You’d better believe I put a terrible pun in that headline.
It’s true, though. As Avengers: Endgame continues to make a boatload of money (I did it again), a major record has fallen. James Cameron’s Titanic has been the second-biggest global box office money maker of all time since 2009 — and it was #1 before that, going all the way back to 1997.
Now it’s in third-place. Weekend estimates for Endgame bring the total global box office for Marvel’s latest up to $2.188 billion, just a hair ahead of Titanic‘s $2.187 billion. And even if the estimate turns out to be off — sometimes these things happen — Titanic‘s long-standing record is doomed.
Endgame hit theaters in the last week of April and this is only its second full weekend in release. The estimate would have to be too high and people would need to simply stop seeing it all together for Titanic‘s second-place record to stand. Even an IRL Thanos snap couldn’t halt that momentum.
The next, and really final, mountain for Endgame to climb is Avatar. The 2009 sci-fi adventure from James Cameron isn’t remembered with much fondness in 2019 pop culture, but it does hold the distinction of being the biggest worldwide moneymaker of all time at the box office.
The new number for Endgame to beat is $2.788 billion, or $600 million more than it has now. Given the speed of its success so far, there’s every reason to think that Avatar‘s record is toast, and that Endgame is on track to earn the first $3 billion box office in Hollywood history.
Avatar owes much of its success to timing. Cameron built the largely-CG movie from the ground up to look its best in the most cutting edge 3D of that time. The emphasis on 3D meant that a larger proportion of moviegoers than usual bought pricey tickets for the premium viewing experience. That inflated the box office in turn.
It’s also worth mentioning: while it’s true that Avatar hasn’t really lingered in the public consciousness, it was big stuff back in 2009 and 2010. It managed to score an 82% “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes and its audience score is identical.
There’s a well-documented history of stops and starts on Cameron’s sequel attempts — so much so that it’s become something of a joke — but don’t undervalue the importance of Avatar in Hollywood’s modern past. It’s not the forgotten relic some would make it out to be.
The Toronto Raptors acquired Kawhi Leonard last summer to raise their playoff ceiling.
Leonard’s done his part.
The Raptors star had 39 points and 14 rebounds and Marc Gasol added 16 points, leading Toronto to a 101-96 win over the Philadelphia 76ers in Game 4 on Sunday. The best-of-seven series is tied 2-2 going back to Toronto.
Leonard turned in yet another sterling performance but did not get much help. Kyle Lowry finished with 14 points and seven assists, struggling down the stretch after a strong start. Pascal Siakam, who was dealing with a calf contusion, had nine points on 2-of-10 shooting in his worst performance of the postseason.
The Raptors won thanks in large part to quiet games from Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons. Embiid was almost a nonexistent factor on the offensive end with 11 points and seven rebounds. It’s the third time in four games Embiid has been held under 20 points.
Simmons scored 10 points, adding five rebounds and four assists.
With 10,000 lies to his name, Donald Trump is a pro at putting out false or misleading information. Unfortunately, many of the people who are tasked with informing the public are inadvertently helping him do just that.
A new study from the journalism watchdog organization Media Matters for America (MMFA) has found that news outlets frequently amplify Trump’s falsehoods by putting uncontested Trump claims that haven’t been fact-checked in tweets.
For example, an outlet will tweet out something like “President Trump says the Russia investigation was a ‘coup’,” rather than something like “President Trump falsely claims that the Russia investigation was a ‘coup.’”
How frequently does this occur, precisely? According to the study, 35 percent of the time, major media outlets amplify, rather than report and contest, a false Trump statement — that’s an average of 19 times per day.
Spreading lies helps cement them as facts.
Image: media matters for america
These findings are concerning even when the Trump claims are refuted in the body of articles because readers often read tweets (and headlines) rather than full articles. So when a media outlet merely reports on the statement in a tweet or headline, that could be the sum of the reader’s understanding — thereby propagating Trump’s lies.
The study examined over 2,000 tweets sent out from 32 Twitter accounts belonging to major news outlets. All tweets were sent between January 26 and February 15, the period of time from the end of the 2018 federal shutdown to the final agreement, and Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the border.
Of all the tweets about Trump’s statements, 30 percent referenced something he said that was false and misleading. Of those tweets, 35 percent did not refute the false statement. That’s a total of 407 tweets that amplified, rather than corrected, Trump’s misinformation — an overall average of 19 tweets per day during that stretch of time.
The outlets analyzed included wire services like the Associated Press and Reuters, network outlets and television shows like NBC and ABC, newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post, and online publications like Politico and The Hill. The Washington Post had the best track record, simultaneously reporting on and correcting Trump’s statements, 89 percent of the time. The Hill was the biggest offender, repeating Trump’s false claims with no correction 88 percent of the time.
