El Máster Edwin

voted

I haven't seen you connected I think you need more presence on the server even if you meet the requirements I will say CONTRA for now.

Accepted! send me a dm T/C.

voted

voted

voted

PRO! Good activity active at night you follow the rules GL.

voted

Rejected! 2 days ago you asked to be removed, wait at least 14 days to request admin again T/C.

Accepted! T/C.

Nick movie: 300 Time: December 9, 2006 Netflix / Amazon / HBO: N/A Duration of the movie: 117 M Trailer:

Djokovic is chasing a record 25th Grand Slam singles title Defending Australian Open champion Novak Djokovic said a confrontation with a spectator was the spark he "needed" to hold off Alexei Popyrin and avoid a shock second-round exit. Djokovic, chasing a record-extending 11th men's title in Melbourne, looked far from his best in the four-set win. The Serb told one spectator to "come down and tell it to my face" during the fourth set after repeated heckling. "Maybe that was needed for me to be shaken up a bit," said Djokovic, 36. The world number one said he did not "want to be in those types of situations" but added the incident helped him to "start to find the kind of intensity on the court" that was required for him to see out a 6-3 4-6 7-6 (7-4) 6-3 victory. The inspired Popyrin, ranked 43rd, entertained the partisan home crowd as he won the second set to level the match before losing a pivotal third set in a tie-break after failing to capitalise on four set points. With the fourth set level at 2-2, Djokovic - who admitted he felt "flat emotionally" - said he engaged with the fan because his patience had run out after "a lot of things" were shouted at him during the match. "There was a lot of things that were being told to me on the court, particularly from that corner, and the same side in the other corner. "I was tolerating it for most of the match. At one point I had enough, and I asked him whether he wanted to come down and tell it to my face. "He didn't have the courage to come down. That's what I was asking him. If you have courage, if you're such a tough guy, come down and tell it to my face, and let's have a discussion about it. "He was apologising from far away. That's all it is." Djokovic finds a way Djokovic came through the longest first-round Grand Slam match of his career against teenage qualifier Dino Prizmic on Sunday, playing for four hours and one minute. The early stages of his second match of the tournament suggested it would be a much quicker encounter for the Serb, who took 38 minutes to claim the opener after sealing the decisive break with a stunning cross-court winner to go 5-3 up before consolidating. However, Popyrin - the world number 43 - proved to be a bigger threat than rankings suggested. Having gone a break up in the fourth game, Popyrin missed the chance to serve out the second set, but he redeemed himself in front of his home fans with a sensational lob to break at 5-4 and level the match. Djokovic survived four set points before racing through the tie-break to close out a dramatic third set and put himself in the driving seat. And, after confrontating the heckler in the stands, the 24-time major winner thrived on the crowd's hostility to break for a 4-2 lead. Missing out on four match points, he claimed victory with the fifth as the clock struck midnight at Melbourne Park. "I don't think I played at the highest level," Djokovic said. "I didn't do anything special - he was a better player for a set and a half. Things changed around and the momentum shifted in the tie-break." Djokovic will face Tomas Martin Etcheverry next after the Argentine 30th seed, who conquered Andy Murray in straight sets on Monday, won 6-4 6-4 6-4 against Gael Monfils. Sinner working on 'Baywatch' physique Sinner has never gone further than the quarter-finals at the Australian Open Italian fourth seed Jannik Sinner stormed into the third round with a dominant win against Jesper de Jong. The 22-year-old needed just 103 minutes to thrash the Dutch qualifier 6-2 6-2 6-2 under a closed roof on Margaret Court Arena on a rainy day. Sinner, who will face Daniel Elahi Galan or Sebastian Baez in the next round, said he has been working in the gym on his off-days in Melbourne. He joked he wanted a muscular physique like the actors in TV show Baywatch. "Tomorrow I have a day off, trying to practise myself into the match rhythm. I [will do] also a little bit in the gym. Even if you can't see it, I'm skinny, but it's OK," Sinner said. "I'm happy with my physicality at the moment. Of course it's a dream to have the 'Baywatch' physicality but it's OK." Adrenaline rush carries Tsitsipas through tough test Stefanos Tsitsipas said the adrenaline rush he felt was "insane" as he battled past Jordan Thompson in Wednesday's night session on Margaret Court Arena. The Greek seventh seed required three hours and 36 minutes to overcome the Australian home hope 4-6 7-6 (8-6) 6-2 7-6 (7-4). "You live for these kinds of matches, the intensity was there today. We were both able to peak in terms of our tennis at some point during the match," Tsitsipas added. "The fact that I can go to sleep tonight and know I gave it all makes me extremely happy right now." He will face Luca van Assche in the third round after Italian 25th seed Lorenzo Musetti suffered a surprise defeat at the hands of the French teenager, who fought back from 2-1 down to win 6-3 3-6 6-7 (5-7) 6-3 6-0. American 17th seed Frances Tiafoe was another shock exit as he fell to a 6-4 6-4 7-6 (7-5) loss against Czech world number 75 Tomas Machac. Tiafoe's American compatriots, 12th seed Taylor Fritz and 16th seed Ben Shelton claimed wins against French lucky loser Hugo Gaston and Australia's Christopher O'Connell, respectively. Elsewhere, Russian fifth seed Andrey Rublev needed just 99 minutes to beat American Chris Eubanks 6-4 6-4 6-4, while Australian 10th seed Alex de Minaur swept aside Italy's Matteo Arnaldi 6-3 6-0 6-3. Link

