Right?

‘If you agree to everything we want and nothing you want… that’s the kind of deal we can get behind!’

Unless the goal is to help Peter Thiel demolish the remainder of the free press, paying those men millions in libel lawsuit money would be more stupid than brave.

https://archive.is/SV9HY

Scroll down. Archive.today can archive things other services can’t. That’s why Wikipedia was in a panic about the verifiability crisis removing their 700 000 links would cause. Most can’t be replaced.

Okay, I’m just gonna explain where I’m at with this right now and why.

This isn’t a huge issue for this community but for our hard news discussion communities, abandoning archive.today would instantly make a large amount of news inaccessible (probably 1/3 or more, but that’s just a guess) to the vast majority. It could limit being fully informed to those with means. That would suck. It’s a real harm.

We’re in agreement that archive.today is problematic. We really need a working alternative. The ddos attack is shitty and immature. It’s a betrayal of trust. However, the victim stated in the Ars article you linked to that this hasn’t really had any discernible impact on them. So for now it’s a theoretical harm (and an abhorrent practice) vs a real harm.

For me, as it stands now, I’ll use alternatives where I can and use archive.today where I can’t because I care a lot about that harm. I’ll be ecstatic when a real alternative emerges. Like Wikipedia fell into different camps, we’re probably similar. I respect that you come down on this differently, but that’s where I’m at with this.

You know that’s not a real alternative. I wish it was – it’d make all of this a hell of a lot easier to navigate. But it just isn’t.

Thanks!

I’d take an alternative if you’ve got one. Otherwise, unless there’s a serious change for the worse, I’m probably going to keep posting them. Sorry!

I wasn’t attacking you. You took issue with the language used and I didn’t understand why. Still don’t – it seems like a common way to describe a common occurrence to me – but you don’t have to explain it if you don’t want to.

https://archive.is/fELBv

I dunno, seems like a perfectly fine way to describe what he was doing. What’s your issue with it?

He wasn’t diversifying trade in his speech at Davos, even if that was ultimately his goal.

The craziest thing, that isn’t actually mentioned in the article, is that not a single person out of 23 voted to indict. Not one.

Soups are really forgiving. You just need a stock pot. When I’d worry about a soup I was making, a chef friend of mine used to say, “it’s a soup- you could put your butt in it and it would turn out fine!” I wouldn’t take that as advice though.

Just buy stock/broth. Some benefits are:

• super nutritious

• very easy to make a lot to eat over time

• you don’t need to do a ton of fine knife work

• water limits your cooking temp to 100C, so it’s much harder to mess it up through overcooking/burning

• easy to start simple and add complexity as you level up. It’ll still be super tasty at every stage.

The case of the posthumous video games:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/epstein-fortnite/

The official @FortniteStatus X account, responding to another user, posted (archived) on Feb. 6 that a user changed their name to littlestjeff1 after the name surfaced in the Epstein files, saying in part, “Hey Official Fortnite here - this was a ruse by a Fortnite player. A few days ago, an existing Fortnite account owner changed their username from something totally unrelated to littlestjeff1, following the revelation of littlestjeff1 as a name on YouTube.”

The post also said none of Epstein’s email addresses listed in the public-facing case files exist in the game’s account system.

The case of the day-before-email:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2026/02/10/epstein-press-release-aug-10/

From a DOJ spokesperson:

Official statements regarding the death of Jeffrey Epstein were edited and circulated over several email chains within the Southern District of New York beginning August 10, 2019. While initial drafts of the statement list the previous date, this was merely an unfortunate typo that was later updated to reflect the correct date before being publicized. Any suggestion that the Department drafted a statement in advance of Jeffrey Epstein’s death is false.

Also:

Searches for the Aug. 10 news release revealed correspondence between FBI staff on Aug. 10 about what appeared to be the finished news release that Biase sent. Searches of the DOJ’s database did not reveal records of DOJ, U.S. attorney’s office or FBI staff discussing the versions of the news release dated Aug. 9, suggesting it wasn’t circulated internally or externally in the DOJ before Epstein’s death.

Original:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/28/us/politics/judge-minnesota-ice-court-orders.html