BThat Sydney prayer video from Veiled Leaks is not breaking news.
BRight—it's from February, but the poll wants a simple yes or no.
BFebruary ninth, outside Sydney Town Hall. A protest against Israel's president.
BA group of Muslim men stopped for the sunset prayer.
BA senior officer had approved that prayer.
BThe message never reached the officers clearing the crowd.
BVideo shows officers grabbing and dragging men from prostration.
BThe Guardian, SBS and AFP all have the same timeline.
BPolice Commissioner Mal Lanyon later apologized "for any offence that may have been taken."
BThat apology frames it as people taking offence.
BIt's not offence—it's a failed chain of command.
BLet's be fair. Officers were clearing a fast-moving protest.
BA senior officer says yes, and the line officers never hear it?
BThe breakdown was minutes, not policy.
BThat's exactly how trust dies.
BThe Premier says context is important. He's right.
BContext doesn't drag a man by the arm while he's on his knees.
BI'm not defending the visuals. The call didn't reach the line.
BThen the institution owns the failure. The public sees a broken promise.
BFair—the apology should own that, not dress it up as offence.
BThat's my whole point.
BBut Waleed Aly wrote the maghrib window was closing.
BRight—the prayer wasn't a performance. The timing was real.
BAnd police were clearing a permitted area. The window collided with the order.
BYou keep saying "permitted area." It was a public square.
BTown Hall Square has crowd rules. The order wasn't about religion.
BIf a senior officer says "let them pray," safety isn't the issue.
BLeadership failed. I've said that. But the line officers didn't invent the order.
BThen the institution owns it. The apology should say "we failed."
BAnd AFP debunked the Bondi memorial claim. That part was fake.
BSo old footage, bad context, and a false detail. The poll can't hold that.
BThe answer isn't yes or no. It's "fix the chain of command."
BWhile we're on reported but not official—Brian, the new AI number?
BThe Wall Street Journal's X account says OpenAI just got valued at one point two five trillion dollars.
BBig number—but below their target. One point four trillion, says the Journal.
BStill, one point two five trillion would be among the largest private valuations ever. If true.
BRight. No official filing yet, so treat it as reporting.
BIt fits the pattern: AI money is still huge, but investors are less generous.
BOr OpenAI aimed high to anchor the deal. Ask for one point four, land lower, still historic.
BThat's the oldest trick. But a miss is a miss—especially for the maker of ChatGPT.
BThe real signal? Even the hottest AI name is being marked to market.
BExactly. The AI trade is cooling at the top, and OpenAI is the benchmark.
BI don't read it as cooling. One point two five trillion is still massive.
BCome on, Bella. Missing your own target by one hundred fifty billion isn't a win.
BIt's a negotiated price. The target was a starting bid, not a promise.
BThe target is what you tell your investors you're worth. Missing it says they pushed back.
BFair—but the deal still closed at a historic level.
BThat's the nuance. The money didn't leave; it got more demanding.
BWhich is exactly what should happen after a year of AI hype.
BWe'll find out when the filing drops. Until then, it's a report, not a fact.
BI love that we have to say "if true" about a trillion-dollar number. What a world.