind A.I. initiative, and, later, about Microsoft’s competing effort. He thought that OpenAI wasn’t sufficiently competitive, at one point telling colleagues that it had a “0%” chance of “being relevant.” Musk left the company in 2018, reneging on a commitment to further fund OpenAI, one of the individuals involved told me. “Basically, he goes, ‘You’re all a bunch of jackasses,’ and he leaves,” Hoffman said. The withdrawal was devastating. “It was very tough,” Altman, the head of OpenAI, said. “I had to reorient a lot of my life and time to make sure we had enough funding.” OpenAI went on to become a leader in the field, introducing ChatGPT last year. Musk has made a habit of trashing the company, wondering repeatedly, in public interviews, why he hasn’t received a return on his investment, given the company’s for-profit arm. “If this is legal, why doesn’t everyone do it?” he tweeted recently.

It is difficult to say whether Musk’s interest in A.I. is driven by scientific wonder and altruism or by a desire to dominate a new and potentially powerful industry. Several entrepreneurs who have co-founded businesses with Musk suggested that the arrival of Google and Microsoft in the field had made it a new brass ring, as space and electric vehicles had been earlier. Musk has maintained that he is motivated by his fear of the technology’s destructive potential. In a podcast earlier this year, Ari Emanuel, the head of the Hollywood agency W.M.E., recalled Musk joking about an A.I.-dominated future. “Ari, do you have dogs?” Musk asked him. “Well, here’s what A.I. is to you. You’re the dog.” In March, Musk, along with dozens of tech leaders, signed an open letter calling for a six-month pause in the development of advanced A.I. technology. “Contemporary AI systems are now becoming human-competitive at general tasks, and we must ask ourselves: Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth?” the letter said. “Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us?”

Yet in the period during which Musk endorsed a pause, he was working to build xAI, recruiting from major competitors, including OpenAI, and even, according to someone with knowledge of the conversation, contacting leadership at Nvidia, the dominant maker of chips used in A.I. The month the letter was distributed, Musk completed the registrations for xAI. He has said little about how the company will differ from preëxisting A.I. initiatives, but generally has framed it in terms of competition. “I will create a third option, although starting very late in the game of course,” he told the Washington Post. “That third option hopefully does more good than harm.” Through A.I. research and development already under way at Tesla, and the trove of data he now commands through Twitter (which he recently barred OpenAI from scraping in order to train its chatbots), he may have some advantage, as he applies his sensibilities and his world view to that race. Hoffman told me, “His whole approach to A.I. is: A.I. can only be saved if I deliver, if I build it.” As humanity creates A.I. in its own image, Hoffman argued, the principles and priorities of the leaders in the field will matter: “We want the construction of this to be not people with Messiah complexes.”

At one point in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide,” Adams introduces the architects of the Earth supercomputer. They’re powerful beings who have been living among us, disguised as mice. At first, they were motivated by simple curiosity. But seeking the question made them famous, and they began considering talk-show and lecture deals. In the end, Earth is demolished in the name of commerce, and their path to existential clarity along with it. The mice greet this with a shrug, mouth vague platitudes, and go on the talk-show circuit anyway. Musk isn’t peddling pabulum. His initiatives have real substance. But he also wants to be on the show—or, better yet, to be the show himself.

In the open letter, alongside questions about the apocalyptic potential of artificial intelligence was one that reflects on the sectors of government and industry that Musk has come to shape. “Should we risk loss of control of our civilization?” he and his fellow-entrepreneurs wrote. “Such decisions must not be delegated to unelected tech leaders.” Published in the print edition of the August 28, 2023, issue.

[bizzopp2024]

How are startups disrupting traditional industries?

Startups are often at the forefront of disrupting traditional industries by introducing innovative technologies, business models, and approaches. Here are several ways in which startups are causing disruption:

1. Technology Integration

   - Startups leverage emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the Internet of Things to create more efficient and streamlined processes in industries like finance, healthcare, and manufacturing.

2. E-Commerce and Direct-to-Consumer Models

   - E-commerce startups have revolutionized retail by providing direct-to-consumer sales channels, cutting out intermediaries and reducing costs. Companies like Amazon and Alibaba have transformed the way people shop.

3. Sharing Economy

   - Startups in the sharing economy, like Uber and Airbnb, have disrupted transportation and hospitality industries by connecting service providers directly with consumers through online platforms.

