₦airaland Forum

She was press secretary for literally 15 minutes.
The signs were already there that she wasn't cut for such a high profile intense pressure job.... In her first an last press briefing she was so nervous, head down avoid eye contact and only taking about 4 questions be abruptly ending the press briefing.
What is it with this administration always insisting on appointing incompetent individuals

1Alex:
For some time now, I have been trying to get serious training in Electric Vehicle (EV) diagnostics and, more importantly, high-voltage battery maintenance.

I am not looking for a two-day seminar where someone explains what an EV is, shows participants a battery and hands them a certificate. My interest is very specific. I want proper practical training in EV diagnostics, high-voltage safety, battery diagnostics, Battery Management Systems (BMS), battery pack dismantling and rebuilding, and fault finding.

I am a civil servant, and I know retirement will come one day. I want to acquire a practical technical skill that I can develop into a second career when that time comes.

The journey has been surprisingly frustrating.

I started by looking for training providers in Nigeria. One of the first organisations I investigated was AutoClinic. I initially became interested in their Ibadan EV training because the information I saw suggested that it was largely practical.

I sent emails.

Then I sent more emails.

I sent countless emails and received no response.

Eventually, I had to start making phone calls. That was when I discovered that the Ibadan centre did not actually offer the EV training I was looking for. I was eventually directed to their Abuja centre.

The Abuja centre was willing to provide high-voltage battery maintenance training and sent me its course information. The cost was around ₦1.3 million.

However, after studying the course content carefully, I was not completely satisfied that it matched the type of specialist training I wanted. I am not interested in spending more than ₦1 million simply because I am desperate to get trained.

So I started looking outside Nigeria.

India became interesting because EV training there appeared considerably cheaper. I investigated several training providers, including DIYguru, and went through several rounds of communication and price negotiations. At one point, the price came down to around $1,000.

But again, I had concerns about the practical component, the payment arrangement and exactly what I would be getting for my money. I wanted to verify everything before committing my money, even going as far as contacting the relevant Indian authorities.

I continued searching.

Then I thought that before spending money to travel abroad, I should exhaust the opportunities available in Nigeria, especially because the Nigerian government has been talking about electric vehicles and the need to develop local technical skills.

That brought me to the National Automotive Design and Development Council (NADDC) and the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE).

I discovered that Nigeria actually has National Occupational Standards for the operation and maintenance of electric vehicles. The National Board for Technical Education's database lists Electric Vehicles Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4, while its Technical and Vocational Education and Training application system lists Operation and Maintenance of Electric Vehicles as a training area.

This gave me some hope.

I also found out that the National Automotive Design and Development Council has an Automotive Training Centre in Ikorodu, Lagos.

Since I am in Lagos, I contacted the Ikorodu centre.

Unfortunately, I was told that they do not offer EV training.

That was disappointing, but I decided to move on to the National Board for Technical Education because it is the federal agency responsible for regulating Technical and Vocational Education and Training institutions in Nigeria. Its Department of Vocational, Technical and Skills Development is responsible for areas including technical trades, national skills qualifications and skills centres.

I found a telephone number for the National Board for Technical Education and called.

The first number responded that the number was "not in existence."

I found another number and called.

The response was "I am not allowed to call the number."

I found a National Board for Technical Education SERVICOM number and called.

The response was "the called number doesn't have the facility to receive calls."

At that point, I honestly did not know whether to laugh or get angry.

This is the part of trying to acquire new technical skills in Nigeria that is extremely frustrating.

On paper, we have the policies.

We have the programmes.

We have the National Occupational Standards.

We have government agencies responsible for technical education.

We have institutions listed as having approved programmes.

Nigeria even has an official EV training framework that goes as far as Level 4.

But when an ordinary Nigerian who genuinely wants to acquire the skill tries to find out where he can actually register for practical training, the process becomes unnecessarily difficult.

You send emails and receive no response.

You call telephone numbers and they don't work.

You call another number and you are told you are not allowed to call it.

You call another government contact and you are told that the number cannot receive calls.

How are we supposed to develop a technically skilled workforce this way?

I am not asking the government to give me a job.

I am not asking for millions of naira.

I am simply trying to find out where I can obtain proper practical EV training in Nigeria.

I have also completed training in cybersecurity because I have been trying to prepare myself for the future. But competing with young boys and girls for internship positions in cybersecurity is not funny.

You complete the training, obtain certificates and then discover that many entry-level opportunities expect you to start from the bottom and compete with much younger people who can spend several years building their careers.

That is one reason I am seriously considering EV technology. I want to acquire a practical skill where my existing work experience, maturity and ability to learn can still be useful.

I am willing to learn.

I am willing to pay for good training.

I am willing to start from the basics where necessary.

But there has to be a clear pathway to the training.

We keep hearing that electric vehicles are the future. We hear about the need to prepare Nigerian technicians for the transition from internal-combustion vehicles to electric vehicles. We hear about developing local technical capacity.

But someone who genuinely wants to acquire the skill can spend weeks simply trying to find out where the training is actually taking place.

My biggest frustration is not even the cost anymore.

It is the difficulty in getting reliable information from the institutions that are supposed to provide that information.

If a government agency does not offer the training, that is understandable. Simply tell the person where the training is available.

If the programme is only available in another state, tell the person.

If the person is not eligible, explain the requirements.

If there is no funding, say so.

But leaving people to send countless unanswered emails and call telephone numbers that don't work is extremely discouraging.

Maybe someone on Nairaland knows something I don't know.

I am looking for serious, practical EV training in Nigeria, particularly training that covers high-voltage systems, battery diagnostics, Battery Management Systems (BMS), EV fault diagnosis and, eventually, battery repair and rebuilding.

Not a seminar.

Not just theory.

Not a two-day introduction to EVs.

I mean genuine hands-on technical training.

If anyone knows an institution currently offering this type of training, please share.

At this point, I am ready to explore any credible option.

Because honestly, this journey has been frustrating enough.

NBTE handles a lot of those vocational training at little or no cost

This will sound smart to the uninformed but it's really nothing but word salad...
I'll explain later

Rinse this pathetic filth in a bowl of acid

BuyMeBanger:
They need to accept they will NEVER be that kind of country that attracts mass western tourism(which is what they crave like China does) till they compromise on alcohol, sexual preferences and gender rights etc

Exactly 😂. You can build The Line, artificial ski resorts and whatever else money can buy, but you can't engineer mass tourism by pouring billions into infrastructure. People also need to actually want to spend their holidays there.

