Aggregator

Money Mayweather is in a money mayday.

The "Top Gear" host hinted in a social media post that he had "somber" news.

The "Top Gear" host hinted in a social media post that he had "somber" news.

Chris Brown’s $90M dog attack lawsuit hit a snag after a juror’s internet search caused a mistrial, forcing a restart.

An Australian influencer shockingly bled out after twice refusing medical assistance during her unassisted home birth, a coroner’s inquest revealed Tuesday.

Fat Joe went on The Beat with Ari Melber to talk about his experience during Knicks fever. While Fat Joe was happy that the team he supported for most of his life was champions, what stuck with him most was how the championship brought New York together.

China Revives Heavy Naval Firepower With New 155mm Gun That "Could Support An Attack On Taiwan"

As modern naval combat increasingly relies on aircraft, missiles and unmanned systems, China is investing in a capability many navies have largely moved away from: heavy naval artillery, according to South China Morning Post.

Recent reports indicate that the PLA Navy is testing a new 155mm naval gun, a calibre larger than any main gun currently in active naval service. The weapon has been observed aboard the experimental vessel Wu Yunduo, which appears to have completed a round of sea trials near Dalian earlier this year. Such testing would typically assess accuracy, fire-control performance, platform stability and the weapon’s ability to sustain repeated firing under operational conditions.

The gun first attracted attention in 2024 when a prototype was photographed during transport. Information visible on the system suggested it was manufactured by Norinco, weighs nearly 22 tonnes and can fire precision-guided ammunition. Images released later showed the weapon installed on a test ship, with a turret design that appears intended to reduce radar visibility.

The SCMP writes that the project stands out because large-calibre naval guns have long been overshadowed by missiles and carrier aviation. For decades, navies have favoured weapons capable of striking targets far beyond the horizon with greater precision. As a result, ship guns have largely been relegated to supporting troops ashore or handling limited surface engagements.

China’s interest in reviving heavy naval gunfire appears closely tied to amphibious warfare. In any large-scale landing operation, sustained bombardment of coastal defences could be essential. Compared with missiles, naval artillery can deliver a much higher volume of fire at significantly lower cost, making it useful for suppressing defensive positions and supporting advancing forces.

Analysts note that a 155mm system would represent a substantial increase in capability over the PLA Navy’s existing 130mm guns carried by its most advanced destroyers. Depending on the ammunition used, the new weapon could potentially engage targets more than 100km away and perhaps even beyond 200km. Operating at such distances would require support from drones or other reconnaissance assets to locate targets, assess damage and correct fire.

Economics may be just as important as range. Precision missiles remain expensive, particularly when used against relatively low-value targets. A naval gun can provide sustained firepower at a fraction of the cost, making it attractive for coastal bombardment, suppression missions and prolonged operations. Additional savings could come from sharing ammunition and logistics with the PLA Army’s existing family of 155mm artillery systems, which already includes guided, rocket-assisted and extended-range projectiles.

The US Navy’s experience offers a contrasting example. Although its Zumwalt-class destroyers were equipped with 155mm guns, the programme struggled because specialised long-range ammunition became prohibitively expensive, ultimately leading to the guns’ replacement with missile-focused systems.

China has not revealed which ships may eventually carry the new weapon. Amphibious vessels are considered strong candidates because their current armament is relatively limited when it comes to shore bombardment. Installing a larger gun could significantly improve fire-support capabilities during expeditionary or landing operations.

The weapon may also have applications beyond attacking land targets. Military observers suggest it could be used against drone swarms, unmanned surface vessels and other emerging threats when paired with specialised ammunition. In lower-intensity missions, it could provide a cost-effective alternative to missiles for maritime patrol, anti-piracy operations, warning shots and the interception of non-compliant vessels.

While China continues to develop advanced technologies such as railguns and laser weapons, the new 155mm system reflects a more practical approach: enhancing naval firepower with a mature, proven technology that can be fielded relatively quickly and integrated into existing military logistics networks.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 22:10

As Los Angeles grapples with budget problems, a new report warns that the city's zoo may be heading toward a crisis of its own as membership withers and costs balloon.

The New York Sirens tied for the most players lost in expansion. Then, they got cross-checked by the PWHL.

Gavin Newsom is not above the law.

The "Shake Ya Ass" rapper has been held without bond in jail since 2022.

The "Shake Ya Ass" rapper has been held without bond in jail since 2022.

Billionaire Rick Jackson scored an upset victory in the Georgia governor’s race against Lt. Gov. Burt Jones (R), who was endorsed by both Gov. Brian Kemp and President Trump in the highly competitive runoff race Tuesday.

Are Banks More Powerful Than Governments?

Authored by Mollie Engelhart via The Epoch Times,

Government is big. Elected and unelected officials wield enormous amounts of power. But lately I have found myself wondering whether we are paying attention to the wrong institution.

What if the most powerful institutions in America are not governments at all?

What if they are banks and payment processors?

A few years ago, during COVID-19, a friend of mine owned a small shop in Northern California. It was the kind of place many young mothers loved. They sold raw milk, organic cotton sheets, natural baby products, books, toys, and healthy foods. It felt like an old-fashioned mercantile reimagined for modern families.

One day, she made a comment on social media praising CBD. I do not remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of, “Of course, we can raise children without CBD, but why would we want to?”

Whether you think CBD is wonderful or terrible is beside the point. The issue is not whether she was right. The issue is whether she had the right to say it.

Not long afterward, her credit card processing company terminated her account.

The company processing her payments had nothing to do with the social media platform where she made the comment. Yet somehow, a statement made on one platform became a problem for an entirely different company that controlled her ability to process payments.