4. Fintech Innovation

   - Fintech startups have transformed the financial services sector by introducing digital payments, robo-advisors, crowdfunding platforms, and blockchain-based solutions, challenging traditional banking models.

5. HealthTech Advancements

   - Health technology startups are disrupting healthcare by introducing telemedicine, personalized medicine, wearable devices, and digital health platforms, making healthcare more accessible and efficient.

6. Renewable Energy and CleanTech

   - Startups in the clean energy sector are disrupting traditional energy industries by developing innovative solutions for renewable energy, energy storage, and sustainable practices.

7. EdTech Revolution

   - Education technology startups are changing the way people learn by offering online courses, interactive platforms, and personalized learning experiences, challenging traditional educational institutions.

8. AgTech and FoodTech

   - Agricultural technology startups are improving efficiency and sustainability in farming, while food technology startups are introducing alternative proteins, lab-grown meat, and sustainable food production methods.

9. InsurTech Transformation

   - InsurTech startups are leveraging technology to streamline and personalize insurance processes, making insurance more accessible, affordable, and customer-centric.

10. Space Exploration and Aerospace Innovation

    - Startups in the space industry are disrupting aerospace by developing cost-effective satellite technologies, commercial space travel, and new approaches to space exploration.

11. Smart Manufacturing

    - Startups in the manufacturing sector are implementing Industry 4.0 technologies, such as automation, IoT, and data analytics, to create more agile and efficient production processes.

12. Telecommunications Disruption

    - Telecom startups are challenging traditional telecommunications companies by providing innovative solutions for connectivity, communication, and data transfer.

These examples showcase how startups are challenging the status quo across various industries, prompting established companies to adapt, innovate, or risk becoming obsolete. The agility, creativity, and willingness to take risks inherent in many startups enable them to drive significant changes in traditional business landscapes.

[serviceapartmentinsouthdelhi]

Luxury and convenience: Renting the perfect Service Apartments Delhi

When it comes to renting a service apartment in Delhi, there are a few key factors that must be taken into consideration. Choosing the right apartment for your needs involves looking at location, amenities, size and budget.

Choosing the right apartment for your needs

Location is of the utmost importance when choosing an apartment. You’ll want to consider proximity to public transport, shops and restaurants as well as access to other important places such as schools or hospitals. Service apartments Delhi located in an area that suits you can save time and money on transportation costs, which adds up over time.

Amenities are also important when selecting an apartment. Make sure you have access to all the necessary facilities such as a gym, laundry services or a swimming pool if desired. Additionally check that the building has adequate security and safety measures in place such as CCTV cameras and fire extinguishers.

Finally, your budget should also be kept in mind when searching for an apartment rental property in Delhi — make sure you have enough funds available to cover rent and any additional fees associated with the property before signing any contracts or agreements. With careful consideration of these four factors — location, amenities, size and budget — finding the perfect service apartment is achievable!

Facilities which available for rental apartments in Delhi

Service Apartments Gurgaon offers a host of facilities that make them ideal for long-term stays. These include fully furnished rooms with modern amenities like air-conditioning, kitchenettes, and high-speed internet connections. Many service apartments also have dedicated housekeeping staff, laundry services, 24-hour security, and parking spaces. Some even offer additional services like concierge services or access to fitness centers at an additional cost.

For those looking for added convenience, they are equipped with their own private swimming pools or gardens where tenants can relax and enjoy some leisure time away from the hustle of city life. The proximity to public transport systems like the metro makes it easy for tenants to get around the city quickly and conveniently without relying on personal vehicles. Furthermore, most service apartments provide a range of entertainment options such as TVs with satellite channels or gaming consoles so that visitors can stay entertained during their stay.

When it comes to safety and security, service apartments are well-equipped with CCTV surveillance systems which help maintain safety standards throughout the premises as well as deter any potential criminal activities within the building itself. Additionally they often come equipped with fire safety systems such as smoke detectors and sprinkler systems which act as another layer of protection against any unwanted incidents during extended stays at these properties.

Finally, Service Apartments in South Delhi come equipped with 24/7 support staff who can help tenants resolve any issues they might have while staying at their rental apartment in Delhi quickly and efficiently — be it providing direction to nearby places of interest or offering general advice about living in India’s capital city — this assistance is invaluable for anyone unfamiliar with life here!

Conclusion

By keeping these points in mind when researching rental properties in Delhi, one should be able to easily locate an ideal home away from home which offers luxury combined with convenience — perfect for both leisurely vacations and business trips alike!

