President Donald Trump drew laughs in the Oval Office when Trump Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. coughed on him and Trump quipped, “I hope I didn’t catch Covid just there!”

Trump followed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s address to military leaders Tuesday morning with a lengthy speech that featured several bonkers moments and characteristic deviations — and which lasted well over an hour.

That performance put Trump behind schedule for an Oval Office photo op in which he announced a deal with Pfizer to lower the cost of certain prescription drugs.

Following the announcement, Trump took questions from reporters. As the president concluded a falsehood-riddled riff on lowering the price of insulin, RFK Jr. did a Dracula cough/sneeze, prompting Trump to demand Paxlovid as reporters and officials laughed:

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But after they explained, and they didn’t really explain to him because he was not capable really of understanding, but when they went out and talked about it, they acted like it was a great feat, but it had nothing to do with him.

And it continues, and we’ll get it down even further. But insulin was, people weren’t taking it, I would imagine.

RFK JR.: (COUGH).

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They couldn’t take it. God bless you, Bobby. I hope I didn’t catch COVID just there!

(LAUGHTER)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Don’t you have Paxlovid?

(LAUGHTER).

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: What is it? Pax? He’s got Paxlovid.

(LAUGHTER)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Give me a Paxlovid immediately!

Trump famously contracted Covid-19 during the 2020 presidential campaign, at which time his medical team held press conferences at which they told what turned out to be verifiable lies about Trump’s condition. It was also later revealed that Trump had tested positive for the disease earlier than originally thought — and knew he was infected when he debated former President Joe Biden.

Watch above via The White House.

The post Trump Draws Laughs When RFK Coughs On Him At Oval Office Event: ‘Hope I Didn’t Just Catch Covid!’ first appeared on Mediaite.

Did you know you can customize Google to filter out garbage? Take these steps for better search results, including adding my work at Lifehacker as a preferred source.

This past Saturday night, someone, presumably the President of the United States, posted a video clip to Donald Trump's TruthSocial account that seemed to show the President appearing on Fox News' My View with Lara Trump to announce "America's first MedBed hospitals," as well as the imminent release of "MedBed cards" so Americans can access said hospitals.

"These facilities are safe, modern, and designed to restore every citizen to full health and strength," Trump says in the clip.

The video was clearly AI-generated, Fox News confirmed that the segment had never aired on any of their platforms, and the TruthSocial post was deleted on Sunday. While this incident raises a variety of questions, I'm only going to focus on one: What the hell are MedBeds?

Real MedBeds vs. fake MedBeds

While there are actual "medical beds" that do things like tilt patients to prevent bed sores or provide constant vital sign monitoring, the MedBeds mentioned in the video are not these. MedBeds are a deep-cut from the world of conspiracy theorists: wonder-beds that use quantum field theory, vibrational energy, and/or holograms to cure all diseases and injuries. They can restore missing limbs or reverse aging—and all you have to do is lie down in one for half an hour. Neat, but not a real thing—no evidence of such technology exists.

MedBeds are predominantly a far right theory with a lot of crossover with QAnon and NESARA/GESARA, but there are plenty of folks on the far left who believe in MedBeds too. Different theorists may have different ideas about where MedBeds came from, as well—sometimes they are back-engineered alien technology and sometimes they were made by the military—but nearly all MedBedders agree that "The Elites" are hiding the technology from us proles, hoarding all the youth and health for themselves. As belief in MedBeds grew in over the last decade, grifters predictably arrived.

The scammy kind of MedBed

You can't have a bunch of people believing in a fake thing without folks trying to profit from them, so there are companies like "Tesla Biohealing" (no relation) that will sell you a "Biophotonizer-M" MedBed so you (or your pet) can enjoy "your own quantum healing environment at home." There's also this anti-aging bed, or you could book a session in a "ThetaPod" that looks like this:

These companies seem to carefully avoid making specific medical claims for their MedBeds, but they definitely suggest medical benefits, and these claims are highly dubious (and some MedBeds are part of the "antichrist system"?).

It's easy to see how these kinds of sales pitches hook people. The sites look legitimate, the claims sound real, and the people spreading MedBed nonsense can seem legitimate too. But they aren't.

It always goes back to science fiction

If you're wondering where MedBeds really came from, it's science fiction movies. The current MedBeds conspiracy theory is basically the plot of 2013 science fiction flick Elysium. But there are MedBeds in older science fiction too. In the original Star Trek, Dr. McCoy's sick bay is full of "biobeds" that could cure things his tricorder could not. In 1951's The Day the Earth Stood Still, Gort revives Klaatu with a chamber that looks very much like descriptions of MedBeds. And if we expand the definition of "MedBed" from a physical object to a description of what the object does, the history of MedBeds goes back at least to ancient Sumeria.