Of course, only 8 percent of Americans are on Twitter (based on Twitter’s most recent user numbers). But the tweets these outlets send could reflect how they’re presenting the news in headlines and elsewhere. That’s concerning since research has shown that reading headlines and social media, not full stories, is a common way people get their news; one recent study from the American Press Institute found that, in the past week, 60 percent of Americans had not delved deeper into a story than the headlines.
This means that, through the power of repetition, not only might media outlets be helping Trump spread lies — they could be cementing those lies as truth in the minds of readers.
Deion Sanders received the key to the city in Fort Myers, Florida, on Saturday, and the Hall of Fame cornerback used the occasion to make amends with his hometown.
Sanders gave a heartfelt speech upon receiving the honor, per the Fort Myers News-Press‘ Melissa Montoya:
“This is long overdue. This is like a reconciliation for me. The reason it hurt so bad was because I don’t give a damn what they say about me in Dallas, Atlanta, San Francisco, New York. I don’t care because it was my job. … When you talk about me, some things I let slide, but you are all family. You only get one shot at calling the place home. …
“I apologize to you as well. You have no idea what you all did to me this particular weekend. The best is yet to come.”
David Dorsey of the News-Press highlighted the sources for some of the past friction between Sanders and the city of Fort Myers. Local police arrested him twice—the first in 1988 while he was playing for Florida State, and the second in 1996.
“Those incidents, among others, have soured Sanders on his hometown,” Dorsey wrote.
The eight-time Pro Bowler also grew frustrated when negotiations to help build affordable housing in Fort Myers fell through.
Dorsey also noted Fort Myers hadn’t officially recognized Sanders’ legendary football career by featuring his likeness on local billboards or naming a street in his honor.
Perhaps that can change now that the two sides have worked out their differences.
Brunei‘s sultan has extended a moratorium on the death penalty to new laws prohibiting gay sex and adultery after a global backlash against the punishments.
The announcement on Sunday was Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah’s first public comments on the new penal code since it fully entered into force last month.
The laws, based on Brunei’s interpretation of Islamic laws or sharia, introduced stoning to death for sodomy, rape and adultery, amputation of hands and feet for thieves, and public flogging for abortion.
The controversial measures, which the UN condemned as “cruel and inhuman”, prompted celebrities and rights groups to seek a boycott on hotels owned by the sultan, including the Dorchester in London and the Beverley Hills Hotel in Los Angeles.
Several multinational companies also put a ban on staff using the sultan’s hotels, while some travel companies stopped promoting Brunei as a tourist destination.
Bolkiah, in a televised address ahead of the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, said he was “aware that there are many questions and misperceptions with regard to the implementation” of the new penal code.
“As evident for more than two decades, we have practised a de facto moratorium on the execution of death penalty for cases under the common law,” he said.
“This will also be applied to cases under the [Islamic penal code], which provides a wider scope for remission.”
Convention against torture
Muslim-majority Brunei operates a dual-track legal system with civil courts operating alongside sharia courts that handle issues such as marital and inheritance cases.
Some crimes already command the death penalty in Brunei, including premeditated murder and drug trafficking, but no executions have been carried out since the 1990s.
The sultan’s comments suggest this will not change with the introduction of the new harsh laws.
Bolkiah – one of the world’s wealthiest men – also vowed Brunei would ratify the UN convention against torture which it signed several years ago.
The sultan first announced plans for the Islamic penal code in 2013.
The first section was introduced in 2014 and included less stringent penalties, such as fines or jail terms for offences including indecent behaviour or skipping Friday prayers.
But the introduction of the harsher punishments in the former British protectorate of about 400,000 people was repeatedly delayed after they sparked criticism.
The sultan’s office released an official English translation of his speech, which is not common practice.
He said the aim of both the common law and the Islamic law were “to ensure peace and harmony of the country”.
“They are also crucial in protecting the morality and decency of the country as well as the privacy of individuals,” he added.
Game of Thrones is ending. But there’s still plenty to talk about — and that’s what we’re going to highlight every Sunday until the final episode airs.
The battle of Winterfell is now officially in the rearview. The White Walker threat is extinguished, the bodies have been counted, and attention is now turning to the south. Cersei Lannister is still there, safely ensconced in King’s Landing, and she’s still a traitorous snake.
With the White Walkers defeated — or so everyone thinks, for now — we’re in uncharted territory. In the north we have the combined forces of Westeros gathered together but also, presumably, severely weakened after the devastating battle of Winterfell. And in the south, Cersei has her whole, still-fresh army along with Euron Greyjoy’s Iron Fleet.