Source URL- https://sites.google.com/view/service-apartments-delhi1/home

[mariacallous]

Good tourniquets save lives. Bad ones kill soldiers. The global market is awash with cheaply-made knock-offs: Handles that shear off under tension, rubber tubes that won’t tighten around a limb, devices that fail when they’re needed most. That’s why most armies buy in bulk from trusted suppliers. But Evgen Vorobiov prefers Amazon. Top of his Wish List at the moment are combat application tourniquets (CATs) from North American Rescue (five stars from 1,720 reviewers). Also on the list: burn dressings, compact chest seals, trauma shears and “The Original Rescue Essentials Brand QuikLitter”—a black canvas stretcher which promises low-cost casualty evacuation and patient transfer.

Before Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Vorobiov, a lawyer, worked for the Ukrainian central bank and then on international projects trying to reform Ukraine’s financial system—“banking regulations, consumer protection, that kind of thing.” But, with Russian troops massing on Ukraine’s borders, he took some courses in tactical medicine, hoping to make himself useful if the worst happened. It did.

The Ukrainian army, dwarfed by its opponent, was supposed to collapse in days. But remarkably, it held the line, bolstered by a huge wave of volunteers and reservists. Trucks filled with Kalashnikov rifles drove into Kyiv’s neighborhoods and handed out weapons to anyone who wanted to join the fight. Engaged in constant combat for days on end, the armed forces quickly ran short of supplies. Vorobiov, with his basic knowledge of combat medicine, started reaching out to anyone he knew overseas who could help find CAT tourniquets, trauma bandages, chest seals and other lifesaving equipment. He and a couple of colleagues sourced gear from the UK, US, and the Netherlands and got it to Poland. Anyone they knew coming back to Ukraine via Poland was asked to bring bags of supplies, forming “a human chain” stretching from Europe to the frontline.

Eighteen months on, his operation has blossomed. Vorobiov’s intimate understanding of Ukrainian bureaucracy means he’s been particularly effective at getting sensitive shipments over the border, making him a focal point for other donors. He’s built a potent fundraising operation on social media, tapping into an international community of supporters to raise money and find supplies. And, by driving back and forth across Ukraine, delivering right into the hands of combat medics, he’s forged relationships with units who can tell him exactly what they need and when, creating a personalized military logistics operation from his living room in downtown Kyiv. In May, Vorobiov got a call from a medic working at a makeshift field hospital close to Bakhmut, the burned-out ruin of a town that was a bloody pivot point for the frontline in the first half of 2023. They were in desperate need of a portable ultrasound machine to scan casualties for internal injuries. Vorobiov tapped his network for money, and found a secondhand device in Poland for $3,400. When we meet, it’s sitting in his apartment waiting to go east, and he’s turned his attention to getting hold of a portable charging unit for a defibrillator. Soldiers ask for everything: Drones for artillery and reconnaissance units, portable generators, Starlink satellite internet terminals, 4x4s, the things they need to keep them online and alive, which are often the same thing in a war defined by the use of technology on the frontline.

For decades, Ukrainian civil society has been built horizontally. Rather than rely on government agencies for help, people have leant on personal connections—everyone knows someone who knows someone who can get what you need, help you out. This parallel state has been providing vital aid in eastern Ukraine since Russian proxies invaded in 2014. Since the full-scale invasion began it’s become super-charged, using social media and messaging platforms to go global. Vorobiov is just one link in a relay of money, supplies, innovations, and solidarity that is keeping Ukraine’s soldiers in the fight.

The Front Line Kitchen occupies a few cramped ground-floor rooms and a shed off a sloping street on the edge of Lviv’s picturesque old town. In the courtyard, volunteer cooks peel mountains of potatoes and beets among the organized chaos of plastic vegetable crates, cardboard boxes and IKEA bags overflowing with baked goods. Inside, fridge-sized dryers are filled with shredded vegetables, meat and mushrooms, waiting to go into vacuum-sealed ration packs.