The eternal allure of the fountain of youth

The earliest surviving great work of literature, The Epic of Gilgamesh, details the title character's search for a substance that grants eternal youth. In Gilgamesh it's a thorny plant at the bottom of the sea instead of medical device being hidden by rich people, but the idea is the same. People have been looking for the literal Fountain of Youth, a source of water that cures all diseases and reverses aging, since at least 500 BC, and searching for an anti-aging elixir motivated the alchemists who laid the foundation for chemistry that led to all the actual medical advances that keep us alive longer.

The ultimate lesson of MedBeds

There are no MedBeds hiding in secret military bunkers, about to be rolled out by some shadowy cabal, and the government isn't going to send you a “MedBed card" either. But the desire that drives people to believe in miracle cures is very real, very old, and nearly universal. Judging from the comments on MedBed videos, the people drawn to this stuff are sick and old and scared. The real doctors have told them to get their affairs in order; you can't blame them for reaching for hope—we're all going to be asking for a little more time eventually.

Gilgamesh was driven by the same fear as MedBed believers. The hero travels to the bottom of the sea and finds the plant that grants eternal life, only to have it stolen away by a serpent before he can return to the surface. The lesson is clear: We don't get to live forever. Rather than despair, Gilgamesh concludes that people don't get to live forever, and the meaning of life is in living virtuously and the legacy we leave behind.

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication.

Did you know you can customize Google to filter out garbage? Take these steps for better search results, including adding my work at Lifehacker as a preferred source.

Apple has been top dog in the premium tablet space for years, and the iPad Pro with an M4 chip released last year solidified their dominance. If you've been waiting for a discount on the best-performing tablet you can get, the iPad Pro 11-Inch M4 is down to $1,499.97 (originally $1,999) after a 25% discount for Prime Members during October Prime Day. This deal brings the iPad down to a record low price since its release, according to price-tracking tools.

Apple iPad Pro 11-Inch (M4)

Nano-Texture Glass, 2TB, 12MP Front/Back Camera, LiDAR Scanner, Wi-Fi 6E, Face ID, All-Day Battery.

$1,499.97 at Amazon

$1,999.00 Save $499.03

Get Deal

Get Deal

$1,499.97 at Amazon

$1,999.00 Save $499.03

The M4 is about 1.5 times faster than the M2, the chip used in the previous generation of iPads. That's a big difference for anyone looking to use their iPad for more than just navigating the web and streaming media apps. The 11-inch screen is an OLED display with a maximum brightness of 1,600 nits and a contrast ratio of 2,000,000:1, making it ideal for creators who need to see accurate colors for pictures or videos. The processing power can easily handle heavy-duty apps like Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, or Photoshop. A 120Hz refresh rate also means games will look smooth.

As far as battery life, you can expect about 10 hours depending on your use, and a charge that takes about two hours to get to full. Keep in mind Apple switched to USB-C charging, and this iPad does not support wireless charging. Since this is the wifi version, you'll be limited to wifi signal. You can get the Apple Pencil Pro and the Magic Keyboard if you want to complete the set, but they're not necessary.

If you're not going to be doing heavy work, the iPad Air will do just fine. But if you're looking for the best tablet to perform professional tasks, the iPad Pro M4 is at a great price right now.

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication.

Did you know you can customize Google to filter out garbage? Take these steps for better search results, including adding Lifehacker as a preferred source for tech news.

Right now, you can get a 2nd Gen Ring Indoor Cam with a free Ring pet tag on Amazon for its lowest price ever at just $30, making this bundle ideal for pet owners who want to increase indoor surveillance. The camera itself is a mid-tier indoor security camera that offers a solid blend of affordability, features, and smart home integration with those in the Alexa ecosystem, while the pet tag makes it easier to keep track of your furry friend. You can also get a bundle with two cameras for 54% off.

Ring Indoor Cam (2nd Gen), White with Ring Pet Tag

$29.99 at Amazon

$69.98 Save $39.99

Get Deal

Get Deal

$29.99 at Amazon

$69.98 Save $39.99

This 2nd-gen indoor camera records in 1080p HD video with color night vision and allows you to access Live View via the Ring app. Its Advanced Pre-Roll feature captures footage a few seconds before motion is detected, giving you better context when you’re looking over motion alerts. It comes with two-way talk and customizable motion zones, so you’re not being notified unnecessarily. It also has a manual privacy shutter that lets you swivel or cover the camera, disabling both the lens and mic, as this PCMag review notes. The field of view is 143° diagonal, 115° horizontal, and 59° vertical.