Until Saudi figures out that tourism isn't just about skyscrapers and luxury resorts, but also about the social freedoms and lifestyle tourists expect, they'll keep building expensive monuments to an imaginary tourist market. 🤣

Saudi have been cancelling most of their outlandish mega projects left and right and that's after spending unbelievable amount already on these projects that can only be conceived during a psycho drug induced fever dream 🤣🤣🤣

That's what you get when you have only yes men around you who are too afraid to say no to your every whimp... Crown Prince is surely learning the hard way.
From Neo city, The Line etc🤣🤣🤣
Imagine trying to build a ski resort in the middle of the desert... No be juju be that 🤣

Real definition of third world country 🤣🤣🤣🤣

From the comments so far I'm glad people are catching up to this B's and calling it out.
Burkina Faso is and still remains the poorest country in the Sahel.
With little or nothing to offer

Before the morning rush begins, the sound of praise and worship fills the Neoplan bus station in Ghana's capital, Accra, as a group of Christians gather to prepare to evangelise on vehicles taking travellers across the country.

Amid drumming and dancing, Boateng Bismark James leads 13 worshippers, nine men and four women, in prayer for drivers and passengers travelling to destinations across Ghana.

Ghana is a predominantly Christian country where preaching on public transport is widespread.

On long-distance buses, pastors can often be seen - and heard - preaching the gospel.

Sometimes they stand in the stairwell next to the driver, at others they walk up and down the aisle reading from the Bible and calling on sinners to repent at the tops of their voices. They do not stop even if the trip lasts for several hours.

The faithful sometimes offer money to the preachers to support their endeavours.

But a new law means this familiar practice could be coming to an end.

Anyone found preaching in public service vehicles faces up to eight months in prison, a fine of up to $52 (£39) or both.

The new regulation, passed by parliament in May, and which has started to be enforced in recent weeks, targets preaching and hawking on vehicles while they are in motion, classifying both as a nuisance and citing the safety and comfort of passengers.

Boateng, a 61-year-old pastor at Gospel Light church, has been preaching on commercial vehicles leaving Neoplan station since 2023.

"I preach on commercial vehicles because not everyone is able to go to church on Sunday. There are a lot of passengers who need our message of salvation to repent from their sins. We even heal the sick on some buses," he told the BBC in Twi, a local language.

Wearing a clerical collared shirt, Boateng moves through rows of buses loading passengers before boarding one bound for Kumasi, Ghana's second-largest city.

We speak to him before the bus departs to avoid breaking the law.

Some travellers listen closely as he delivers his message. Others try to ignore him, browsing their phones, making calls or chatting among themselves.

"Some passengers are very happy with my message. Some even say they have never heard the message in church, but through my preaching they now know it is in the Bible," he says.

The new rules have divided opinion.

Critics say preaching on moving vehicles is a nuisance and a safety risk, as it could distract the driver, while supporters argue that evangelism is a Christian duty and should be protected under the freedom of religious worship.

One woman in her early 30s, who wishes to be identified as Chery Lokko, says she prefers to travel in peace.

''I don't like it because they are a nuisance. Some of them spit saliva on you unconsciously, especially if you are seated not far from them, and they are a nuisance in terms of noise and saliva. I like my peace whenever I'm on public transport.''

In one video widely shared on social media recently, a passenger on a minibus is seen angrily confronting a pastor attempting to board.

"Get down, I say get down," he shouts.

But in this devout country, ranked among the most religious in the world, others say evangelism on public transport is an important way of reaching people who may not attend church.

Bernice Nartey, a passenger travelling to Kumasi, says pastors should be allowed to preach, but only with passengers' consent.

"The preaching sometimes helps people to repent. For instance, if someone is going through a stressful situation, the message of the pastor can give the person renewed hope," she says.

Boateng says he was shaken by the regulation and wants religious preachers to be given an exemption.

"We are very worried, because most pastors here depend on preaching to take care of their families through the monetary gifts offered by passengers," he says.

"The government should allow us to preach on the buses and alight when it is exiting Accra," he adds.

For Boateng, preaching is not only a religious calling but also an important source of income.

"I have been able to take care of my children's education. My last-born just completed university, and half of the financial support came from money I got from preaching."

Ghana's constitution guarantees freedom of religion, although those rights are subject to considerations including public safety.

Preaching on commercial buses was first prohibited in Ghana in 2012, with offenders facing up to 30 days in prison.

But enforcement was weak and so the practice remained common, particularly on buses. The new law beefs up the penalties for those that flout the ban.

Preachers using megaphones can also often be seen and heard at Ghana's lorry parks and markets but they are not affected by the ban.

The Christian Council of Ghana did not respond to the BBC's request for a comment but Rev Enoch Paul Hayes, a senior pastor at one of the biggest churches in Ghana, the International Central Gospel Church, tells the BBC he does not think the new rules infringe on religious freedom.

He urges his fellow pastors not to break the law, saying they should find other ways of spreading their message.

"There is social media as an alternative outlet, where the same message can reach thousands of people," he says.

For Boateng and other bus preachers, the new rules create a difficult choice between adapting their ministry, giving up an important source of income, or risking falling foul of the law.
[url]Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwnvln99v2ygo[/url]

lol this is the type of celebrity event i'm in for

The headlines coming out of South Africa recently have been pretty grim. Whether they're about unemployment, inflation, or one of the various ongoing corruption scandals, there doesn't seem to be much cause for celebration. And now, adding fuel to the fire, the country is gripped by a problem that only seems to be growing in its power and sophistication, organized crime. The issue is so widespread that the president himself, Cyril Ramaphosa, while giving his annual state of the nation address in February, said, quote, "Organized crime is now the most immediate threat to our democracy, our society, and our economic development." So, in this video, we're going to take a closer look at the issues currently plaguing South Africa, before assessing what all of this means for the country's politics.

A Dysfunctional Economy
So, perhaps a good place to start here is South Africa's dysfunctional economy, which is both a symptom and cause of its crime problem. GDP growth has been pretty meager in recent years, averaging at slightly less than 1% a year since the pandemic. This might not sound that bad, but it means that, on a per capita basis, GDP is at best flat, if not shrinking a bit, given South Africa's population is currently growing by about 1.1% a year. At the same time, inflation has persistently come in at above the central bank's targets of 3%. Lots of this is down to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Much like other countries in Africa, the resulting oil shock exposed the country's vulnerabilities as an oil-importing, transit-intensive economy, mainly through higher oil and refined fuel prices, increased freight costs, and insurance costs. This has resulted in higher inflation, which has invited more restrictive monetary policy from the central bank.