The kitchen started years before the full-scale invasion, in the aftermath of the “Euromaidan” demonstrations and “Revolution of Dignity” in late 2013 and early 2014. Protests against the Kremlin-backed government of Viktor Yanukovich in Kyiv’s Independence Square—Maidan Nezalezhnosti—were met with a bloody crackdown by security forces. As the violence escalated, protesters formed self-defense forces and medical units, repelling assaults and even storming government buildings. In February 2014, Yanukovich fled Kyiv. Days later, Russia illegally annexed Crimea, and its proxies seized government buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk in the east of Ukraine, declaring themselves independent of Ukraine. They met little formal resistance: Under Yanukovich, Ukraine’s armed forces and intelligence agencies had been gutted.

That spring, Ukraine raised volunteer battalions, some directly linked to the self-defense units formed in Maidan. They were still ill-equipped, so they came to rely on other volunteers to supply them with basics—food, uniforms, medicines, vehicles—even weaponry. “The volunteers essentially replaced the function of the government for supplying the necessary resources,” says Roman Makukhin, a member of the National Interests Advocacy Network, a Kyiv-based NGO. “Protecting basically their neighbors, their friends, their brothers and sons.”

Oksana Mazar and Lyuda Kuvayskova, the Front Line Kitchen’s founders, met sewing camouflage nets and balaclavas for the volunteer detachments. Many of their friends, and Kuvayskova’s son, had been at Maidan. “The war had started, even if it wasn’t talked about like it’s a war,” Mazar says. “We just wanted to help, as the guys didn't have anything. No clothes, no shoes, and no food—because it was not [officially] a war.”

They started cooking meals for soldiers, experimenting with ways to turn home-made borscht and holubtsi (cabbage rolls) into ration packs that would survive the 1,000-kilometer journey to the Donbass, usually in the back of cars or trucks after being handed over to anyone heading that way. The cooks worked in small batches, drying food in friends’ kitchens, before they were gifted their current premises. They raised enough money to buy their own dryers, and gradually expanded. After the full-scale invasion began, the kitchen’s front yard was filled with volunteers and people bringing supplies. “They knew that we were doing food for the military, and they wanted to help,” Mazar says.

With 1 million Ukrainians mobilized to fight the Russians, the need has grown massively. The kitchen is now putting out 20,000 meals a day, sending truckloads of food east, and taking orders direct from the military. To scale up they’ve relied on donations, often sourced via the @frontlinekit Twitter account. The account is run by Richard Woodruff, who came to Ukraine from the UK early in the war, intending to join one of the international brigades in the Ukrainian army, despite having no military training. After seeing footage of the ferocious defense of Kyiv, “I kind of rethought my chances of survival,” he says. Instead, he arrived at Lviv train station a few weeks after the full scale invasion began, and soon found his way to the kitchen.

If the 1991 Gulf War was the first major conflict broadcast live on TV, the defense of Ukraine is the first full-scale interstate conflict to be shown in real time on Twitter. Ukrainians posted from the early hours of the invasion—air raid sirens sounding over a European capital in 2022; queues at the recruiting centers, calls for aid and statements of defiance. They recorded acts of insane valor, videoing themselves as they ambushed Russian columns with anti-tank missile launchers they’d barely been trained to use. Civilian drones pressed into service as surveillance tools provided a steady stream of high-definition footage made for phone screens, giving a gamer’s-eye view to the fighting. As Russian forces were pushed back, and the Ukrainian armed forces reclaimed land, the atrocities and scenes of destruction were shown live, along with poignant videos of liberating soldiers greeted by their ecstatic families. For those that wanted to see them, there were graphic videos: helmet cams showed firefights, drones dropping grenades on Russian soldiers and into the hatches of occupied vehicles.

Many of Ukraine’s new volunteers were “terminally online”—ordinary digital natives forced into a brutal conflict. Gen-Z recruits did dance videos for TikTok. Their meme game was wild. Woodruff’s Twitter bio reads “British Chef Fella”—a reference to the North Atlantic Fellas Organization, or NAFO—an online movement of Ukraine-supporting shitposters with shiba inu avatars who flood social media with memes mocking the “Vatniks” (Russian propagandists).

The NAFO movement taunted Russia, at one stage managing to send the country’s ambassador in Vienna into a public meltdown. “Imagine, literally getting a world-class ambassador to speak with cartoon dogs on Twitter,” says Ivana Stradner, an adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank in Washington DC, an expert on misinformation and propaganda, and NAFO member. “This is the future of information warfare.”

NAFO does what state-backed information warriors, particularly those from democracies, can’t do. Its members make insane, often tasteless jokes, moving quickly to jump on trends. They’re good at memes, and flood the zone with infectious pro-Ukrainian vibes, humanizing, entertaining, and explaining to people far from the war why they should care. “I think NAFO, by boosting certain narratives, can actually also help people understand the severity of the situation and what's going on there,” Stradner says.