Guinness World Records said a formal review was underway. Bobi in February 2023. Guinness World Records said Tuesday that its oldest dog title was under formal review and that applications to be named the oldest dog living and the oldest dog ever were suspended pending the outcome. "A formal review into the oldest dog record is taking place, which involves GWR reviewing evidence we have on file, seeking new evidence, [and] reaching out to experts and those linked to the original application," Amanda Marcus, a spokesperson, said in a statement Tuesday. The Associated Press reported the review was launched after veterinarians questioned the age of the Portuguese dog that held the title. Bobi was reportedly 31 years old when he died last year. Bobi was announced as the world’s oldest living dog and the oldest dog ever last February. The veterinarians said the common life expectancy for Bobi's Rafeiro do Alentejo breed is 10 to 14 years, according to AP. In December, Wired magazine reported that Bobi's age had no independent or government verification beyond his owner's word. In May, Bobi's owner, Leonel Costa, said the dog's mother had lived to age 18, according to the AP. Bobi's final age of 31 would have been unimaginable in another era, Costa said at the time. "Bobi is one of a kind," he said. After Bobi's death, a 23-year-old Chihuahua named Spike became the oldest living dog, according to GWR, the self-proclaimed "ultimate authority in record-breaking achievements." "No action has been taken in relation to any record holders yet, any actions are to be determined by the outcome of the review," said Marcus of Guinness World Records. Costa did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Link

Ford’s latest one-off EV demonstrator shows how dirty - and airborne - its EV pick-up can get Ford has a rich recent history of taking sensible electric cars and turning them into freaks with superpowers. Remember the SuperVan 4.0, Mustang Mach-E 1400, Mustang CobraJet 1400 and F-100 Eluminator? All the work of the Ford Performance Demonstrator Program, and this is the latest member of the gang – the F-150 Lightning Switchgear. Ford calls it an F-150 Lightning heavily modified to “provide a playground for engineers to advance learnings quickly for future electric vehicles". All you need to know is it’s here to prove that EV trucks weighing the same as a small planet can have off-road fun, too. Built in collaboration with Vaughn Gittin Jr's RTR Vehicles and based on an F-150 Lightning SuperCrew, it gets full carbon-fibre bodywork, wider track width, more suspension travel and better ground clearance thanks to Fox 3-inch internal bypass shocks, and reprofiled front and rear bumpers. There’s also custom independent double wishbone suspension at the front and independent multi-link suspension at the rear with coilovers. If off-road’s your thing, salivation may be occurring. To ensure it can hit big hard things and keep on trucking, there’s steel rock rails, front skid plates and 37-inch Nitto Ridge Grappler off-road tyres, plus two spares on board… just in case. The powertrain stays bone stock, so there are dual motors for 4WD, 572bhp and 775lb ft of torque and a 131kWh battery. The truck can, however, be reconfigured for a more road-biased set-up, dropping the front and rear ride heights from 13.5-inches and 11-inches respectively to 7-inches and 5-inches when you’re sticking to the tarmac. The tyres are also swapped out for road-biased Nittos on 20-inch rims. As you can see from Ford’s supplied pictures they’ve already let Vaughn Gittin Jr very loose in it. The public debut will be at the punishing King of the Hammers race kicking off on 25 Jan in Johnson Valley, California. Link