The Jobs Crisis
Furthermore, these macro numbers arguably can quite how bad things have got for your average South African. Consider the country's job crisis for instance, which was badly exacerbated by the pandemic. Today, South Africa's unemployment rate stands at 33.6% one of the world's highest with 8.5 million people out of work. The numbers are much worse for young people with nearly two out of three unable to find a job. It's hard to overstate quite how bad this is. In developed economies, when people talk about an unemployment crisis, they're usually talking about an unemployment rate in the high single digits.

Extreme Inequality
South Africa's other major problem is inequality. The huge gap between South Africa's richest and poorest has earned it the title of the most unequal country in the world according to the World Inequality Lab. The point we're trying to make is that South Africa's economy is really incredibly dysfunctional with basically zero economic mobility and most of the money going to top earners. The combination of poverty, the world's most extreme inequality gap, and a tolerance for violence and social unrest dating back to apartheid have contributed to the proliferation of organized crime.

Organized Crime Across Industries
Of course, this has been a problem for a long time now. Almost every sector and industry in South Africa has long been infiltrated by some form of organized crime from construction and water to the taxi and hospital industries. The World Bank estimates that crime cost South Africa at least 10% of GDP a year in stolen property, protection costs, and missed economical opportunities. It should come as little surprise then that South Africa ranks seventh from bottom out of all 193 UN member states on the Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime Index. According to the index, the only countries outside of South and Central America with a worse crime problem than South Africa are Myanmar, which is basically in a state of civil war right now, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Private Security Boom
This is why one of South Africa's most flourishing industries, especially in richer parts of the country, has been the private security sector. Over the past couple of decades, the sector has developed into one of the world's largest, most innovative, and most competitive. It's experienced more than 400% growth in active workers since 1997 and an almost 86% increase in registered firms since 2014. In 1997, there were around 115,000 active private security personnel in South Africa. In 2026, that number has risen to more than 600,000. For comparison, the South African Police Service or SAPS has roughly 148,000 sworn officers, while the military has roughly 69,000 active uniformed personnel. This means that private security personnel outnumber those of the SAPS and military combined by roughly a factor of three.

The Medlanga Commission
Anyway, while organized crime has always been a problem in South Africa, in the past year or so, it's really become the center of public attention. This really began in September 2025 with a massive televised public inquiry into South Africa's criminal justice system, which has since raised serious doubts about whether the country can actually get organized crime under control. Known as the Medlanga Commission, the inquiry was prompted by shocking allegations made last year by a provincial police chief that criminal cartels had infiltrated law enforcement, judicial, and political arenas.
At the heart of the allegations of Vusi Khekhe Mkhonza, an alleged mobster who is currently facing 25 criminal charges, including attempted murder. Throughout the hearings, Mkhonza has been accused of buying off officers with presents and money to help him buy influence and get police contracts. This includes allegations that the now suspended police minister and member of the ANC, Senzo Mchunu, was receiving campaign money from Mkhonza to fund his political endeavors. So far, the Medlanga Commission's work has led to the departure of Mchunu, the police commissioner, his deputy, the head of the police's organized crime unit, and the lawyer leading the anti-corruption division within the National Prosecuting Authority.

Turmoil in the Police Force
This has obviously caused much chaos in the police sector, especially as crimes are still very much erupting in the country. Just last weekend, two separate mass shootings, just hours apart, left at least 27 people dead. Shortly after the news broke, the country's biggest opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, made sure to denounce the instability within the police force, calling on the president to appoint a permanent police minister with a clear plan to stabilize the South African Police Service and reinforce crime intelligence.

The Toll on the ANC
Unsurprisingly, this has all taken a toll on the ANC, Nelson Mandela's former liberation party. The party gained power in 1994 in the country's first democratic election since the end of apartheid and has enjoyed a majority of the vote in every election for the following three decades. But, their vote share peaked in 2004, which is roughly when the economy began to stagnate and they lost their majority in the 2024 general election. Recent polling suggests that things are still going downhill. A poll by Ipsos from early September, for instance, put the ANC on just 31% of the popular vote, down nine points from their result in 2024 and only six points ahead of the Democratic Alliance. If the current government can't get a handle on organized crime, it could plausibly become the final nail in the ANC's coffin.

Let me get something straight here: you had a secret and sensitive meeting with power brokers who want to remain anonymous yet the very next thing you do after said meeting is to come online and talk about it

Africa's richest man, Nigerian businessman Aliko Dangote, is about to get a whole lot richer thanks to his massive oil refinery on the outskirts of Nigeria's former capital, Lagos. And unlike most other people, companies, or countries around the world, he has the Iran war to thank for that.

On Monday, Dangote launched Africa's biggest ever initial public offering, or IPO, for Dangote Petroleum Refinery, the official name for the huge plant, hoping to raise $1.6 billion at a valuation of nearly $50 billion. Dangote himself has dubbed the offer of a roughly 3% stake the people's IPO, saying the goal is to democratize wealth creation.

The reason Dangote has leaned into that marketing is because retail investors can buy a 10-share bundle for just 5,250 naira, or about $4, a price point deliberately set so that ordinary Nigerians, not just institutions, can own a piece of it.

Now, even though that pricing is relatively accessible, retail investors are still paying a higher price than institutional investors, who bought into a private placement in July that raised $2.5 billion for a 6% stake. That private placement valued the company at $40 billion, whereas the IPO puts the valuation closer to $49 billion, more than twice what it cost to build the refinery.

So, in this thread, we're going to look at Africa's biggest ever IPO, which is coming to you from Africa's richest man, and explain how players like Dangote and the Nigerian government have been able to cash in on the war in Iran.

First, before we dive into the IPO itself, let's have a closer look at the man behind it.

Africa's richest man, Aliko Dangote, made his fortune in cement and sugar. His company, the Dangote Group, started as a trading company in 1978 before it diversified into local production of cement, sugar, salt, pasta, and beverages.

Critics of Dangote complain that he has a near monopoly on many of the staples of life, with lots of construction sites in Nigeria scattered with bags of Dangote-branded cement and supermarkets stocked with Dangote-branded sugar.

Dangote's latest aspiration is this new refinery in Lagos, which is ultimately intended to have a refining capacity of about 650,000 barrels of crude oil per day, which would make it one of the largest in the world, and has already cost about $20 billion to build.

The logic behind building Africa's largest refinery made perfect sense, given that nearly two dozen African nations produce crude oil, but the vast majority of the continent's nearly 10 million barrels a day is exported for refining. Most of the domestic refineries, the majority of them state-owned, are decrepit and dormant.

Nigeria is in this exact predicament. It's Africa's largest oil producer and yet finds itself in this absurd situation where it pumps oil, sells it off, and then re-imports the refined products that the country needs.