The fallout was immediate. Roughly $30,000 was frozen. She struggled to make payroll. Because the company handled other operational functions as well, portions of her business became difficult to run. It took months of legal back and forth before she finally regained access to her own money.

When this happened, I called my own credit card processing representative. Before I could even finish explaining the situation, he knew exactly what I was talking about.

He told me he had been flooded with calls from businesses looking to switch processors because similar things were happening across the country. Businesses were scrambling to regain access to money they believed was theirs.

It was part of a broader pattern that many people have already forgotten.

During COVID-19, I lost count of the number of conferences, organizations, and educational programs that suddenly found themselves unable to process payments or fundraising. Then came the Canadian trucker protests. Regardless of where someone stood politically, a lot of people suddenly realized that modern power does not always arrive wearing a government uniform. Sometimes it arrives as an email informing you that access to financial services has been suspended.

What concerns me is that all of this happened before we have even become a truly cashless society.

Last weekend, I was in Austin speaking at an event for the Brownstone Institute. As I walked around the city, I noticed a surprising number of businesses no longer accepted cash.

The answers were remarkably consistent. Cash creates more work. Cash can be stolen. Cash requires counting. Cash requires bank deposits. Cash slows things down. Cash creates security concerns for employees.

These are all legitimate concerns. In fact, I understand them better than most people because I have lived them.

My brother owns restaurants in California and has chosen to operate cashless businesses. His reasoning is efficiency. Most business owners making these decisions are trying to reduce theft, simplify accounting, and protect employees. The incentives are understandable.

That is what makes this conversation so interesting.

Rarely do we lose freedom because someone announces they are taking it away. More often, we surrender small pieces of it because convenience, safety, and efficiency seem like fair trade-offs in the moment.

I found myself standing in one Austin business that displayed signs supporting inclusion, immigrant rights, and various social justice causes. I asked the young man behind the counter a simple question.

“If we are concerned about making society accessible to everyone, why require a bank account, a smartphone, a QR code, and a digital payment platform just to buy a cup of coffee?”

He looked genuinely surprised.

After thinking about it for a moment, he said, “Maybe you’re right.”

What struck me was not his answer. It was that the question had never occurred to him.

For all of our conversations about equity and access, we seem remarkably comfortable building systems that increasingly exclude anyone operating outside the banking system. Elderly people, recent immigrants, people who simply value privacy, and those who rely on cash all find themselves pushed a little further to the margins each year.

Most of us have enormous faith in the numbers displayed on our banking apps. We treat those numbers as though they are unquestionably ours, and most of the time they are.

But the people who had accounts frozen, payment processing terminated, or funds held during COVID-19 learned something the rest of us rarely think about. Access to your money increasingly depends on institutions you do not control.

We spent years arguing about who could post what online. Meanwhile, the institutions with the power to deny access to money received far less attention.

What is interesting is that while many businesses are moving away from cash, I am seeing people experiment with other forms of exchange.

At Sovereignty Ranch and The Barn, guests have paid in silver. We have accepted retreat deposits in silver coins. We have accepted festival sponsorships in silver. We also maintain cryptocurrency wallets and have accepted crypto payments.

Is it a large percentage of our business?

But it happens often enough that we added a silver calculator to our point-of-sale system and maintain the apps necessary to accept cryptocurrency.

People are quietly looking for options. Not because they necessarily distrust every bank or financial institution, but because they understand something previous generations understood instinctively. Resilience comes from having choices.

I am not arguing that cash is the only answer. In fact, I think there is value in preserving as many forms of voluntary exchange as possible.

A society with multiple ways to exchange value is more resilient than a society dependent on a single system.

What concerns me is not that people are using digital payments. I use them every day myself. What concerns me is that we are building a world where opting out becomes impossible.

The issue is not whether any particular form of money is perfect. The issue is whether we preserve enough alternatives that no single institution becomes the gatekeeper of economic life.

Because once every transaction requires an intermediary, power shifts. Once every purchase is digital, oversight becomes easier. Once every dollar exists inside systems controlled by institutions we did not elect, freedom begins to look a little different than we thought it did.

Maybe the most important lesson from those years is not about any particular company, politician, virus, or policy.

Freedom rarely disappears all at once. More often, it erodes through a series of reasonable justifications, emergencies, and conveniences.

Looking back, many of the things that happened during COVID-19 would have seemed unimaginable just a few years earlier. Yet they happened anyway.

That is why I think it is important that we do not forget.

Not because we should live in anger. Not because we should endlessly relitigate the past. But because freedom requires memory. The moment we forget what happened, we lose our ability to recognize it when it happens again.

We spend a great deal of time worrying about government power, and some of that concern is justified. But I increasingly wonder if we are overlooking institutions that possess just as much influence over our daily lives.

If an institution can freeze your money, deny your transactions, shut down your business, and exclude you from economic life, does it really matter whether that institution is a government agency or a financial corporation?

And if it does not, are banks actually the most powerful institutions in modern America?

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 21:45

Former first-round pick Joe Tryon-Shoyinka has retired from the NFL at 27.

They're shaking things up in their starting rotation. 

"There is just such a conflict in what's going on," a source said of the former couple's decade-long marriage.

"There is just such a conflict in what's going on," a source said of the former couple's decade-long marriage.

A heartbreaking tragedy in Oklahoma has left a 15-year-old girl brain dead after she participated in the lethal "Benadryl Challenge" sweeping social media, according to reports. 

The Jets inked the 2023 second-round pick to a four-year, $62 million extension that includes $31 million in guarantees, making him the 15th-highest-paid guard in the NFL.