A swivel mount allows for flexible placement, and Amazon reviewers praise how easy it is to set up, with a 5-10 minute installation time. However, it is powered via a micro USB plug-in, so unlike battery-powered Ring devices, continuous power is required for this camera to run. It also only supports 2.4 GHz wifi. Still, it’s ideal for those in the Alexa ecosystem; when motion sensors are triggered, your Echo device will light up and make an announcement, keeping you in the loop when someone is there. While it stores up to 180 days of video events, a Ring subscription is required for more extensive or permanent video storage. 

While the Ring pet tag isn’t GPS powered, it does have a custom QR code that provides information about your pet while protecting your personal information, helping anyone with the Ring app reunite you with your pet. If you’re looking for a reliable indoor monitoring camera that performs well and has useful privacy features but doesn’t require ultra-high resolution video quality or pan/tilt (and you don’t mind a wired camera), the 2nd Gen Ring Indoor Cam is a compelling option, especially with the free Ring pet tag that’s included. 

We may earn a commission from links on this page.

Did you know you can customize Google to filter out garbage? Take these steps for better search results, including adding Lifehacker as a preferred source for tech news.

The whole point of studying is to retain information you’ll need later in life, even if it’s just for an impending test on a subject you may never think about again in the future. That’s not easy when you’re taking in a bunch of unfamiliar phrases and concepts—which is why you need a quality method to structure your study sessions. Try the SQ3R technique next time you’re studying, and see the difference it can make.

What is the SQ3R study method?

I touched on a similar method briefly before when advising on best note-taking practices, but SQ3R has applications well beyond the moments when you’re taking notes in (and after) class. It’s actually a reading comprehension technique that was first introduced in 1946 by Francis P. Robinson in his book Effective Study. (Fun side note: The “P” stands for Pleasant!)

SQ3R has withstood the test of time and is now widely recommended by academic counselors on campuses across the country. It’s named for the five steps involved in the method:

• Survey

• Question

• Read

• Recite

• Review

How does SQ3R work?

It’s important, first of all, to chunk up your work here. The goal is not to do this with an entire textbook or a bunch of materials, but to go chapter by chapter or section by section. You'll see why as you move through the steps, but just bear in mind you want to be hyper-focused on smaller sections. In general, chunking up your review work is a recommended practice and it works well with SQ3R and all kinds of other study approaches, so be sure to brush up on it while you're restructuring your study approach.

Survey

You survey your materials first, skimming them just enough to grasp what the overall idea is. Look at the chapter title, intros and conclusions, headings, sub-headings, graphics, tables, and summaries, but don’t read the whole thing.

You can also call on contextual details here. If you got assigned to read this chapter in a lecture, think back on that class, especially on anything the teacher mentioned as being important. Go through any slideshows they uploaded as supplemental material, as well as any existing notes you have. Again, just skim, but get an idea of what, broadly, this section is about.

Question

Then, you come up with questions, like, “What is this section about?” or, “How will I use this information in real life?” The questions can be more specific than that and depend a lot on what the content of your chapter is.

An easy trick is to turn subheadings into questions. If your subheading just says, “The assassination of Franz Ferdinand,” your question can be, “What were the immediate impacts of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand?”

Something I like to do is ask myself, "How might this appear on a test?" If I'm reading about the founder of a movement, for instance, and they were born in a certain country in a particular year and those details were relevant to their rise to power, I'd assume there would be a question on that on the test, so I might be able to focus my studying better if I can anticipate that.

Read

Jot the questions down before moving on to the third step, which is finally reading the whole chapter or section, paying attention to anything that might answer your questions. Take notes.

What helps here is writing the answers you find in the material directly under the questions you wrote down. Typically, I advocate for taking handwritten notes and studying with a pen and paper whenever possible, but here, you may find that you don't have enough room to answer the questions you write down or take notes on new information you find while reading. To be on the safe side (and stop yourself from making a disorganized, scribbled-out and erased-up mess) go ahead and use a word processing document for your questions and answers.

Recitation

The next step is recitation. Use your own words to explain the contents of what you studied and answer your own questions. Pretend you’re explaining it to someone else or even write it all down in a small essay format.