This lack of local refining capacity forced the government to spend billions of dollars subsidizing fuel for Nigerian consumers and companies instead of spending that money on other sectors like infrastructure or education.

So, to try and wean the country off this dependency, Dangote has turned to a formula that's worked for him in the past.

Until recently, Nigeria ranked among the world's largest importers of cement, but sustained investment in local manufacturing led by Dangote Cement allowed the country to not only meet domestic demand, but become a major cement exporter in the region.

He did the same thing with the Dangote Refinery, which began production in 2024. But it wasn't until recent disruptions in the global energy system caused by the US-Iran war that Dangote really began to reap the benefits.

Dangote's huge refinery reached full capacity in February, right on time to supply the world with diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline, all of which were in short supply.

Two years since the refinery began production, it has single-handedly flipped Nigeria from an importer of refined products into an exporter. Given an example of how far Nigeria has come, the Dangote refinery is currently Europe's single largest supplier of jet fuel, according to the most recent data from the second quarter of this year.

Demand has been such that Dangote's refinery reported an after-tax profit of 1.82 billion dollars for the first half of 2026, compared with a 476 million dollar loss for all of 2025.

Dangote wants to become the biggest fuel supplier in Africa and plans to double the refinery's capacity from 700,000 barrels a day to 1.4 million barrels a day by 2029.

Dangote's ambitions go beyond Nigeria, too, with plans to build a 700,000-barrel-a-day oil refinery in Kenya. The refinery, East Africa's largest refining project, is expected to take up to 3 years to build and would supply refined petroleum products to Kenya and neighboring countries, helping to reduce East Africa's dependence on imported fuel.

Clearly, the war in Iran has been great news for Aliko Dangote, but it's also helped the Nigerian government.

Nigeria announced a few days ago that the country's GDP grew at the fastest pace in 5 years, expanding at an annual 4.4% in the 3 months through June, up from 3.9% in the previous quarter, with lots of this driven by a boom in oil and fuel exports.

Now, on the face of it, this should spell good news for Nigerians, who have struggled with higher prices at the pump since the president removed fuel subsidies 3 years ago.

But in reality, Nigerians are faced with one of the biggest price spikes among major African economies. That's primarily because the removal of the country's fuel subsidy, which happened 3 years ago, is still taking a toll.

But it's also because the impact of the new refinery has been blunted by the need to continue importing expensive crude from abroad, even though, as mentioned, Nigeria is Africa's biggest oil producer.

This raises the question: why isn't Dangote just getting his crude from Nigeria directly?

Well, there's a more complex explanation to this, but basically, Nigeria's state oil company, NNPC, hasn't been able to deliver the volumes Dangote requires, mostly because the government needs to sell its crude to overseas buyers to service oil-backed loans and fulfill long-term export contracts.

This means that Dangote has had to source his crude from other countries like the US and Libya.

So, for now, the only people really benefiting from the creation of Africa's largest refinery are those directly involved, especially the man at the center of this all, who has seen his wealth increase by some $4.86 billion since the start of this year, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, bringing his net worth to almost $35 billion.

Maybe the IPO will help ordinary Nigerians share in some of the pie, but less war and lower fuel prices are probably more important.

Two Academy Award-winning Israeli filmmakers Yuval Avraham and Rachel Szor, now face a storm of condemnation at home and are facing a massive backlash in Israel. Some are accusing them of treason. The Israeli culture minister even said he wants to revoke their citizenship.

It's all because of this documentary called "Naza," which translates to "collateral damage" in Israeli military terminology. Basically, the number of Palestinian civilians that could be killed in any given Israeli strike. Why is Israel so freaked out by this film? Naza is a documentary featuring Israeli soldiers confirming their army is deliberately massacring civilians in Gaza.

Venice Film Festival Recognition & National Uproar

The film was awarded the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival over the weekend, and uproar in Israel quickly ensued. A lot of that has to do with the damning portrait this documentary paints about how the Israeli military killed so many civilians in Gaza, and the fact that this is an insider's account.

24 Israeli soldiers, many of them intelligence officers, were interviewed in the making of this documentary. They played an active role in the war in Gaza, according to the filmmakers.

Inside the Targeting System

This builds on previous reporting about the large number of Palestinian civilians the Israeli military has killed in Gaza in order to kill a smaller number of Palestinian militants. In this film, Israeli soldiers describe the targeting system that allowed it all to happen. Where Israeli soldiers can basically click on a given building, even an apartment inside the Gaza Strip, and see how many people would die, including how many civilians, if that building or apartment were to be struck.

In one of the testimonies from this film, we see one Israeli soldier describe approval that was given to kill 500 civilians in a single strike in order to kill one Palestinian militant target.

Official Response and Director's Statement

Now, the Israeli military said that it categorically rejects these allegations, and it released this statement, saying:

Yuval Abraham, one of the film's directors, said the documentary is intended to make Israel's denials of war crimes in Gaza harder to accept.

"Hearing testimonies from officers who themselves, you know, were operated these systems of killing, designed them, can make the denial of the crimes harder. And there is a direct correlation between the silence or between the denial of the crimes and their ability to persist."

Naza is a confession. Israeli officers on camera confirming for the world the truth of what Palestinians, the International Court of Justice, and even Israeli human rights groups and Holocaust scholars have charged Israel is committing genocide. And by bursting the bubble of denial, it challenges audiences who have been shamefully willing to ignore Palestinian voices for too long. I know this from personal experience. I was raised in a Zionist culture that denied Israel's foundational crimes. I was told that the story of the Nakba was a lie concocted by people who hated Jews. But when I began as a teenager reading the accounts of Jewish Israelis who had actually carried out the crimes of the Nakba, I could no longer believe that these were lies told by anti-Semites.
Because of the racism of my Zionist upbringing, I needed to hear the truth from voices I would trust to recognize the lies I'd been told.
Naza disrupts the narrative of impunity and potentially weakens the Western consensus that enables the genocide. Western powers have evaded the truth of Israel's campaign because even their own laws forbid them from arming and enabling a genocide. But the perpetrators' confessions make it impossible to deny the reality of the genocide among those who dismiss stories when they come from the victims. That's why it's so dangerous to Israel, and that's the power of this film.

Kalatium:
King of Boys and To Kill a Monkey

In king of boys the story was literally about her 🙄

Some farmers in KwaZulu-Natal province say they can't find enough people to harvest all the sugarcane. They say the labor shortage in the heart of South Africa's sugar industry is due to a recent wave of anti-migrant sentiment and violence. Thousands of mainly undocumented foreigners left the country, including many of those willing to do this grueling agricultural work.

