She's the villain of this movie, she's definitely not Thanos or Kang level villain. And there are suspicion that even in this movie she's a fake out and there will be another villain replacing her. Either it's Doom and this movie starts him up like Avengers 1 did Thanos, or it's someone else and it won't be a Thanos level villain either.

A bomb that could destroy Earth's core would be an admittedly impressive technical feat!

Does France do graduated brackets like the US?

Is there any place that does taxes without brackets, just flat "pass this number and suddenly lose half of everything"? Does that even exist outside the imagination of Americans who have never understood or looked at taxes? Brackets should be the definition of income taxes, is it not? It's not an economic tariff applied regardless the volume of merchandise passing a frontier.

I don't keep up with youtube alternatives but this one doesn't require login https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=DaJWEjimeDM the video isn't loading easily but it seems to work after a bit

https://youtu.be/DaJWEjimeDM?si=rwX4eZZQvGV22iiR first half is citing two guys who think the Sphinx is older than we think (including your guy); third guy and after show that the erosion and the faults didn't come from rain from outside, but water infiltration from below, from before the Sphinx was carved into the rock, and that yes, we do see it in other places in the same rock layer. Other buildings above it don't have that erosion from below. So the erosion is indeed old, but it didn't happen from rain falling after the Sphinx was carved out, so you can't use it to determine when the Sphinx was carved out of the ground.

I’m only suggesting that theories which are not supported by direct anthropological evidence are worth considering

You can consider an idea and build a theory around it, but once your basic idea is disproven, your whole theory disappears. And the idea that the Sphinx erosion doesn't match the agreed upon age has already been proven wrong - as in, it has been explained that the observed erosion is perfectly compatible with what rock types are there and with the data that we know since the actual period it was built in, the mid third millenium BCE. So you don't have your premise that the erosion doesn't match the official age, and that means there is nothing left to consider here until you actually have something new, anything else is fanfiction.

Considering new idea is perfectly fine, no one disagrees with that, but you are not considering new ideas, you are considering old ideas that were proven wrong and not listening when someone tells you why it's wrong. Get new material.

The link quotes him calling the Kiev regime a putsch, but that was back in 2014, and that was in fact a revolution. It's not about Zelensky, but he does give all the current talking points (neonazis in Kiev, NATO provocations, Russia can't have NATO at their doorstep...). BTW no one did anything about Russia stealing Crimea, either, everyone was still trying to justify not doing anything.

That was 10 years ago and he has been (very) slowly toning it down: when making the left alliance a few weeks ago, he finally relented on allowing weapons to be sent to Ukraine because the rest of the left made him, there's still hope he'll give up the anti-NATO talk... eventually. If he makes it to the government, when someone asks him about Russia bombing children's hospitals, at some point he'll have nowhere to run because he doesn't actually support that. He shouts and curses quite violently at journalists who help out the far right, but on serious subjects in serious interviews, he actually has to be reasonable (and he is). On the last presidential elections, when he showed up to the round 1 left parties debates, he was all proper and serious and making his points properly and sensibly - and then he lost on round 1 and the next day in the street, he screamed his head off at the first journalist who put a microphone in his face.

Oh, and over this side of the world, no one claims Russia is socialist. But leftists do get mad at the EU and NATO for crushing the farmer class and playing the capitalist hand, that's what that is about.

The best part is that it applies for any election

Come out first with 30% votes on round 1

Come out last with the same 30% votes on round 2

Complain that 70% of voters forged alliances that are against nature to repel them

J'entendais ce matin à la radio un sondeur de l'IFOPS se défendre que non, ils n'ont pas donné le RN gagnant et la gauche en miette, c'est les médias qui ont interprété ce qu'ils voulaient.

Donc les médias mentent oui.

Don't worry, his party and the media are already discussing how the center can simply grow by picking apart the PS (center left) out of the left alliance, obviously.

Yup. I don't even get what "populism" is when mentioned in media. Isn't that-- democracy?

Populism is demagogy, it's repeating people's complaints back to them, to amplify them and place yourself as an apparent leader, but without actually bringing any solution - and when it does, it's immediately far right "beat everyone out". Democracy is actually creating policy and voting on it, which by definition implies people disagreeing in that vote. Populism is rounding up everyone with the same mind, excluding everyone else (not voting on anything) and trying to crush opposition with numbers and no policy. It's the antithesis to democracy.

Edit - it might depend on the region of the world, I don't think I've seen a lot of left wingers be called populists. Originally it just means the opposition between the people and the elite, so that would match what you say, and apparently some left parties are trying to return to that definition for some reason, but it seems the Pope is taking the other version that has become much more common.