If you write it all down as a small essay, you'll be using the "blurting" method, or at least a variation of it. Blurting asks you to remember everything you can about a topic, then say or write it somewhere before checking your notes and materials for anything you missed. It forces active recall, or the act of digging something out of your memory. Here, don't feel too much pressure to remember everything; treat this more like an open-book test, especially if it's your first time through your review. You can use other techniques, like the Leitner flashcard method, to entrench the answers you find in your memory once you've got a grasp of the overall theme of the section.

You can also go a step further and actually explain the material to someone. That's the Feynman method, which has you act like a teacher describing the content to someone who knows nothing about it. You can do this with a parent, a friend, or even ChatGPT. It helps you break the material down into easy-to-understand parts. If you don't understand something well enough to teach it to someone else, you don't understand it well at all. But again, incorporate this over time. You don't need to be ready for this step on your first run-through with SQ3R. It's just an easy way to gauge how well you're mastering a concept.

Review

Finally, review what you read, wrote, and/or said before starting the process again on another chapter. Feel free to move to another chapter or section before you have a firm grasp of the current one, too. Called interleaving, this practice of studying multiple concepts or ideas at once can force you to make connections between material and better understand both topics than if you were tackling them individually.

The purpose of all of this is to get you thinking critically and help you stay engaged as you read, hunting for the answers to your questions. From there, you can branch off into the other techniques I mentioned, like Leitner and Feynman, because you created a solid base of chunks of information—questions and answers from the text, essentially—to study.

Best practices with SQ3R

I mentioned earlier that you might want to use a word processor or notes app for this, so you don't run out of space or get frustrated. You do have other options if handwriting and its benefits appeal to you. In that case, I recommend picking up a SQ3R notebook. It's only $6, and it provides designated spaces for the different steps; plus, since the sections are pre-defined, it forces you to take on your work in smaller chunks because you don't have room on the page to try to do too much at once. Play around with different methods, from digital to notebook, to see what works for you and the material you study.

Finally, don't assume you've reached the end of studying when you hit the review portion of SQ3R. Studying is a long-term endeavor, so that "review" part is actually ongoing from the time you first get acquainted with the material. After you finish your first round of SQ3R, study the materials periodically, every few days. If, after a few reviews, you feel like you're not grasping the material as well as you want to, try the SQ3R method again on the same chunk of text you already did, formulating different questions and looking for other angles. Once you're more familiar with the topics, you'll come up with more in-depth questions, so repeating SQ3R a few times over a semester is a smart strategy.

(AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

President Donald Trump said peace talks to end the war in Gaza are “at their final stages,” and could lead to a wider peace in the region — according to Barak Ravid with Axios, who interviewed the president exclusively.

The post Trump Claims Peace Talks to End the War in Gaza Are ‘In the Final Stages’: ‘First Real Chance for Peace in the Middle East’ first appeared on Mediaite.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during an interview on Fox News on Sunday morning, said the US strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities during a bombing mission in June was not intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear stockpile.

Anchor Jacqui Heinrich, in her first week leading the new program The Sunday Briefing, asked Netanyahu about recent comments he made at the United Nations where he said Iran’s nuclear stockpile “must be eliminated.”

“So are you saying, sir, that not all of the enriched uranium was destroyed during the 12-day war or by those strikes from B2 bombers?” Heinrich asked him.

Netanyahu confirmed that is the case — and that Israel understood as much going into the June bombing mission and immediately after it.

“No, we knew that in advance. In fact, our whole plan before and after the United States decided to join us, took into account that we wouldn’t get these 450 kilograms of enriched uranium. We knew that,” Netanyahu said.

He continued: “What we were targeting was the capacity to make more of those, of that enriched uranium, and also the attempt to weaponize it. There’s the enriched core of uranium, but you have to put a weapon around it. You know, these balls that you see in all these movies? That’s the weapon around it. And then you have the missiles to carry that weapon. That’s what we struck at. And we struck hard.”

Heinrich then asked Netanyahu if Israel knows where the remaining 450 KG of uranium is — and whether it plans on destroying it in another attack.

Netanyahu said his country “certainly know where it is” and that the U.S. and Israel share that information with each other, without going into further detail.

The Israeli leader’s answer comes a few months after the U.S., via Operation Midnight Hammer, bombed key Iranian nuclear facilities. President Trump, soon after, declared the mission completely decimated Iran’s nuclear program, posting on Truth Social:

Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term! The white structure shown is deeply imbedded into the rock, with even its roof well below ground level, and completely shielded from flame. The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!

He then ripped CNN and other outlets that called into question whether Iran’s entire nuclear arsenal was gone, saying it was a ‘disgraceful” thing for CNN to do.

