Seven claims in one hour - and reality spins away!
Mr. Trump declared today a “great and brilliant day for the world” after Iran confirmed that the Strait of Hormuz is fully open and ready for trade again.
Donald Trump speaks in Phoenix to hundreds of supporters and paints a picture that is only loosely connected to the situation. He says Iran is removing all naval mines from the Strait of Hormuz. He says the passage will be reopened. He says Iran will hand over its “nuclear dust” to the United States. These are sentences meant to sound like control. And yet they contradict what is happening at the same time. Since the beginning of the war on February 28, Trump has repeatedly made statements that are not substantiated or are disputed by others. His demand is clear. No more uranium enrichment in Iran. At the same time, he claims Iran will “never possess a nuclear weapon.” A promise he formulates himself without it being based on any confirmed agreement.
Tehran holds to a different line. A temporary suspension of enrichment is conceivable. A complete renunciation is not. This difference runs through all the talks. It determines whether an agreement is even possible.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s chief negotiator and parliament speaker, responds publicly. He writes that Trump made seven false claims within one hour. Which ones exactly he means, he leaves open. At the same time, the Iranian side rejects several specific statements. Iran has neither agreed to keep the Strait of Hormuz permanently open nor is there any agreement to export the stockpile of enriched uranium in coordination with the United States.
Ghalibaf also warns of the consequences of the American blockade. If it continues, the Strait of Hormuz will not remain open. The passage, in his words, would then depend on Iranian approval. On the American side, the line is just as clear. U.S. Central Command is maintaining the blockade. Trump says it will only end once Iran signs a peace agreement.
Between these positions, no space emerges, only pressure. It becomes visible at sea. Several ships approach the Strait of Hormuz and then turn back. Alexis Ellender from the analytics firm Kpler speaks of at least ten cases. Whether they were instructed or decided themselves remains unclear. What is clear is that they do not proceed.
At the same time, the strait had already been open before the United States and Israel launched their attacks on Iran. The current situation is not a return to normality. It is a new reality in which opening and blockade exist at the same time.
At the same time, a second problem remains. Around 440 kilograms of enriched uranium are still in Iran. Trump is demanding that this material be removed. Experts say that recovery and securing it would be complex and would take time. Likely more time than the 60 days set for reaching an agreement would even allow.
See our article: China positions itself to carry what no one wants to touch
You can’t hear it anymore: “I ended eight wars, and if we include Iran and Lebanon, then it is ten ended wars and many, many millions of lives saved.”
While Trump speaks of progress in Phoenix, reality shifts elsewhere. Ships turn around. Demands remain. Promises are disputed.
And between all of it stands a conflict that cannot be resolved by words.
Fake Zoom update opens door for North Korean hackers on macOS
A North Korean hacking group is targeting macOS users and is not relying on technical vulnerabilities but on trust. Anyone who launches the wrong file themselves effectively disables the system’s protection mechanisms with their own hands. That is exactly what the current campaign relies on. The attackers pose as recruiters on social networks, conduct conversations about supposed jobs, and invite their victims to a technical interview. The next step is a request to install what appears to be software or an update. In one documented case, a file named “Zoom SDK Update” was sent, which looks harmless and opens in the standard macOS application.
The actual trick lies in the structure of the file. Only instructions are visible, while the malicious code is pushed out of view by a large number of empty lines. Anyone who executes it unknowingly starts a chain of processes meant to look like a real system update. At the same time, additional programs are downloaded that embed themselves deep within the system. These programs monitor the device, open backdoors, and disguise themselves as known services. A hidden auto start ensures they remain active even after a restart. The next step is particularly insidious. Users are shown a convincingly real window prompting them to enter their system password. The input is verified, stored, and forwarded to the attackers.
With this access, the hackers then bypass security mechanisms and specifically target sensitive data. The focus is primarily on crypto wallet extensions and password managers. Anyone using such applications is particularly at risk. Apple has already responded and adjusted protective mechanisms that are automatically deployed to devices. The group behind the attack has been active for years and specializes in financial targets. Since early 2025, crypto assets worth billions are said to have been stolen using such methods, a significant increase compared to the previous year.