NAFO has helped raise millions of dollars through sales of merchandise (“I invaded Belgorod and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”) and crowdfunding campaigns. Now its avatars appear on the Twitter profiles of European politicians, on official Ukrainian defense channels, and on military equipment headed to the front. It has funded everything from food to medical supplies to a mobile artillery piece to the Georgian Legion, a unit of overseas volunteers that has been fighting since 2014. When the Frontline Kitchen’s vegetable shredder broke, Woodruff put out a call for funds to buy a new one. In the time it took him to drive to the supplier, the money had already been deposited in his account.

Social media works in tandem with the tight networks of Ukrainian society. This is a war being fought close to home—everyone knows someone at the front, and the soldiers are in constant contact. Link people like Vorobiov can connect those in the trenches with supporters in Kyiv or overseas. A unit under fire can ask for drones on Telegram, and within hours there’s a call for donations out on Twitter or Instagram. Vorobiov can deliver tourniquets to a combat medic near the front, and record a thank-you video to send directly to donors.

“I see a spike in donations when there is a story that I can tell of how donations help,” Vorobiov says. “Yesterday, I received a very long message from one of the medics, and she was telling me how medical supplies we brought to her helped her basically provide care to two servicemen. I posted that story on Twitter and folks started to donate.”

Sometimes, donors become more active participants. Last February, Polish filmmaker Maciej Zabojszcz was watching the conflict unfold over Twitter, and thinking about selling some of his military memorabilia to help raise money for a 4x4 for the Ukrainian army. But then, a graphic video emerged, apparently shot by Russian soldiers, of a Ukrainian prisoner of war being horrifically mutilated. “I felt like something changed,” he says. “I said, listen, let's not only buy one car.”

In the spring of 2022 he drove his first vehicle, a Nissan pickup, to Kyiv to deliver to the Georgian Legion. While there, he met Vorobiov, who was collecting some drones from Exen, another Polish volunteer. From then on, Zabojszcz was part of the network. Because they couldn’t order supplies online to be delivered to Ukraine, Vorobiov and others started putting Zabojszcz’s home as the delivery address. Each time he drives a car to Ukraine, he’s carrying helmets, body armor, drones, all kinds of medical supplies. When we met in March in Warsaw, he’d delivered seven 4x4s, and was fixing up an eighth.

Some Ukrainian units have a tradition of naming their vehicles, and the seventh car that Zabojszcz delivered, a Land Rover, was christened Mathilda. It was used to shuttle men from their barracks to the frontline through thick mud. “The whole unit was driving the car,” Zabojszcz says. “They were crazy about Mathilda.”

But after ten days of constant driving, Mathilda broke down. Another Polish volunteer found a local mechanic specialized in Land Rovers. They arranged an online consultation. The mechanic helped the soldiers figure out what was wrong and identify the part they needed to replace. The car broke on Monday. On Tuesday, a volunteer delivered the replacement part. “And on Thursday the car was fixed,” Zabojszcz says. “This is how this network works.”

Absorbing donations has required a degree of flexibility from the military establishment. Armies typically don’t like amateurs pitching in, turning up in warzones with stuff they’ve brought from home. Getting goods into Ukraine can be challenging—it’s understandably not legal for just anyone to move military equipment across borders—and even bringing in theoretically civilian items like cars, consumer drones, and generators requires customs forms and other paperwork. But volunteers say once they’ve got donations into the country, working with the military has been fairly easy. There’s still some admin, and donors have to have forms showing that the goods they’re delivering have been specifically asked for by a soldier, but mostly, they’ve integrated relatively seamlessly with the supply chains, with commanders on the ground sometimes turning a blind eye to help their soldiers get what they need.

This acceptance is driven partly by necessity—the military simply couldn’t supply its troops to the level it needed, and unlike its adversary, doesn’t want to send them into battle with tourniquets that snap under pressure and rations years past their expiration date. Volunteer networks can take orders, source, and deliver in a way that a centralized bureaucracy can’t. They’ve helped feed the battlefield innovations that have given outnumbered soldiers an edge, linking into the networks of workshops jury-rigging consumer drones; bringing 3D printers to the frontline to help turn hand grenades into air-dropped bombs.