Netanyahu, at other points in the interview, made it clear he is a huge fan of Trump. He said the U.S. and Israel’s current relationship is “unparalleled in the history of our nations,” and he said most of that is due to America having Trump as president.

“America is blessed with a very strong and independent leader,” Netanyahu added.

You can watch his appearance on The Sunday Briefing above, via Fox News.

The post Netanyahu Claims US Strike On Iran Was Never Meant to Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Stockpile: We Knew ‘We Wouldn’t Get’ it first appeared on Mediaite.

Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld went after liberals upset about the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey with a rant about retribution and revenge on The Five.

Comey was indicted on one count of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice for allegedly lying under oath to Congress over a leak he allegedly involved about Hillary Clinton. Comey has denied the charges and vowed to fight in court.

“It’s Comey’s turn,” Gutfeld declared on The Five. “And the Dems love due process, so let’s due process the hell out of this guy! He may get away with it, but he’s got to go through the process.”

Gutfeld continued:

I love the media saying that, you know, “Trump has set a precedent.” Have they forgotten [Rudy] Giuliani, [Steve] Bannon, [Roger] Stone, [Peter] Navarro, [George] Papadopoulos, the Trump supporters — what, a thousand of them? They invented lawfare so, they can call it revenge — it’s not revenge if you have it coming and if it’s justice.

Here’s the thing you got to remember about mutually assured destruction: It doesn’t work when you go first and we’re still standing. That’s what just happened. When you come for us, you kind of got to finish the job. Because now we’re in power and…It’s payback.

Revenge? I don’t care what you call it. I don’t care what the media calls it. They have lost the privilege of our attention. They said collusion was real and the laptop was fake. Facts about Covid were disinformation. Joe Biden was president. The biggest scandal of our career and they still haven’t paid for that. So you know what? We don’t care.

Jesse Watters added, “Yeah, they’re just mad Trump’s doing to them what they did to them. So, I don’t care what you call it. I’m with Greg — revenge, retribution, accountability — who cares? It’s happening and I’m enjoying it because these people need to be punished. If someone declares war on you, what are you going to just turn the other cheek? You’re right. It is an eye for an eye. And I hope we win. ”

Watch above via Fox News.

The post Greg Gutfeld Rants About Comey While Declaring ‘It’s Not Revenge If You Have It Coming!’ first appeared on Mediaite.

Someone needs to show former Vice President Kamala Harris the 2024 electoral map because she keeps claiming she lost the “closest” election of the 21st Century — but that is not true.

Harris has made the claim several times on her recent tour to promote 107 Days, her new book about her failed attempt to beat President Donald Trump in last year’s election. The latest example came on Friday, where Harris, during a visit to her alma mater, Howard University, told students at the campus bookstore that she nearly topped Trump.

“By the way, what is also historic about that, in many ways — it was the closest election for president of the United States in the 21st Century,” Harris said. “Period. Period.”

The answer drew a cheer from the small crowd; one proud attendee shouted out: “And a Howard grad did that!”

Harris concurred, repeating the line back to her, “And a Howard grad did that,” before waving her index finger at everyone and laughing.

Of course, Harris did not lose the closet election of the 21st Century. Trump beat Harris in the electoral college last year, 312-226, which was the widest margin this century beyond former President Barack Obama’s two presidential victories in 2008 and 2012.

As Mediaite’s Isaac Schorr noted earlier this week, Harris wasn’t closer than any other loser in the popular vote, either. Former President George W. Bush lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral College in 2000, as did Trump in 2016.

And she wasn’t the closest to “tipping” the Electoral College — calculated by evaluating the shortest possible path to winning enough states to take the White House — falling short of the performances of former Vice President Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Trump in 2020.

The former vice president repeated the claim on Friday, a few days after she had made the same proclamation on MSNBC. At the time, host Rachel Maddow declined to push back on that claim while sitting across from Harris.

President Trump was not thrilled with Harris’ bogus statement, and on Wednesday, he demanded Harris apologize for it. “Everyone knows this is a lie,” Trump posted on Truth Social, while also blasting Harris for being “DUMB AS A ROCK.”

It does not look like he will be getting that apology anytime soon.

Harris, a moment before reiterating her “closest” claim on Friday, said it is remarkable how well she performed, considering she was put in the “unprecedented” position of replacing President Joe Biden atop the Democratic ticket deep into the campaign. Trump, Harris told the Howard crowd, had been “running for 10 years” straight and had a huge advantage on her and her 107 days to win the race.

