> I'm not aware that the WHO ever claimed simultaneously contradictory things.
Whether they did or not is almost irrelevant: information doesn't reach humans instantaneously, it takes time to propagate through channels with varying latency, it gets amplified/muted depending on media bias, people generally have things going on in life other than staying glued to new sources, etc.
If you take a cross sample you're guaranteed to observe contradictory "parallel" information even if the source is serially consistent.
What's the point of reading something while drinking my coffee quietly?
When I'm drinking my coffee I focus on enjoying the palate, when I'm reading I am laser-focused on processing and retaining information.
Multitasking prevents me from attaining the full benefits of these exquisite activities. If need a mindless task while I'm sipping my morning brew I can always count primes backwards or stare at the other hipster in the coffee shop.
GMail is the most popular email provider by a wide margin. Denying service to the largest cohort of email users is indeed surprising, ridiculous, and self-defeating.
He was mistakenly given write access by the treasury department employees in charge of managing DOGE permissions. He resigned a day later, likely before he even realized he had write access. In that short window, he accessed the system "exclusively under the supervision of Bureau database administrators", and the initial treasury department investigation did not find any misuse of said write permissions.
I don't see how this can be blamed on DOGE. If anything it shows that DOGE employees are closely monitored, and their access is minimized and audited.
The contract, with a company called D&G Support Services, was to provide “program and technical support services” for the Office of Diversity and Civil Rights at ICE.
... the federal award, approved in September 2022, had initially listed a total value of $8 billion. But on Jan. 22 this year, that figure was updated to $8 million.
DOGE involvement aside, that right there is not exactly the exculpatory evidence NY Times thinks it is.
Unless you know more about that incident than the op, it sounds like they didn't refuse to fill anything but instead chose to skip and optional section.
He did not say that [1]. I can't decide whether people keep misrepresenting his statements intentionally, or there's some psychological process in play that prevents them from parsing his speech. He is a terrible communicator after all.