That’s not even mentioning the dragons of it all. We don’t know if both are still alive, but you’d think even just one would be more than enough to guarantee victory for those who stand against Cersei. But that’s not likely with three entire episodes left in the series.
Now that you’re all caught up, let’s see where the conversation is at.
Defeated or not, the White Walkers are still a major conversation in the Game of Thrones scene. Show creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are a big reason why that’s the case; in a post-battle of Winterfell appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live, the duo refused to say if the White Walkers are actually done.
Of course that’s how they’re going to respond with so few episodes left, but the lack of a definitive “yes, they’re finished” does at least suggest there’s more story to be told on the White Walker front. Thankfully, The Hollywood Reporter‘s Josh Wigler dove deep to investigate.
“For the first time this year, it’s hard to predict what’s going to happen, and that’s genuinely exciting.”
Go back to the Night King’s introduction, in the Season 4 episode “Oathkeeper.” For fans of the books and the show both, it was a first-ever look at this distant threat from beyond the wall. We saw the Night King and his cronies gathered around Craster’s baby, and watched as that baby’s eyes turned a familiar shade of blue under the Night King’s touch.
Wigler presents a scenario where that baby and all of the other infant sacrifices Craster offered up are some kind of “fail-safe” for the White Walkers. In this read, the threat from beyond the wall hasn’t been defeated, just delayed. And you can bet that any fail-safe cooked up by the Night King is something that should worry everyone in Westeros.
There’s also still the unresolved issue of Jon Snow’s lineage. As he told Daenerys Targaryen in the moments before the battle of Winterfell began, she’s actually his aunt. And more to the point, Jon is technically the one, true heir to the throne, Aegon Targaryen.
A Saturday article from Perry Carpenter for Cheat Sheet posits that we’re barreling headlong into a showdown between the two Targaryens. The Iron Throne has been Dany’s main pursuit for most of this series, and she’s not likely to let it go just because.
Further, Jon is a child of the north and a known quantity to all the peoples situated between King’s Landing and the Wall. Dany is a dragon-allied outsider who arrived as an invader. She’s not going to be winning any local popularity contests.
Finally, Carpenter points out that one of the most widely derided strategic decisions of the Winterfell throwdown — the Dothraki cavalry serving as a disposable front-line force — might not be the mistake it looked like. What if gambling Dothraki lives up front was part of a larger plan to weaken Dany in a post-White Walker world?
Whatever happens between Dany and Jon, they still have a big problem to deal with down south. Cersei screwed them over and they can’t be thrilled about it. Now that imminent death by an undead army has been averted, all eyes turn to King’s Landing. Will Cersei’s lack of elephants be the difference-maker in the end?
Image: Helen sloan / hbo
Writing for Thrillist, Esther Zuckerman points out that the hanging question — not about elephants, but rather “who will actually win this thing?” — is so important to our viewing experience at home. “The first three installments of the final season chugged along to the big fight with a grim inevitability,” Zuckerman wrote. “Now, for the first time this year, it’s hard to predict what’s going to happen, and that’s genuinely exciting.”
She’s right. One of the big complaints about Game of Thrones final season so far is the pace. You can debate the individual merits of the first three episodes all you want, but the fact is that three out of the series’ absolutely final episodes focused almost entirely on one region of Westeros and the conflict that unfolded there.
It was a massive confrontation, obviously, and one that brought together a huge chunk of the main cast. But we’ve still been laser-focused on WINTERFELL VS. ZOMBIES to the point that all else has fallen by the wayside. Now, with the fourth episode, we should hopefully, finally see all of the dangling plot threads start to take shape in a way that leads to the conclusion.
As Zuckerman points out, Cersei’s always been a wild card behind the scenes. We know she’s got this big fleet of warships on her side and we know she’s taken steps to have her two brothers, Jaime and Tyrion, snuffed out. Imagine what we’ll learn with episode four.
The four major wireless telecommunication companies in the U.S. have just been hit with massive class action lawsuit.
The suit claims that AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile all violated customers’ privacy by sharing their data to third party brokers. In turn, these brokers would then sell the data to bounty hunters, bail bondsmen, debt collectors, and middlemen.
The complaint alleges that the four biggest U.S. mobile carriers violated federal communications law by sharing phone numbers, geolocation data, and other account information. The class action covers approximately 300 million customers ranging from April 30, 2015 and February 15, 2019 spread out between the four companies.
The data selling practice was brought to light earlier in 2019 through an investigation by Motherboard. The report detailed how a bounty hunter was able to track a phone’s location with nothing more than a phone number through third-party services that receive real-time data directly from the telecommunication companies. Motherboard paid a $300 fee for the data.