“For the chaotic time after the invasion, these organizations created a stopgap solution for markets that the army could not operate,” says Simon Schlegel, senior Ukraine analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “The army is good at buying in bulk, but these smaller operations are good at finding five pieces of Chinese-made drones in different countries and shipping them to Ukraine.”

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy understands this. He has, since the early days of the conflict, often made his social media addresses direct to citizens of other countries, not just to his fellow leaders. Volunteers—and the state’s own propagandists—have built a formidable ground game on social media, which has helped with donations, but also contributed to the ratcheting up of material being sent to the frontline by NATO partners. With public support for Ukraine high in their own countries, western leaders feel emboldened to hand over money and weapons. When those weapons deliver battlefield successes, the resulting content feeds back into the loop. “I think Ukraine is literally right now the superpower in this information war,” says Stradner.

The war, as seen through the filter of social media, has an oddly gamified quality. At times it seems it’s being won by jokes, by Ukrainian farmers pulling tanks behind tractors, by “Saint Javelin” (the “patron saint” of anti-tank missiles), and shiba inu soldiers. But it hasn’t been won yet, and many people at the far end of the volunteer supply chain have taken incredible risks, and exposed themselves to unspeakable horrors. In Lviv, I met Ernest Polanski, a Ukrainian volunteer taking a brief rest on his way back from delivering equipment to troops near Bakhmut.

What he saw there, he says, was “hell.” There was constant shelling, and the smell of corpses hung over the area. Whenever the bombardment stopped for longer than a few minutes, he wondered if something worse was about to come, “like a nuclear bomb,” he says. On the way back, he rescued three bedraggled kittens from the ruins.

Polanski has been driving back and forth from the frontlines since the early days of the war, and has lost count of the number of journeys he’s made, bringing generators, trench periscopes, medical gear and other supplies. Like other volunteers, he’s formed a special connection with a single unit, which he devotes most of his journeys to. He’s currently looking for €6,000 ($6,480) to buy new wheels for one of the unit’s 4x4s. “Not a lot of people want to go to this area,” he says. “But we have a special friendship with [this unit], and we want to help.”

The volunteer networks are made up of people from all over the world, but outside of Ukraine itself the cause has resonated more than anywhere in former Soviet nations, and in particular Baltic states like Lithuania, which see themselves as next in line if Ukraine falls. Traveling with Polanski on this journey to the front is one of his most committed supporters, the Lithuanian kickboxing champion Sergej Maslobojev. “Our country had the same problem years ago,” he says. “We feel their pain in our hearts.”

Maslobojev’s profile at home has meant he’s been able to fundraise for supplies, but, he says, it’s important for him to get out into the field to witness, and show the sacrifices still being made in the trenches of eastern and southern Ukraine. “When we listen to our news, usually we’re thinking that they're winning the war. Everything is going great. Why do we need to donate?” he says. “But when you go to the frontline and help those military guys, give them ammunition, extra food and the stuff that they really need. And they look at you with almost tears in their eyes and say, ‘nobody comes to us’. And then you understand why, in this moment.”

The day after Polanski and Maslobojev returned from Bakhmut, reports came through that the town had finally fallen. Individual defeats are hard to talk about in the context of fundraising campaigns and propaganda drives that are buoyed by a sense of inevitable victory. But they also underline the fragility of life close to the front. Almost all of the volunteers I spoke to in Ukraine had their own story of raising funds, or sourcing gear, only for the intended recipient to fall in battle before it could be delivered. All that does is make them more committed. Most say their supporters are also holding the line, a year and a half into the war.

“Sometimes it feels like this continuing western support is contingent on possible breakthroughs and huge victories. But I don't feel that, at least among my donors,” Vorobiov says. “You cannot afford hopelessness, because no one is going to support a lost cause. And we Ukrainians believe in winning this war. We have to infect others with that belief. But complacency is equally dangerous.”

[iptv-mana]

IPTV Subscription in Canada: A Gateway to Limitless Entertainment

In today's digital age, entertainment has taken on a whole new dimension, and IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) has emerged as a groundbreaking technology. In Canada, IPTV subscriptions have gained tremendous popularity, offering an immersive and customizable viewing experience to users across the country. With a plethora of channels, on-demand content, and interactive features, IPTV has become a go-to choice for Canadian households seeking a diverse and personalized entertainment solution.