The full three minute video of her appearance at Howard was shared by @liveonLock on TikTok on Friday. You can watch it by clicking here. It was then picked up and shared by several X accounts, racking up more than 6 million views in the process. You can see a slice of it above.

The post Kamala Harris Keeps Incorrectly Claiming She Lost ‘Closest’ Election to Trump first appeared on Mediaite.

(Charly Triballeau/Pool Photo via AP)

Volodymyr Zelensky said he met privately with U.S. President Donald Trump at the United Nations this week to ask for an “additional weapons system” to force Russia to the negotiating table.

Zelensky told Barak Ravid with The Axios Show that he made the case that if Ukraine possessed weapons that could reach Moscow, that fact alone could force Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to peace talks.

The Telegraph reported Friday that Zelensky specifically asked Trump for Tomahawk missiles, which are long-range and precision-guided.

“In an interview after the meeting, Mr. Zelensky said Mr. Trump was amenable to his appeal for the long-range cruise missile, that would put Moscow in range of Kyiv’s strikes,” The Telegraph reported.

Ukraine has asked the U.S. for Tomahawks several times over the past year, but Trump has declined to sell the powerful weapons “to NATO countries on Ukraine’s behalf,” an anonymous source told Axios.

When asked what Trump could do to help Ukraine win the war, Zelensky told Ravid, “I think President Trump knows. I said to him yesterday what we need, one thing.”

Zelensky added, “By the way, we need it, but it doesn’t mean that we will use it. Because if we will have it, I think it’s additional pressure on Putin to sit and speak.”

Zelensky said Trump told him “we will work on it,” when he made the request.

According to Axios, “The Tomahawk, manufactured by RTX, has a much longer range than the missiles NATO has made available so far, flying up to 1,000 miles vs. around 190 miles for U.S.-made ATACMS.”

Radio Free Europe reported that during a phone call in July, “President Trump reportedly asked Zelensky, ‘Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? […] Can you hit St. Petersburg too?’ The Ukrainian president is reported to have replied: ‘Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.’ On July 15, Trump denied he is aiming to arm Kyiv with long-range missiles, telling reporters: ‘We’re not looking to do that.'”

Read the Axios story here.

The post Zelensky Asked Trump For Tomahawk Missiles To Force Putin To The Peace Table: Report first appeared on Mediaite.

Did you know you can customize Google to filter out garbage? Take these steps for better search results, including adding my work at Lifehacker as a preferred source.

The nearly universal adoption of smartphones in the late 2000s changed more than how we waste time while waiting in lines. With nearly everyone carrying a high-quality camera and microphone in their pocket—and the ability to instantly broadcast anything to a potential audience of millions—our collective concept of privacy has been permanently altered. If you’re not a little concerned with how what you do in public would play on YouTube, you’re not paying attention. 

As smart glasses equipped with cameras and mics edge closer to mainstream adoption, we’re facing another, subtler shift. Unlike smartphones, where it’s obvious when someone is recording, smart glasses can capture video or audio nearly invisibly—raising fresh legal, ethical, and moral concerns. Here's what you should be aware of, whether you’re currently rocking smart glasses or plan to in the future.

The legality of filming in public

What the general public thinks of as “privacy” may have shifted, but the law may not have kept pace. “Current laws do not provide the protection that most people would probably expect that they should,” says David B. Hoppe, an international transactional lawyer who specializes in emerging legal issues in media and technology.

Some statutes have been written to account for new technology—prohibitions on revenge porn, for instance—but the overarching legal framework concerning privacy was developed for a pre-smartphone, pre-smart glasses world. So let's dig into it.

A primer on public photography

State and federal laws have criminalized some kinds of recordings in public, like shooting videos up people's skirts, but in general, the First Amendment provides broad protection of people's right to take photos and videos of whatever they can see. "In general, our presumption is that capturing photos, videos, or other data from public spaces is unrestricted," says Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and Co-Director of the High Tech Law Institute.

That presumption applies to smart glasses, so if you're in a public space, you can usually record what you'd like. “As a general matter, the video function could be used in a public setting,” Hoppe says. 

How you use a recording matters, though. “An issue that could arise is whether or not there's a commercial aspect to its use,” Hoppe says. “In many states there could be an obligation to have cleared the publicity rights from any individuals who are identifiable in the video.”