Following the report, 15 U.S. Senators called on the FCC and FTC to conduct an investigation into the four companies and the data selling practice.
The lawsuits were filed against Z Law, which bills itself as a “consumer protection law firm.” Lawyers are seeking unspecified damages which will be determined at trial.
The new threat follows Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer’s trip last week to Beijing for negotiations. | Andy Wong, Pool/AP Photo
President Donald Trump on Sunday revived a threat to impose a 25 percent tariff on essentially all Chinese goods in order to prod Beijing into moving more quickly to reach a trade deal.
“The Trade Deal with China continues, but too slowly as they attempt to renegotiate. No!” Trump wrote on Twitter in what appeared to be sign that the two sides are still far apart on key issues.
Story Continued Below
The high-stakes moves comes as good economic news has pushed the U.S. stock market to some of the highest levels of Trump’s presidency.
However, the prospect of a further escalation of the trade conflict between the United States and China, instead of the deal that many were expecting, could roil markets in the days ahead.
The president has already imposed a 25 percent duty on $50 billion worth of Chinese high-tech goods, and a 10 percent duty on another $200 billion worth of Chinese products. That 10 percent had been scheduled to go to 25 percent at the end of last year, but Trump delayed that action to provide time for negotiations.
Now, Trump says he plans to raise the 10 percent duty to 25 percent on Friday because negotiations with Beijing are going too slowly. He also said he would “shortly” impose a 25 percent duty on another $350 billion worth of Chinese goods unless a deal was reached soon. U.S. imports from China last year totaled nearly $540 billion.
Neither the White House nor the Office of U.S. Trade Representative immediately provided any additional information to explain Trump’s statements on Twitter.
However, the new threat comes in between a set of high-level trade negotiations aimed at bringing the long-running negotiations to a close. The U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin traveled to Beijing last week for talks, and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He is expected in Washington this week.
The action caught officials at the U.S.-China Business Council off guard, but many of Trump’s moves in the talks with China have been hard for even veteran trade-watchers to anticipate.
“Could be Trump trying to increase leverage going into a potential last round or could be an indication that things aren’t going well on the outstanding items,” Erin Ennis, vice president at the USCBC, said in an email. “It’s hard to know if it was wishful thinking that negotiations would conclude this month, since we have never been given solid information about what is outstanding and how close or far [apart] the two sides are on those issues.”
Meanwhile, a broad coalition of retail, tech, manufacturing and agricultural groups under the banner Tariffs Hurt the Heartland condemned Trump’s threat.
“To be clear, tariffs are taxes that Americans pay, and this sudden increase with little notice will only punish U.S farmers, businesses and consumers,” the coalition said.
“If the President follows through on this threat, the consequences will be dire,” it added. “Raising tariffs to 25 percent could cost nearly one million American jobs, according to recent estimates. This decision will also roil financial markets and increase the likelihood of retaliation on American farmers who are facing the lowest income levels in years.”
Trump, in recent months, has been upbeat about the Chinese negotiations, telling reporters earlier this month that he could soon host President Xi Jinping of China for a summit to seal the deal. However, he has also held out the threat of raising tariffs if a deal between the world’s two largest economies can’t be reached.
China has responded to Trump’s tariffs by imposing duties on $110 billion worth of American products. Farmers have been hit particularly hard by that retaliation, along with seafood producers, chemical manufacturers and a number of other sectors.
U.S. industry officials also sounded optimistic about the talks last week, although they conceded in many key areas, like Chinese industrial subsidies and rules requiring electronic data to be stored locally, that they expected the deal to be weaker than they would like.
Myron Brilliant, an executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who gets regular briefings on the talks from U.S. and Chinese officials, told reporters on Thursday that the talks were “certainly in the endgame” and that 94.5 percent of issues were settled, according to his own estimate.
But, he said, the two sides were struggling to close the gap on several issues, including specifics on how the U.S. and China will roll back a portion of the tariffs that have already been imposed.
The two sides were also still divided on the extent to which China will open its market to U.S. cloud computing firms, as well as on other issues related to pharmaceutical intellectual property, approval of genetically modified crops and the extent to which Beijing will make good on a promise to buy significant amounts of U.S. energy and agricultural goods, Brilliant said.
China has also made commitments related to state subsidies at the national level and with respect to its Made in China 2025 initiative, which was initially targeted in the U.S. investigation, added Jeremie Waterman, head of the Chamber’s China center.
One of the remaining sticking points, however, was how much provincial and local governments would be required to increase subsidies that have risen substantially in recent years, he added.
Lowry 
LET’S GOOO
Daily Trends Hunter 