An IPTV subscription in Canada unlocks a world of possibilities, granting access to an extensive range of local, national, and international channels. From sports events, news, and documentaries to movies, TV shows, and music, there is something for everyone. The flexibility and convenience of IPTV allow viewers to enjoy their favorite content at any time and from any device with an internet connection. Whether it's a smart TV, smartphone, tablet, or computer, IPTV brings entertainment right to your fingertips.

Moreover, one of the key advantages of IPTV subscriptions is the ability to choose from various packages and customize the channel lineup according to personal preferences. Unlike traditional cable or satellite TV, where users often end up paying for channels they don't watch, IPTV offers a more cost-effective solution by allowing subscribers to select only the channels they enjoy. This personalized approach not only saves money but also ensures that viewers have a tailored and engaging entertainment experience.

In addition to an extensive channel selection, IPTV subscriptions in Canada often include on-demand content libraries, giving users the freedom to catch up on missed episodes or binge-watch their favorite series. This video-on-demand feature enhances the overall viewing experience, providing the flexibility to watch content on one's own schedule.

Furthermore, IPTV services often come with interactive features such as electronic program guides, video recording capabilities, and interactive applications. These features enable users to explore program schedules, set reminders, record shows, and even access additional information related to the content they are watching. Such interactive functionalities add an extra layer of engagement and convenience to the IPTV experience.

With the rise of high-speed internet and advancements in streaming technology, IPTV subscription in Canada has become a game-changer in the entertainment landscape. It offers an extensive array of channels, customizable options, on-demand content, and interactive features, all while delivering a seamless and immersive viewing experience.

As the demand for IPTV grows, it is essential for Canadians to choose reliable and reputable service providers that offer stable connections, responsive customer support, and legal content distribution. By embracing IPTV subscriptions, Canadians can embark on a captivating entertainment journey and unlock a world of limitless possibilities right from the comfort of their homes.

[movienet123]

Movie Rentals Made Easy

Movie lovers have enjoyed renting their favorite movies and watching them at home for years. Renting and watching movies has become a popular pastime thanks to a number of independent mom and pop shops and major rental stores. It is an easy and cost-effective solution for people who don't want to spend money or time on going to the movies.

Renting movies allows you to watch a movie as many times as you want until your rental period is over. It is the preferred choice for those who prefer to pay a small amount to rent a film and watch it as many times as desired, rather than paying a lot more to see it only once in a theater. The advancements in technology has made it possible to rent movies easily.

Renting movies can be done by streaming them to a computer, cell phone or television. Wireless internet is required to stream movies 123movies. By streaming movies onto an electronic device, individuals can avoid the hassle of tracking and returning movies in time. Users of movie-streaming services pay a monthly flat fee to access a library that they can view as many times as they want. This method is now offered by a number of major movie rental companies as well as a large number of newer ones. Many mobile phone companies are now offering movie streaming services. The appeal of this method is that it allows streaming to portable devices with wireless connections. Users can stream movies to their portable devices and laptops anywhere there is a WiFi connection, such as coffee shops, public libraries or bookstores.

Recently, $1 movie kiosks have appeared in grocery stores, convenience stores and other places. Most of these machines allow you to rent a movie for $1 per day. To use this method, the user enters their credit card details into the machine. They then select films from a list. The first day is free if the film is returned. The credit card will be charged based on the number of days that it was out if it is returned after the first day. This method is preferred by some because it does not require a contract. The low cost of renting from a $1 kiosk makes it attractive.

Renting movies is also easy for cable and satellite TV customers. Many premium TV providers let users order movies from their remote control. The movies are available to rent the day after they're released on video, so customers don't feel like they have to wait any longer than people who purchase films in a store. Customers who rent movies have the option of watching the movie as many times as you want within 24 hours.

Renting movies by mail is the most convenient and easiest way to avoid having to visit a store. Many companies combine this feature with streaming services. Customers can often access a larger selection of movies by signing up for a program that offers both streaming and direct mail. Some companies offer a small number of movies through their streaming service but a larger selection through direct mail. This is done to encourage customers use the service. Most mail-order services let customers keep movies for as long as they like within a 30 day period. Customers can rent three movies for a flat monthly fee, depending on their account.

Renting films has become easier with the advent of movie-rental companies, satellite and cable television, and cable television. Many mobile phone companies have entered the movie-rental industry in recent years. Renting movies on TV and other devices is easy with the variety of options that are available. It really comes down to what method you prefer when renting movies.