The dispute arising from a fisheries regulation is the latest attack on the federal bureaucracy as part of what has been called a war on the administrative state. From top left, Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Bottom left, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan. WASHINGTON — A 40-year-old Supreme Court precedent that over the years has become a bugbear on the right because it is viewed as bolstering the power of federal agencies came under tough scrutiny on Wednesday as the current justices considered whether to overturn it. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority skeptical of broad assertions of federal agency authority, heard two related cases involving a fisheries regulation that call into question whether the 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council should be consigned to history. Based on the lengthy three-and-a-half hour oral arguments on Wednesday, some conservative members of the court appeared to be leaning toward overturning the Chevron precedent, although it is unclear if they have a clear majority to do so. The court could also take a different approach and place new limits on when lower court judges can defer to agencies without overturning Chevron. Ironically, at the time it was decided, Chevron was a win for the deregulatory efforts of the Reagan administration, with the court ruling that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting the law when the language of a statute is ambiguous. The ruling allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward with a Clean Air Act regulation that was favorable to polluting facilities, much to the displeasure of environmental groups that had wanted the court to give the agency less leeway. During that period, the EPA was led by Anne Gorsuch, the mother of conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, although she had left the post following a scandal over the agency's management of pollution cleanups by the time the case was argued. Justice Gorsuch has been an outspoken critic of the Chevron ruling. During the arguments on Wednesday, he questioned why a judge who thinks the agency's interpretation of the law is wrong would "abdicate that responsibility and say, automatically, whatever the agency says wins." Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another conservative, asked why the Chevron precedent should get the normal respect that longstanding rulings do, questioning the precedent on the grounds that it does not promote stability in the law because it allows agencies to constantly change positions depending on who is in charge. "The reality of how this works is Chevron itself ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in," he said. Liberal justices strongly defended the status quo, with Justice Elena Kagan giving practical examples of when it might be better for courts to defer to an agency's expertise, such as whether a cholesterol-lowering product should be classified as a dietary supplement or a drug. "Sometimes law runs out. Sometimes there’s a gap. Sometimes there’s a genuine ambiguity," she said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, another liberal, made a similar point, saying Chevron helps "courts stay away from policymaking." How the court rules is likely to rest on how Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett vote. Both are members of the conservative majority but did not appear based on their questions to be as eager to overturn Chevron as their colleagues. Barrett expressed concerns about the "disruptive consequences" of overturning the precedent. In practice, the Chevron ruling initially meant that both Democratic and Republican presidents could take advantage of the flexibility it gave to agencies in implementing new regulations on a wide range of issues. Decades later, with business interests and conservatives more hostile than ever to what they call the "administrative state," the precedent came to be seen at least on the right as being more beneficial to progressives, who want to make aggressive use of federal agency power, than it is to conservatives. “Really, the mission on the other side is to make it very, very hard to pass laws that create effective programs that meet modern problems. The real goal is [to] diminish the power of the federal government,” said David Doniger, the environmental lawyer who argued and lost the 1984 case. Environmental groups and others on the left hope to keep the ruling in place so agencies can tackle difficult issues like climate change, especially in the absence of Congress' passing major legislation itself. Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, said there were always disagreements among lawyers and academics over how courts should apply the Chevron ruling. "This has been bubbling around for a while, but certainly on the right there is a concern that ... agencies are not so much faithfully executing Congress's instructions as they are trying to figure out ways of doing what they want to do," he said. But, he added, "the question is whether you need to overturn Chevron to arrest that dynamic." The Supreme Court has already addressed the issue of agencies' exerting broad power without clear congressional instructions from another angle in recent rulings that struck down President Joe Biden's federal student loan debt relief plan, blocked his Covid vaccination or test requirement for larger businesses and curbed the EPA's authority to limit carbon emissions from power plants. Those cases did not rely on the Chevron analysis but instead said simply that on issues of broad national impact, there needs to be an explicit authorization from Congress, an approach known as the "major questions doctrine." The cases argued Wednesday involve a challenge to a less far-reaching government regulation that would require fishing vessels to help fund the collection of scientific data to assist with fishery conservation and management. The court took up appeals brought by operators of fishing vessels active in the herring fishery off the Atlantic coast, which challenged the 2020 rule applying to New England fisheries. Lower courts in both cases ruled for the federal government. The challengers say the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal body that oversees ocean resources, did not have authority to issue the regulation under the relevant law, the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The rule implements a monitoring program that vessel operators are required to fund. The challengers assert that operators would have to pay up to $710 a day at certain times for independent observers to board their vessels and monitor their operations. The cost would be a significant burden on small owner-operators, the challengers say. The fisheries dispute is one of several in the current court term in which the justices are considering attacks on federal agency power led by business interests and the conservative legal establishment. The makeup of the court itself reflects another front in the war, with the Trump administration having specifically selected judicial nominees in part based on their hostility to the federal bureaucracy. The Supreme Court's conservative majority includes three Trump appointees: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Link