The meaning of "commercial,” though, can be tricky. Something like filming an advertisement would likely be considered commercial speech and have less legal protection, in terms of privacy, than something like making an art movie for your film class. Somewhere in the middle is earning money from a social media video. Monetizing doesn't automatically remove legal free speech protection, but it could shift content toward commercial speech, and local filming laws could apply to what you shoot as well. It's complicated, so if you have any doubts, talk to a lawyer.

Private businesses are a bit different, though

Courts have largely held that a patron in a private business that is open to the public, like a store or a restaurant, can expect more privacy than they have while on a public sidewalk, but less than they’d have if they were somewhere really private, like their home. "It gets into expectations of privacy," explains Goldman. "A restaurant could be anywhere from family-seating, where that expectation would be unreasonable, to a private booth that has 50 feet in any direction from any other seat, which might be a more reasonable expectation of privacy."

While a person can generally legally capture images in a business that’s open to the public, it’s within the owners’ rights to prohibit filming. "Normally businesses can set rules for how their customers engage with each other," Goldman says. "The recourse would be banning you from their premises."

So if you turn on your Ray-Ban Metas in the gym, you probably won’t be arrested, but the gym could/should have a “no photography” policy that it could enforce by having you banned from the premises and calling the cops if you won't leave. Of course, recording in private areas of any business, like the locker room of said gym, is illegal everywhere in the U.S. 

Video vs. audio recording

Recording sound from a pair of smart glasses could expose you to legal risks that shooting video may not. While images taken in public of anything in plain view are generally legal, audio is a different story. Just like a conversation in a restaurant, the key factor is the "reasonable expectation of privacy." Two people having a quiet conversation on a park bench likely expect a level of privacy that a guy shouting on a street corner does not.

Courts have largely agreed that recording conversations in public is protected by the Constitution, as long as everyone in the conversation knows they are being recorded and agrees to it. The opposite situation—a third party recording a private conversation without the participants’ knowledge—would often be considered “eavesdropping,” and that’s often a crime. 

It gets tricky when only one party consents to a recording. "In general, there are some states that have required that any recording of a conversation between two parties requires the consent of both parties," Goldman says. "So if the glasses are being used in those conversations, without consent from the other party, that would be a violation in those states."

Here’s a breakdown of one-party consent states and all-party consent states. If you have any doubts about the legality of a recording, consult with a lawyer, or just don't hit record.

The other side of the coin: what about the users' privacy?

Maybe you bought a pair of smart glasses to record your life, but make no mistake: you are the one being recorded. When you click "agree" on that terms of service screen, you could be allowing a big data company to collect your GPS data, biometric data (like eye movements and health information), contact lists, messages, political views, what you see, what you say, who you talk to, and more. And it's legal because you agreed to it. Usually.

"Some [data collected by your smart glasses] is controlled by contract," Goldman says. "So Meta would disclose its privacy policies in some disclosure to the consumer, and then those might be the rules that apply. There are some places where there may be limits on the ability of Meta to access that data," Goldman says.

Bottom line: you have some protections over your personal data that aren't necessarily signed away with a click. A patchwork of federal laws provide specific protections: HIPAA protects the privacy of your medical records, FCRA protects your credit reports, and other federal laws protect financial information children's privacy. But more meaningful consumer privacy protection comes from California state law. In the last 10 years, Cali has enacted relatively robust privacy protection laws that give Californians the right to know what personal data companies collect, the right to delete that data, and the right to opt out of their data being sold.

"But I live in Ohio," you might be saying. First, sorry about that. Secondly, we have your back anyway! Big tech companies have largely adopted California's privacy laws as their baseline for data collection. So while the amount of data being collected from your glasses isn't ideal, at least you can claw some of it back.

Exciting new frontiers in privacy invasion

Check out this video of a recent concert from O.G. trip hop band Massive Attack:

The band is turning facial recognition technology on its audience, displaying audience members along with what seems to be their professions. The technology to instantly identify a stranger and scrape publicly available databases on that person is possible with existing technology in smart glasses, and is, in theory, perfectly legal. Even if the person being filmed doesn't know you’re doing it. Again, how you use information you collect might not be legal.

According to Hoppe, the laws in place just weren’t written with smart glasses in mind. “The basic standard, that comes from common law times, was that if you’re in a public place, you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but at that point in time—and up until the last two decades—being in a public place meant you could be observed, but that you would simply be a memory in a human mind somewhere. It wouldn't be recorded in video format that could immediately be published to the entire world.” Hoppe said. 

Where does the law go from here?

Right now, privacy laws in the U.S. are largely reactive and evolve after new technology has reshaped how we live. But what might it look like if we got ahead of the curve (or at least tried harder to catch up?) Like everything, it's complicated.