Hundreds of artificial Trump profiles flood social networks ahead of the midterms
Shortly before the midterm elections, social networks are seeing a surge of profiles that at first glance appear to be completely normal users - a smile, a gaze, a voice that sounds like it is speaking directly to you. In reality, these figures are entirely artificially generated and spread content at high frequency aimed specifically at conservative voters. They are young, strikingly attractive, look straight into the camera as if they know you through the screen, and repeat simple messages about America, religion, and Donald Trump. Accompanied by identical or slightly flawed captions that repeat across dozens of accounts - as if someone sent the same letter a hundred times and forgot to change the name.
Anyone who clicks through these videos pulls on a thread and realizes that the entire fabric is attached to it. The system does not rely on individual posts but on volume, repetition, and constant presence in users’ feeds. More than three hundred such profiles can be traced. Some disappear again, silently, as if someone had blown out a candle. Others quickly grow to tens of thousands of followers, individual videos reaching hundreds of thousands of views - without any indication that there is no heartbeat behind the face on the screen.
What stands out is the uniformity moving beneath the surface like a current under calm water. The same faces appear again and again in slightly altered forms, the same sentences are spoken, the same backgrounds used - from racetracks to sports arenas, as if a single hand were dressing the same puppet and placing it on a new stage. Some profiles change their appearance within weeks, adjusting hair color or facial features and suddenly seeming like a different person, even though the voice and messages remain the same. The outfit changes. The text stays.
It is unclear who is behind this wave. Commercial providers producing such profiles in large numbers are conceivable, as are political actors or external groups aiming to exert targeted influence. The only certainty is that the technical barriers have fallen so far that today, with a few dollars and an afternoon, one can create a person who never existed - and who will still be heard by thousands tomorrow. Some profiles focus less on political messaging and more on reach, mixing entertainment, products, and personal engagement, while others are clearly designed to shape opinions. The boundary blurs because both intertwine and political messaging flashes between seemingly harmless content - like a knife hidden among flowers. Platforms respond differently. Some label it as ordinary spam and remove accounts, others point to guidelines requiring labeling that are often bypassed - a fence with more gaps than slats. At the same time, a look into the comment sections shows many users believe the profiles are real and respond directly. They write back. They trust. They follow someone who does not exist.
This creates an environment in which artificially generated voices blend unnoticed with real ones and can reinforce the impression that certain positions are more widespread than they actually are. Without it being clear where the line lies between genuine support and digitally generated amplification. The chorus grows louder. But half the voices have no mouth.
Parrots do not just repeat - they deliberately use names
Parrots do not simply repeat sounds, they use names deliberately to address others. What long appeared to be mere imitation now reveals itself as far more precise behavior. In a large analysis of data from households worldwide, it became clear that many of these animals know exactly whom they are referring to when they speak. Of hundreds of recorded birds, nearly every second one used names. It did not stop at isolated coincidences. The animals used names in specific situations, when greeting, when seeking attention, or when looking for someone who was not in the room. Some called out for specific people, others addressed individual animals, not just any dog, but a particular one.
What stands out is how differentiated this behavior is. Many parrots know more than one name, some several at the same time. A portion of them uses these names strictly for specific individuals without mixing them up. There are examples in which a bird addresses different conspecifics with the correct name depending on who is making noise or responding.
This ability appears especially developed in African grey parrots. They use names more frequently and more precisely than other species. Other parrot species rely on this less often or show this behavior rarely. Why that is remains unclear, but it points to differences in perception and learning. Another detail stands out. Many parrots speak their own name when they want attention. This resembles small children who refer to themselves by name before learning to use “I.” Here too it becomes clear that language is not merely imitated but used within a context.
Despite these findings, one question remains open. Whether parrots invent names themselves and use them among each other has not yet been clarified. In the wild, they use individual calls that differ and are recognized. Whether these become true names is not yet proven. What is clear, however, is that these animals do far more than copy sounds. They assign sounds to individuals, store them in memory, and use them deliberately. This shifts the image of these animals significantly, away from simple imitators toward a living being that uses language in a functional sense.
Access in exchange for coin - Trump’s cryptocurrency opens doors to Mar a Lago
While wars continue, prices rise, and political decisions are made, another system runs in the background, quieter but precisely organized. Anyone holding enough of the cryptocurrency $TRUMP can secure a place at Mar a Lago. Not as an observer, but as a guest at a meeting with the president himself. On April 25, the largest investors in this digital currency are to be invited. Nearly three hundred people are on the list. The top among them receive additional access to a smaller circle, a meeting designed to be even more exclusive. The ticket is not a political mandate, not an office, not a public role. It is ownership.