"They burn the sugarcane before chopping it because it just makes it easier to work with. This is hard work, very labor-intensive. But with fewer workers, it's going to take longer to clear this field."

And at the height of the harvest season, some are struggling to get their crops from the field to the mills.

One Farmer said:
"We are just surviving day by day. We are looking for those who are want to work. Some they come in for one day and then the following day they don't come back. They say this work is too hard. We are just trying to survive each and every day."

The Union Perspective
Labor unions say that's not true and that plenty of South Africans are willing to harvest sugarcane. But unlike undocumented migrants who are not afforded the same labor rights, they're likely to demand fair wages for their work.

"It's not about the shortage of labor, but it's about the shortage of people that they can exploit because we know that they were paying them a little bit amount of money. They were not paying them according to the gazetted uh amount. So, that's why they're complaining. But if we can be honest, there is a lot of South Africans who are looking for a job, but they cannot take those South Africans because they know that South Africans will start to fight for their rights." The Union leader said.

Economic Impact
Some farmers are warning if labor shortages persist, the country may have to import sugar. But it's not just important at home. Sugar is a major export product and delays in production have the potential to negatively impact the economy.

Trump Endorsed Him but Republican Voters Said Nope.

Trump and his allies are going hard on anti-Muslim politics in Michigan, hoping to make Democrat Abdul El-Sayed’s religion a major campaign issue.
But then came the plot twist.

Trump’s own endorsed Republican candidate, Amir Hassan, lost his primary.
Trump backed Hassan, campaigned with him and gave him the full MAGA seal of approval. Voters apparently did not get the memo.
Now, his main competition in this Republican primary for a competitive seat was a guy named Tom Smith, who was a small businessman whose campaign page on Facebook had 95 followers. Tom Smith had raised less than $2,000 for the race.
Yet Hassan lost to Thomas J. Smith by more than 17 points.

The irony gets better: Smith had already dropped out of the race and suspended his campaign but remained on the ballot.

So, in Michigan, Trump managed to endorse a candidate who lost to a guy who wasn't even really campaigning anymore.

Meanwhile, Republicans are busy attacking Abdul El-Sayed over his Muslim identity rather than simply arguing about his policies.

Maybe there’s a lesson here: Trump can tell Republicans who to vote for. He can't make them do it.

And if the GOP's big strategy is “look, he's Muslim,” Michigan might be a particularly awkward place to try it.

War is supposed to wreck economies.

It destroys infrastructure, scares away investors, disrupts trade, drains government finances and puts enormous pressure on a country's currency. That is usually how the story goes.

So Israel presents an interesting puzzle.
The country has spent nearly two years fighting in Gaza, exchanging fire with Lebanon and carrying out direct strikes against Iran. Its military is operating across multiple fronts, reservists have been mobilized, defense spending has exploded and the government is carrying the enormous financial burden of a prolonged conflict.

Yet the Israeli economy has not collapsed.
In some respects, it looks remarkably resilient.

Tel Aviv has become one of the most expensive cities in the world. The Israeli shekel has strengthened considerably against the dollar over the past decade. Foreign capital continues to enter the country, and Israel's technology sector continues to produce billion-dollar deals.
And, in a particularly bizarre illustration of how expensive the country has become, McDonald's in Israel is reportedly among the most expensive in the world.

So what exactly is going on?
The answer is less mysterious once you stop treating "Israel" as a country fighting a war entirely on its own dime.

Israel Isn't Fighting This War Economically Alone

This is the part that often disappears from discussions about Israel's economic performance.
Israel is a wealthy, technologically sophisticated country with a powerful financial sector, major technology companies, natural-gas exports and deep connections to international capital.

But it also has something even more important:
the United States.

The United States provides Israel with enormous military support, including weapons, ammunition, missile-defense systems and other military assistance.
That matters.
Imagine two countries fighting wars of roughly comparable intensity.

Country A has to manufacture or purchase every weapon itself, replace every interceptor it fires, finance its own air-defense systems and absorb the entire fiscal cost of the conflict.

Country B has a superpower ally helping replenish its weapons, finance military assistance and provide critical defense capabilities.

Those two countries are not fighting under the same economic conditions.
This doesn't mean Israel's war is cheap.
It isn't.

Israel is spending heavily. Businesses are being disrupted. Reservists are being pulled out of the civilian workforce. The government is running large deficits, and the long-term fiscal consequences are real.

But the economic shock is being cushioned.
And that changes everything.

Israel's Secret Weapon Isn't Just the IDF. It's Technology.

There is another reason Israel has been able to absorb the shock.
Israel has spent decades building a technology-driven economy.

Cybersecurity. Artificial intelligence. Software. Defense technology. Semiconductors. Surveillance. Telecommunications.

These industries don't behave like traditional wartime industries.
A bomb falling on a factory can destroy a factory.
It doesn't necessarily destroy a software company.

A war can actually increase demand for cybersecurity and defense technologies.

Suddenly, governments want more missile-defense systems. Militaries want better intelligence. Companies want better cybersecurity. States become more interested in surveillance, drones and artificial intelligence.

And Israel happens to be very good at producing precisely these things.
That creates an unusual situation where some of the industries driving the economy are operating in sectors that become more strategically important during periods of conflict.

War is obviously terrible for the people experiencing it.
But certain companies can become more valuable because of it.
That's one of the uncomfortable realities of the modern military-industrial economy.

Follow the Money
Then there is foreign investment.
Despite the war, international capital has continued to flow into Israel.

Foreign investment reportedly reached around $39 billion in 2025, compared with approximately $14.8 billion the year before.

And then came the giant deals.
Google's acquisition of Israeli cybersecurity company Wiz for roughly $32 billion was a massive vote of confidence in Israel's technology ecosystem.

There have also been major energy deals, including a reported $35 billion natural-gas export agreement with Egypt.
These aren't small transactions.
They are billions of dollars flowing into an economy that is supposedly being strangled by war.

And this tells us something important.
Investors don't necessarily care about geopolitical morality.
They care about risk and returns.

If an Israeli cybersecurity company can generate enormous returns, investors will invest.
If Israeli natural gas is commercially valuable, somebody will buy it.
If Israeli technology remains competitive, multinational corporations will acquire it.

Capital is remarkably capable of separating business opportunities from political catastrophe.

Compare That With Ukraine
The contrast becomes clearer when you look at Ukraine.
When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the Ukrainian central bank had to impose extraordinary measures to stabilize the economy and currency.

The hryvnia was eventually devalued by 25%.
Ukraine has also had to rely heavily on foreign financial assistance simply to keep the state functioning.