Hoppe imagines one extreme: a “privacy maximalist” set of laws, where no one could be recorded without their consent, even in public. "That would make sense, right? But the challenge you then have is things like security cameras and other stationary devices that are simply recording everything. Is that really a privacy threat?" Hoppe says. "And if so, isn't it outweighed by the beneficial effects to society as as a whole, in terms of protection of crime prevention and protection of property and so forth?"

And there's that whole "freedom" thing. "The idea that there is a public sphere where we are free to capture and record and share our views about what we see, is an essential part of free speech," Goldman says. "And if privacy laws were to overly restrict that, it would take our away our ability not only to express ourselves and and react to the world that we see, but it would have significant power implications on the ability of people to control conversations in a way that would ultimately take power away from us as people...We cannot let the concerns about people's desire to control what people know about them override the ability of people to have organic, healthy, pro-social conversations."

The social norms of smart glasses recording

If you’re living your life in a halfway ethical manner (and you’re not providing cultural commentary in concert form like Massive Attack) you probably aren’t keen to privately dox everyone on the bus, and social norms are probably more important to you than potential legal penalties. Maybe you won’t be hauled away in cuffs for recording people eating dinner on the outdoor patio of a restaurant, but you will be met with scorn from just about every diner—especially if you’re sticking a phone in their face. Smart glasses, being less obvious than iPhones, change the equation somewhat. The etiquette around their use is evolving, leaving us all in a gray area where what’s legal and what’s socially acceptable don’t always line up.

Even if they’re not encoded in law, we’ve (mostly) collectively agreed upon some norms when it comes to cell phones—don’t film others in the gym, don’t stick your phone in a stranger’s face, etc.—and we’re getting there with smart glasses, but until we arrive, it’s going to be a bit tricky. 

Smart glasses make recording less obtrusive and more natural-feeling, but they also make it easier to cross lines without realizing it. So it’s best to err on the side of courtesy: respect people in public, respect private spaces, and be cautious of what you’re recording in private/public spaces—taking pictures of your meal and friends is cool; taking pictures of strangers is not. Getting it wrong probably won’t end up with being thrown into jail, but being known as “that creep with the damn Meta glasses” might ultimately be a worse fate.

Legendary GOP operative Karl Rove revealed who he believes will emerge as the biggest loser from the prospective government shutdown looming over Washington, D.C..

Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration are attempting to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government operating, while Democrats are insisting that it ought to include Affordable Care Act subsidies.

“If Americans get stuck with a shutdown that drags on, there will be a cost. But which party will pay the political price?” asked Rove in a column for The Wall Street Journal before answering, “History gives us an idea.”

The architect of President George W. Bush’s White House campaigns went on to review the effects of the three longest shutdown to take place in recent decades.

Taking the lessons from these battles, Rove wrote that the “outcome of the coming shutdown will depend on three factors. First, which side gets their way and therefore looks stronger, as Mr. Clinton did in 1996. Second, which party makes a better case to voters and energizes its coalition, as the GOP did in 2014 and Democrats in 2020. Third, whether other issues loom larger in the nearly 14 months between now and the midterm elections. In our chaotic politics, it’s likely something will.”

“But no matter what, the biggest shutdown loser will likely be public trust in Washington writ large,” he concluded. “Voters see shutdowns as the result of gross incompetence by our leaders. When the National Election Study began in 1958, 73% of Americans said they trusted the federal government always or most of the time. Today, 22% do, a figure that has been close to constant for decades. Washington’s inability to get its fiscal house in order is a big reason why. Sadly, Washington doesn’t seem to have learned how to avoid shutdowns.”

President Donald Trump announced that he had canceled a planned meeting with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Tuesday, writing that “After reviewing the details of the unserious and ridiculous demands being made by the Minority Radical Left Democrats in return for their Votes to keep our thriving Country open, I have decided that no meeting with their Congressional Leaders could possibly be productive,” on Truth Social. “We must keep the Government open, and legislate like true Patriots rather than hold American Citizens hostage, knowing that they want our now thriving Country closed. I’ll be happy to meet with them if they agree to the Principles in this Letter. They must do their job! Otherwise, it will just be another long and brutal slog through their radicalized quicksand. To the Leaders of the Democrat Party, the ball is in your court. I look forward to meeting with you when you become realistic about the things that our Country stands for. DO THE RIGHT THING!”

The post Karl Rove Reveals Who Will Be the Big ‘Loser’ of the Looming Government Shutdown first appeared on Mediaite.