The currency itself serves no practical function. It is neither a means of payment nor a functional tool. Its value lies solely in being held and traded. And that is exactly where a steady stream of income is generated. With every movement of the coin, a share flows back to its creator. Not only during sale, but with every transfer. A look at its development shows a clear picture. After a rapid rise shortly after launch, the price has fallen significantly. Many who entered later are sitting on losses. At the same time, early buyers were able to achieve large profits by selling at the right moment.
The structure behind it is simple. A large portion of the coins was reserved from the beginning. Only a smaller share ever entered open trading. Further releases are planned over years. This keeps control concentrated while the market distributes the rest.
Those who travel to the meeting receive more than access. Accompanying products, memorabilia, and additional events are included. At the same time, even with confirmed participation, it remains unclear whether the host will actually appear. For that case, a replacement is already planned, digital and without personal contact.
Not everyone is allowed to participate. Requirements are checked, criteria defined. One condition stands out in particular: anyone currently in a legal dispute with the U.S. government is excluded. The host himself is in exactly such a case.
Flowers from around the world - profits remain in Europe, source countries receive nothing
Even before sunrise, trading begins in Aalsmeer, millions change hands within hours, while through halls full of roses, orchids, and lilies moves a business that at first glance appears flawless. But behind this facade lies a simple number that explains everything: zero. That is how much has so far flowed back from Europe’s thriving flower market to the countries from which the genetic foundations originate.
The plants now found in European shops often originate from regions such as Mexico, Indonesia, or the Philippines. Over decades, they have been collected, bred, and further developed until protected varieties emerged that are now owned by a few companies. A small circle controls large parts of this market, secures rights, and turns biological diversity into economic property. In principle, an international agreement was meant to prevent exactly that. It was created to ensure that countries from which plants originate are included. But in practice, it barely applies. One reason lies in timing: it only covers genetic material recorded after 2014. Most current breeding, however, is based on much older stocks.
A second point lies in interpretation. Anyone using existing, already available plants does not have to share anything. That is exactly the standard in the industry. New varieties emerge from existing lines, which places almost every current development outside these obligations. In addition, origin is often no longer traceable. Once genetic material leaves a country, the trail is lost. What remains is a system in which use is possible without maintaining a link to origin.
The result is a market with a clear imbalance. Billions in revenue are generated in Europe, while the regions that created this diversity are not included. At the same time, individual examples show that it could work differently if companies reach agreements and share revenue. But these cases remain rare. Instead, a situation has developed in which rules exist but are barely applied. Oversight is limited, responsibility is diffuse, and economic benefits concentrate where processing takes place.
This is how a business grows that depends on global diversity while its foundations originated elsewhere.
Good feelings, bad numbers - when government and reality diverge
Why do people not feel better about the economy?
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Deep down they feel good - I am not sure what they are putting in the polls.”
The U.S. Treasury Secretary has a message for everyone who looks at their bank account at the end of the month and hesitates. You are doing well. You just do not know it. That, broadly speaking, is the government’s answer to why people feel economically insecure even though they have been told for months that everything is fine. It is not the situation. It is what people supposedly say in surveys. As if the survey were the problem and not the refrigerator.
Deep down, the minister says, people feel good. A remarkable sentence. It assumes that people are mistaken about their own situation. That rising prices, rising rents, and declining security are a kind of illusion that disappears once someone with the right title says otherwise. A government that tells its citizens they are feeling wrong - that is not a communication problem. That is a reality problem. Because this logic shifts the focus away from conditions and onto those living under them. The situation is not questioned, the perception of those who live it is. If you feel bad, you are wrong. If you doubt, you have not read the numbers. If you have read them and still doubt, you are ungrateful.
And yet the picture is so clear that it hardly requires glasses. When households have less room to maneuver, when groceries and fuel become more expensive and jobs less secure, no good feeling emerges. Pressure does. And pressure does not disappear just because someone on television smiles and suggests listening more closely to your inner self. The real question is therefore not why people doubt. The question is why a government treats that doubt like a system error that can be fixed with a software update. Or whether it already sees the doubt and has decided to speak past it anyway - in the hope that repetition will eventually replace reality.
Between statement and everyday life, a gap opens that grows with every interview. And at some point, the question is no longer about the economy. It is about who is still listening to whom. The minister speaks. People calculate. And in between, the silence grows louder.