Russia has experienced its own currency problems, with the Kremlin repeatedly using capital controls, interest rates and other interventions to stabilize the ruble.

These are what wartime economies usually look like.

Capital flees.
Currencies weaken.
Governments intervene.
Debt rises.
Foreign assistance becomes essential.

So why hasn't Israel experienced the same level of economic dislocation?
Because Israel has several advantages that countries like Ukraine simply do not possess.

It has a highly developed technology sector.
It has substantial access to international capital.
It has a strong financial system.
It has natural-gas resources.
It has a sophisticated defense industry.

And, critically, it has the world's most powerful military and financial ally standing behind it.
That is not a minor detail.
It may be the central detail.

The Shekel Is Telling Us Something
The strength of the Israeli shekel is perhaps the most interesting part of this story.
War normally puts downward pressure on a currency.
Investors become nervous. Foreign capital leaves. Imports become more expensive. Governments borrow more money.

Yet the shekel has performed remarkably well over the longer term.
That doesn't mean investors believe Israel is peaceful.
It means they believe the Israeli economy is capable of surviving the conflict.

Markets aren't voting on whether the war is morally justified.
They're not voting on whether Palestinians are suffering.
They're not voting on whether Israeli civilians are safe.
Markets are asking a much narrower question:

Will this economy continue making money?

So far, the answer appears to be yes.
And that's where economic statistics can become deeply misleading.

A Strong GDP Doesn't Mean Everyone Is Doing Well

This is the trap in the phrase "Israel's economy is booming."
Booming for whom?
A country's GDP can increase while ordinary people experience higher living costs.
A stock market can rise while government debt explodes.
Foreign investment can pour into a country while thousands of families struggle with the consequences of war.

And a currency can strengthen while another population living under the same military campaign experiences economic devastation.

That's particularly important when discussing Israel and Gaza.

Israel's economic resilience and Gaza's economic destruction are not contradictory facts.
They are, in part, two sides of the same geopolitical reality.
Israel has a sophisticated economy capable of attracting capital and producing high-value technology even during war.
Gaza has experienced enormous destruction of housing, infrastructure, businesses and productive capacity.

The contrast could hardly be more extreme.
In one place, investors are discussing billion-dollar acquisitions.
In the other, people are struggling to rebuild the basic economic infrastructure necessary for normal life.

The War Economy Has Winners
This is perhaps the most uncomfortable conclusion.
Wars don't necessarily destroy every part of an economy equally.
They redistribute money.

Defense companies receive contracts.
Cybersecurity companies become more important.
Weapons manufacturers increase production.
Intelligence and surveillance technologies become more valuable.
Energy resources become strategically important.
Governments spend billions.
And companies positioned in the right sectors can make extraordinary amounts of money.

That doesn't mean those companies caused the war.
It means capitalism has never required peace before it is willing to make money.
And Israel's economy is particularly well positioned for this environment because some of its most successful industries sit precisely at the intersection of technology, security and defense.

So Is Israel's Economic Performance a Miracle?
Not really.
It is the product of structural advantages.
Israel entered the war with a strong economy.
It has a globally competitive technology sector.
It continues to attract foreign capital.
It exports natural gas.
It has a sophisticated financial system.
It possesses a major domestic defense industry.

And it receives extraordinary military and financial backing from the United States.
Put all of that together and the economic mystery becomes considerably less mysterious.
Israel hasn't discovered a way to make war economically painless.

It has built an economy capable of absorbing the cost of war while having powerful allies help absorb some of the cost with it.

That is a very different proposition.
And perhaps the biggest mistake is to look at the shekel, GDP growth, foreign investment or billion-dollar technology acquisitions and conclude that the war isn't costing Israel much.

It is.
The better conclusion is that Israel has the wealth, institutions, industries and international backing necessary to prevent those costs from producing the kind of economic collapse normally associated with prolonged warfare.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the conflict, there is no comparable economic safety net.
That is why the same war can produce two radically different economic realities.
One side can be debating the price of a McDonald's meal in one of the world's most expensive cities.
The other can be debating how to rebuild an economy whose physical foundations have been destroyed.
And that contrast is probably more revealing than any GDP chart.

MaxInDHouse:
You should learn from his actions and that of his first century disciples that he was talking about what relatives and the countrymen of believers will do to them not the other way around.
If Jesus was advocating violence as you erroneously concluded then why is it that neither himself nor his disciples in the first century lift a sword against anyone?🙂
In Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, Israel, Eritrea and many other places the true disciples of modern day (Jehovah's Witnesses) are being attacked by their own people just as Jesus foretold. Matthew 10:34
So learn to use intelligence because it's his teachings that's making people from all the nations hate their own families despite the fact that we are the world's most peaceful organization! Matthew 24:9

That still doesn’t answer my question. Matthew 10:34 says, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” You’re changing the subject from what Jesus actually said to what his followers later did or didn’t do.

I'm not claiming Jesus personally went around attacking people with a sword. Bro the question is whether he advocated or predicted violent division. And the immediate context actually makes the point: he says he came to set family members against one another and that a person’s enemies would be members of their own household (Matthew 10:35–36).

So capping that, his disciples didn’t use swords doesn’t refute the argument. A person can cause or predict conflict without personally committing physical violence.
And claim that Christians are the world’s most peaceful religion is just an assertion. It doesn't magically determine what Matthew 10:34 means. If you want to defend Jesus, deal with the actual text and its context rather than redefining the premise. 😏

callmeDDD:
That was the issue. He made a video, denied it, his online friends claimed it was his look alike and from opposition, now apologising, something he claimed it never happened, yeye people. He just wanted to be noticed.
Election time is coming, they need mobility money.

I see 🤣
I was a bit confused at first

MaxInDHouse:
So there is no weapon carrier moving from one place to another in the name of SECURITY OPERATIVE in those places?🙂

Conveniently side stepping the whole premise of our exchange....
Mathew 10:
34
Or you just can't made a defense for Jesus advocating and promising violence right 🤣

I thought he earlier denounce the video that it wasn't him burning the flags in the video
Or is there something I'm missing

FxMasterz:
If you're a teacher or you have a knowledge about education, you'll understand that you use what people know to teach them what they don't know. A very small seed can mean anything from melon seeds to bean seeds. It does not explain what Jesus wants them to know. The mustard seed was small enough to drive home the concept of faith has He taught it.

Jesus was not teaching a class in Botany. The subject was Faith.