[b3crew]

REVIEW | "Dr. STONE" - Volume Twenty-Five | B3 - Boston Bastard Brigade

It takes a rocket scientist to, well, make a proper rocket. Senku, Chrome, and the rest of the Kingdom of Science might have the smarts, but that doesn’t mean the answer will magically pop up automatically. As the penultimate volume of Dr. STONE shows, it takes plenty of trial-and-errors to get an experiment off the ground. They also figure out what’s fully at-stake in what will be Earth’s greatest mission yet!

As Chrome and Suika still try to figure out how to make a round-trip rocket, Senku and Ryusui attempt to bring satellites back from their era. Building them winds up being the easy part, whereas sending them up to space is another challenge all on its own. One-by-one, rockets explode, fall, and even disassemble before they even get an inch off the ground. But with every new calculation made by Sai is a step closer to victory, which gives Senku and the gang their first look at Earth in the 58th century.

This technology also gives the Kingdom of Science another key thing needed for this final battle: Why-Man’s location on the moon. Once that’s discovered, it’s now a race against time to get to space and save Earth once and for all. The Internet needs to be created, as it can connect the entire world to Senku’s plan, whereas other necessities and technological wants can be brought to life. Once the world’s fully connected, Senku and Chrome debate on whether or not this’ll be a suicide mission or a round-trip affair.

It is here where Dr. STONE shows the great leaps it has taken to bringing the world back to life. What started as a group of friends with an impossible mission has turned into a worldwide battle for survival. While we find that lives won’t have to be sacrificed for the mission, the same can’t be said about dreams. Ryusui wants to go to the moon, but he knows deep down inside that someone else might be both a better pilot and — more importantly — marksman if a battle wages out. Him sacrificing his seat shows that even he can do the right thing, even if it costs him a valuable life moment.

Click here to read the rest of the review!

[onlinevideoentertainment]

Best IPTV service provider 2023. Best iptv 2023. IPTV provider 2023. IPTV service 2023

Best reasonably cheapest price IPTV service provider in the world is IPTVTops. IPTV stands for Internet Protocal Service Provider. It is a entertainment provider service. This will help you to enjoy unlimited streaming services, videos, movies, TV shows, etc. at a very cheapest price. 

For cost-effectiv entertainment service, try the best reasonably cheapest price IPTV service. 

What is IPTV? 

IPTV is a medium which uses internet for providing streaming services, Video on Demand, and other video services. If you take an IPTV service, it will allow you to enjoy the geo-blocked streaming services. This will help you to save your money on streaming services, cable and satellite television. It is a tool that is widely getting popularity. Try the best reasonably cheapest price IPTV service provider to get the quality services at a low cost expenditure. The best reasonably cheapest price  IPTV service is IPTV Tops.   

IPTV is not like the downloaded media. Moreover, it is an internet-based entertainment service. So, you can save the cost on satellite television. Best IPTV service provider can help you to enjoy unlimited channels. 

Is IPTV legal? 

Now, you may concern about the legal status of an IPTV service. Yes, IPTV is legal in most of the countries. But some IPTV service may not be legal.  Unusual cheapest price IPTV service may not have the legal identity. Because, IPTVs are legal if they can have the license of their streaming services. 

The free and low-price IPTV service can not able to provide legal IPTV services. Because, if a provider buys the licenses, it will incur cost to the channel. So, it is not possible to get legal IPTV service at a free or unusual low price. Rather you can try the best reasonably cheapest price IPTV service provider. IPTVtops tries to provide the services with high quality and stable connection at a reasonable price. 

Best reasonably cheapest price IPTV service 

IPTVTops is the best reasonably cheapest price IPTV service. It will help you to save your money. The best service will help you to enjoy many benefit features. 

40000 channels are available

150000 movies and TV shows are available. 

99.99% uptime. 

Reliable and secure IPTV service. 

IPTV service reddit is the best IPTV service. 

It is  the best reasonably cheapest price IPTV service. 

IPTVTops has antifreeze technology. 

So, try the best cheapest IPTV service and enhance your entertainment skills. 

IPTVTops Pricing. 

Monthly package - 15 US dollars.

Three months packages - 30 US dollars.

Half-yearly packages - 45 US dollars.

Yearly packages - 80 US dollars.

With this price, you will get the following benefits. 40000 channels. 150000 movies and TV shows are best features of IPTVTops.