Iranian missiles - seen here during a training drill - have hit Pakistan, Iraq and Syria in recent days Iran has admitted carrying out a missile and drone attack on western Pakistan on Tuesday. Officials in Islamabad said two children were killed and three others injured in the attack in Balochistan. Iran's foreign minister said the operation targeted the militant group Jaish al-Adli, which he described as an "Iranian terrorist group" in Pakistan. As a result the Pakistan's government recalled its ambassador to Iran and has blocked Tehran's envoy from returning. The Balochistan attack comes after Iran attacked targets in Iraq and Syria earlier this week. Islamabad said the attack was "illegal" and warned of "serious consequences". However Iran's Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, speaking in Davos, insisted that no Pakistani citizens had been targeted, only members of Jaish al-Adl. "We only targeted Iranian terrorists on the soil of Pakistan," Mr Amir-Abdollahian said. He added he had spoken to his Pakistani counterpart and "assured him that we do respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan and Iraq". The latest air strike comes at a time of growing tension across the Middle East, with war raging between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas in Gaza. Tehran says it does not want to get involved in a wider conflict. But groups in its so-called "Axis of Resistance", which include the Houthi militants in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and various groups in Syria and Iraq, have been carrying out attacks on Israel and its allies to show solidarity with the Palestinians. The US and UK have launched air strikes on the Houthis after they attacked commercial shipping. China on Wednesday urged Pakistan and Iran to show "restraint" and "avoid actions that would lead to an escalation of tension". Foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning added that Beijing saw the countries as "close neighbours". Perhaps stung by recent deadly attacks on home soil, Iran seems intent on exacting revenge on those it sees as responsible. At a time of heightened regional tensions, Iran is keen to portray strength and demonstrate to its own po[CENSORED]tion that acts of violence will not go unpunished. Tuesday's strike in Pakistan hit a village in the vast south-western border province of Balochistan. Tehran said it was targeting Jaish al-Adl, or "army of justice", an ethnic Baloch Sunni Muslim group that has carried out attacks inside Iran as well as on Pakistani government forces. Last December Jaish al-Adl attacked a police station in Rask, a town close to the border with Pakistan. Two weeks ago Iran suffered its worst domestic attack since the Islamic Revolution, when two bombs killed 84 people at a ceremony in Kerman to commemorate the US assassination of Iran's notorious Revolutionary Guard general, Qasem Soleimani. On Monday, Iran fired ballistic missiles at Syria and Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Iran said it was targeting Islamic State and Israel's Mossad spy agency, both of whom it said had been involved in the Kerman bombings. The strike on Iraq hit a building in the northern city of Irbil. Four civilians were killed and six hurt in the attack, local authorities said. The US condemned the attack. Iran then struck Syria's north-western Idlib province, which is the last remaining opposition stronghold in the country and home to 2.9 million displaced people. But hitting its nuclear-armed eastern neighbour Pakistan is a dramatic escalation. Pakistan expressed outrage, saying the attack took place "despite the existence of several channels of communication" between the countries. On Wednesday Islamabad said it had recalled its ambassador to Iran and the Iranian ambassador would not be allowed back into the country for the time being. Pakistan and Iran have a delicate but cordial relationship. This attack took place on the same day as Pakistan's prime minister and Iran's foreign minister met in Davos and while the Iranian and Pakistan navies held military drills together in the Gulf. Yet both have accused one another of harbouring militant groups that carry out attacks on the other in their border areas for years. Security on either side of their shared border, which runs for about 900km (559 miles), has been a long-running concern for both governments. The Iranian strike is believed to have hit Sabz Koh village about 45km from the Iranian border and 90km from the nearest town Panjgur. Local officials described it as a sparsely po[CENSORED]ted area home to livestock-owning Baloch tribes where smuggling of goods, drugs and weapons is rife. "People on both sides of the border consider themselves to be deprived of basic necessities, face discrimination and demand a larger share from their own resources," security commentator Zaigham Khan told the BBC. In Iran, the Sunni Muslim Baloch minority complains of discrimination in the Shia Muslim-majority state, while Baloch separatist groups are continuing an insurgent movement against the Pakistani government. Jaish al-Adl is the "most active and influential" Sunni militant group operating in Sistan-Baluchestan, according to the office of the US Director of National Intelligence. It is designated as a terrorist group by Washington and Tehran. Another security commentator in Pakistan, Aamir Rana, told the BBC he thought the diplomatic crisis "would take a while to calm down but this is also something that Pakistan would not like to escalate". He said in the past Pakistan had not reacted to Iran's actions along the border - "but now the ball is in Iran's court, whether it wants to get its act right". Link

That perseverance is good, I hope your problem with multi-accounts no longer happens, but for me I give you PRO

voted

Accepted! write me via dm or discord T/C.

Accepted! T/C.

PRO! good activity I haven't seen you break the rules GL.