Except the message was supposed to be for their ears only but for all humans in time so yeah
A tri-omni being can definitely come up with a more creative way to pass down it's message to make it stay not just relevant to the people being spoken to but to all

MaxInDHouse:
With the way people are hating, fighting and killing both their own people and others can you name a modern day society or organization where members have vowed never to raise weapons against anyone again?
That is what makes Jesus' message current forever!🙂

Wasn't he the one that said he's come to make people fight Mathew 10
34“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
“ ‘a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

Well Switzerland, japan and many other nations have enshrined in the Constitution laws against wars since you'd love to know

FxMasterz:
Jesus was speaking to people who know only the mustard seed as the smallest seed, and who often used it in idioms to express the smallest things known to them. It is in the principle of the gospel to speak to people in their own languages and in their understanding. Jesus cannot be using Orchids to explain faith to people who know nothing about Orchids.

But what is more lamba than the sun settling in murky waters, and sperm being produced in the spinal cord? Or you do not see that the earth being spread like a carpet is the biggest lamba of all ages?

Because the “people only knew mustard seeds” argument doesn’t really rescue it. Jesus could have simply said “a very small seed” without making a universal claim about all seeds. Lamba🤣
You can't treat problematic passages as literal when defending them and metaphorical when they're challenged.
The real question isn't whether ancient people had limited knowledge. Of course they did. The question is whether a supposedly omniscient divine revelation should contain the same knowledge limitations as the people receiving it. That's where the you have a problem.

MaxInDHouse:
So if Jesus had mentioned a seed that's not known to his listeners how would they grasp the message without asking further questions regarding the smallest seed?
And how would you have handled Pharisees who were present to discredit Jesus' teachings if you were Jesus?
Most people don't put themselves in the position of a teacher before condemning his use of terms.
To those listening that day the mustard seed is the tiniest of all that produces gigantic trees!🙂

So you are inevitably admitted that his message was only meant for the people he was speaking to at the time he was alive and that said message is irrelevant to modern day humans?

Dtruthspeaker:
This is a fallacious response.

I did not say that there was no/never atheist or that people don't interpret differently. That is not the issue of contention, so this is Off Point.

Secondly, your questions about earthquakes and all is also Off Point.

So, you do not have a valid and reasonable counter

lol you talk from both sides of your mouth

Dtruthspeaker:
You already do it for there isn't any one who has lived in this world who did not confess that when they look at this world and see all of nature, that there is no denying that He Who is called God, created them.

https://www.nairaland.com/1949795/beautiful-pictures-sky-taken-nigeria#27151796

Very funny thing to say with all certainty in your chess except everyone who has lived has not confessed this, because there have always been atheists and people who interpret nature differently.
So my brother in in Lord I ask you
If nature is supposedly so beautiful and perfectly designed, why does nature also include earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, diseases, parasites, and predators? In the wild, animals constantly hunt, kill, and devour one another just to survive. Everything from venomous snakes to crocodiles and parasites can kill you.

We romanticize “nature” from a safe distance. If nature is so wonderful and peaceful, why aren't we all abandoning our houses, hospitals, supermarkets, electricity, and cities to go live in the forest? Nature can certainly be beautiful, but beauty alone doesn't prove that it was created by God.

jesusjnr2020:
Even Jesus Himself was persecuted, arrested, beaten, and even killed for preaching the Gospel, and Jesus said a servant cannot be above His Master, so what's the big deal in His servants suffering the same fate?

John 15:20 (KJV)

Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep your's also.

The hope and joy of His true servants isn't tied to the things of this temporal world but the things of the eternal Kingdom of God.

Matthew 5:10-12 (KJV)

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for their's is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

John 16:33 (KJV)

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

God bless.

Jesus wasn't killed for preaching the gospel

In October 2021, then-Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced one of the most consequential and in hindsight, one of the most infamous rebrands in modern tech history.

Facebook was becoming Meta.

The reason was simple: Zuckerberg believed the next great computing platform would not be the smartphone or the personal computer, but the metaverse a persistent, immersive digital world accessed primarily through virtual and augmented reality.

Zuckerberg was remarkably confident about what was coming.

He predicted that within a decade, the metaverse could reach one billion people, facilitate hundreds of billions of dollars in digital commerce, and create jobs for millions of creators and developers.

Five years later, that vision looks very different.

Virtual reality never became the ubiquitous technology Meta expected. Horizon Worlds, Meta's flagship metaverse platform, failed to attract anything close to the mass audience Zuckerberg had envisioned. And Reality Labs, the division responsible for Meta's virtual and augmented reality ambitions, accumulated tens of billions of dollars in losses.

By 2026, Meta had effectively begun retreating from the metaverse.

Reality Labs announced significant layoffs. Horizon Worlds shifted its focus away from virtual reality, and Meta even announced plans to remove VR headset access to the platform, although that decision was subsequently softened.

The message was unmistakable:

The metaverse was no longer the future Meta was betting on.
And now, Meta has found a new future.
Artificial intelligence.

From the Metaverse to Superintelligence[/color]

Zuckerberg's enthusiasm for AI is at least as intense as his previous enthusiasm for the metaverse.
Meta is now pouring enormous amounts of money into artificial intelligence, including massive investments in computing infrastructure, data centres, AI models, chips and talent.
Zuckerberg has gone so far as to describe the coming period as a new era of [color=#006600]"superintelligent AI".
And Meta isn't simply trying to build better AI products.
It wants to transform itself into an AI-native company.
That transformation, however, has already encountered a problem that should interest anyone concerned about the future of employment:
AI isn't replacing workers nearly as easily as its biggest evangelists expected.

Project OT: The Plan to Reshape Meta
According to reporting by Reuters, Meta executives began developing an internal restructuring plan known as Project OT, short for "organization transformation."
The basic idea was radical.
Instead of maintaining large teams of specialised engineers, product managers and designers, Meta would create a smaller workforce made up of highly versatile employees essentially generalists or "builders", who could use AI to perform work that previously required several different specialists.

In some scenarios considered by Meta executives, certain teams could have their headcount reduced by as much as 60%.
The idea was that AI would allow a dramatically smaller workforce to accomplish roughly the same amount of work.
It was an appealing proposition for a company spending enormous sums on AI.

If AI can make one employee as productive as several employees, why continue employing all of them?

Meta had already demonstrated that it was willing to make enormous cuts. Between late 2022 and early 2023, the company eliminated roughly a quarter of its workforce.
Project OT contemplated cuts that could potentially be even more aggressive.
The restructuring was reportedly planned in two waves, with cuts expected in May and November.

But something went wrong.

The AI Productivity Problem

The first problem was the employees themselves.
Reports about the restructuring began circulating internally, generating considerable anxiety and resistance.
But there was another, more important problem:

The AI wasn't actually delivering the productivity gains Meta needed.

