There is a debate going on here about whether people who were at the Capitol complex had a right to be scared on January 6. I was there.

I would like to think I have seen some things in my day. I have been present for violent protests, shootings, violent protests, a fatal accident, and a terrorist attack. January 6 was one of the scariest things I have ever witnessed.
I keep flashing back to the first moment I realized people were inside the dome. There was no data reception. I hadn't seen it online. I called my editors to let them know.
The moment I hung up one thought rang out in my head, "This is so dangerous." I knew people being inside there meant shooting could break out at any moment.
I keep flashing back to this because it was when I realized this could turn deadly – and it did.

Along with the danger, there was the sight of such chaos at that iconic dome.

That's a place that is supposed to be so secure. Everything was out of control and unpredictable.
As a New Yorker who was there that day too, it reminded me of 9/11 – and that's a comparison I'd never make lightly.

The scope is obviously different but it was impossible to know at the time.

And seeing things that just aren't supposed to be possible creates a unique panic.
I had seen reporters attacked - that day and this summer. I tried to keep a low profile. I can't imagine what the experience was like for people whose names and faces made them known. The crowd was clearly armed and dangerous.
I am a reporter and I am a man. There's a lot of reasons I don't like to talk abiut fear in a personal sense. However, it's important for me to bring you all a clear story of what happened that day – especially if it's being minimized or forgotten. It was terror.
I think one reason we're not being entirely clear about how serious this was is that the pandemic has really disconnected people from reality. The extraordinary has become normal and we're all watching it at a distance. It was also a moment of transition.
But 1/6 is exactly how we should be thinking about this and we should not forget.
Really appreciate all the great responses to this thread. I did this video with @CBSNLive abut my experience covering the Capitol on 1/6 a few days after the attack. https://t.co/oX6Z1aImZZ

You May Also Like

Rig Ved 1.36.7

To do a Namaskaar or bow before someone means that you are humble or without pride and ego. This means that we politely bow before you since you are better than me. Pranipaat(प्राणीपात) also means the same that we respect you without any vanity.

1/9


Surrendering False pride is Namaskaar. Even in devotion or bhakti we say the same thing. We want to convey to Ishwar that we have nothing to offer but we leave all our pride and offer you ourselves without any pride in our body. You destroy all our evil karma.

2/9

We bow before you so that you assimilate us and make us that capable. Destruction of our evils and surrender is Namaskaar. Therefore we pray same thing before and after any big rituals.

3/9

तं घे॑मि॒त्था न॑म॒स्विन॒ उप॑ स्व॒राज॑मासते ।
होत्रा॑भिर॒ग्निं मनु॑षः॒ समिं॑धते तिति॒र्वांसो॒ अति॒ स्रिधः॑॥

Translation :

नमस्विनः - To bow.

स्वराजम् - Self illuminating.

तम् - His.

घ ईम् - Yours.

इत्था - This way.

उप - Upaasana.

आसते - To do.

स्त्रिधः - For enemies.

4/9

अति तितिर्वांसः - To defeat fast.

मनुषः - Yajman.

होत्राभिः - In seven numbers.

अग्निम् - Agnidev.

समिन्धते - Illuminated on all sides.

Explanation : Yajmans bow(do Namaskaar) before self illuminating Agnidev by making the offerings of Havi.

5/9
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.