Internal data reportedly showed that changes to Meta's internal software platforms increased dramatically by around 220% year over year.
That sounds impressive.
But there was a catch.

The increase in changes that actually resulted in new or improved features for Meta users was only around 36%.

In other words, AI appeared to be helping employees produce more activity without necessarily producing a proportional increase in valuable output.
That's an important distinction.
A programmer using AI might generate more code.
A designer might produce more variations.
A product manager might create more documents.

But producing more stuff isn't necessarily the same as producing more value.

And if AI isn't generating enough additional value to compensate for dramatically reducing the workforce, the business case for mass layoffs becomes much weaker.

Zuckerberg eventually acknowledged internally that AI capabilities had not advanced as quickly as he had expected, particularly in the area of AI agents systems capable of autonomously performing complex sequences of tasks.

As a result, the most aggressive versions of Project OT never materialised.

Meta did lay off around 10% of its workforce in May, but this was substantially less than some of the more dramatic scenarios that had been considered.

The second planned wave of company-wide layoffs was eventually cancelled.

Zuckerberg subsequently told employees that he did not expect additional company-wide layoffs that year and expressed a desire to provide employees with greater stability.
The great AI workforce revolution had collided with reality.

Meta's Experience Reflects a Bigger Trend
The interesting thing about Meta's experience is that it isn't necessarily an isolated story.

For years, we've been hearing increasingly dramatic predictions about artificial intelligence and employment.

AI would replace programmers.
AI would eliminate administrative workers.
AI would destroy entire professions.
AI would make large sections of the workforce redundant.
Some of these predictions may eventually prove correct.

But so far, the labour market has been considerably more resilient than many expected.

Recent research from the British Chambers of Commerce, for example, found that more than half of UK firms surveyed were using AI.

Yet the overwhelming majority of those companies said AI had not affected their headcount.

Similarly, research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found little evidence that AI had significantly changed employment rates across most companies.

The broader economic data tells a similar story.

Unemployment in the United States has moved around over the past few years, but it hasn't experienced the kind of dramatic structural shock that would suggest AI has already eliminated huge numbers of jobs.
That doesn't mean nothing is happening.
It means the transformation is more complicated than the headlines suggest.

AI Is Increasing Productivity, Just Not as Much as Expected

There's another problem for the AI revolution.

If companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on AI infrastructure, they need AI to eventually produce enormous productivity gains.

So far, that hasn't happened at the scale many executives anticipated.

Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta found that most executives surveyed believed AI had not yet meaningfully increased productivity at their companies, even though they remained optimistic about its future potential.

Other research has found that AI can save workers significant amounts of time without necessarily increasing the amount of valuable output they ultimately produce.

Again, this distinction matters.
Imagine an employee who normally spends two hours writing a report.
With AI, they can produce a draft in 20 minutes.
That sounds like an enormous productivity improvement.
But what happens to the remaining 100 minutes?
Does the employee produce five reports instead of one?
Does the company sell more?
Does revenue increase?
Does the employee take on more complex work?
Or does the organisation simply discover that employees now have more free time?

The answer determines whether AI represents a genuine productivity revolution or merely a better collection of workplace tools.

The People Who May Be Feeling the Impact Already

There is, however, one particularly important warning sign.

AI may not yet be replacing large numbers of existing workers.

But it may be changing **who gets hired in the first place**.

This is especially significant for entry-level workers and recent graduates.

Research suggests that companies expect a substantial proportion of future AI-related reductions in employment to come not from firing existing employees, but from reducing new hiring.

That distinction can easily be missed.

Imagine a company employing 1,000 people.

If AI makes the company more efficient, management may not fire 500 employees.

Instead, the company might simply stop hiring the next 300 people it would otherwise have needed.

From the perspective of an existing employee, nothing dramatic has happened.

From the perspective of a recent graduate looking for their first job, however, the consequences could be enormous.

There is already evidence pointing in this direction.

One 2025 study found that recent graduates in industries particularly exposed to AI experienced a negative employment shock between late 2022 and the end of 2025.

The UK is also experiencing historically weak graduate hiring, with graduate vacancies reportedly at their lowest level in roughly a decade.

This may be one of the most important ways AI changes the labour market.

Not through mass unemployment overnight, but through fewer opportunities for people trying to enter the workforce.

The Real AI Revolution May Be Much Slower
There is an important lesson in Meta's failed metaverse bet.
Technology companies are very good at selling visions of the future.
Sometimes those visions become reality.
Sometimes they don't.

In 2021, Zuckerberg confidently told the world that the metaverse would fundamentally reshape computing.
Meta spent enormous sums trying to make that prediction come true.
Five years later, the company has largely moved on.
Now AI occupies the position the metaverse once held.

The difference is that AI is already genuinely useful. Unlike the metaverse, artificial intelligence has demonstrated enormous practical value in areas ranging from software development and research to customer service, content creation and data analysis.

The question isn't whether AI matters.
It clearly does.
The question is how quickly its economic consequences will arrive.

And that is where the evidence is much less dramatic than the rhetoric.

AI has not yet destroyed the labour market.

It has not yet made most workers obsolete.

It has not yet produced the extraordinary productivity explosion that would justify replacing huge portions of corporate workforces.

Even Meta a company with some of the world's greatest financial resources, AI researchers and computing infrastructure discovered that simply declaring an organisation "AI-native" doesn't magically make 60% of its employees unnecessary.

The Bigger Question

This doesn't mean workers can relax.
If anything, the current situation may be the calm before a much slower transformation.
The biggest disruption may not come from millions of people being fired simultaneously.
It may happen gradually.
Companies may hire fewer people.
Entry-level positions may disappear.

One employee may increasingly be expected to do the work that previously required several specialists.
Organisations may become smaller while producing the same amount of output.

And workers who know how to use AI effectively may increasingly be favoured over those who don't.

That is a very different future from the dramatic "AI takes everyone's job tomorrow" scenario.
It may also be considerably more difficult to notice.

The lesson from Meta's Project OT is therefore not that AI is a failure.

It is that technology does not automatically translate into economic transformation.

There is a long distance between an impressive AI demonstration and an AI system capable of replacing an entire human organisation.

Meta learned this with the metaverse.

It may now be learning it again with AI.

And perhaps the most interesting question isn't whether AI will eventually transform work.

It is how long it will take and who will bear the cost while we wait for it to happen.

A musician that has been in the music industry for more than a decade still doesn't know the difference between Afrobeat and Afrobeats 😤

Polygon hexagon monigon