#auto-subtitles

[insightfultrends]

Top 10 Free AI Video Maker Tools to Create Stunning Videos in 2025

Top 10 Free AI Video Maker Tools to Create Stunning Videos in 2025 As we step into 2025, video content continues to dominate the digital landscape. From social media platforms to corporate presentations, videos are the most engaging way to communicate ideas, tell stories, and promote products. However, creating high-quality videos traditionally required expensive software, professional skills,…

[planefood]

I don't get why they censor subtitles for curse words, this isn't 1980s television, they don't even do the little asterisk censor like f*ck they just leave it blank. Are people who use subs for whatever reason not old enough to read a swear word?

[contemplatingoutlander]

DARK MONEY PART II: Sheldon Whitehouse SLAMS Ted Cruz's conspiracy theory linking dark money from China to climate lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry

According to Just the News, this is Ted Cruz's latest conspiracy theory:

“We're witnessing right now a systematic campaign against American energy [i.e., the fossil fuel industry*]. There is a coordinated assault by the radical left, backed and paid for by the Chinese Communist Party, to seize control of our courts, to weaponize litigation against US energy producers — all in order to undermine American energy dominance,” Cruz said in his opening statement. [emphasis added] Cruz [claimed] that foreign money tied to the Chinese Communist Party bankrolls climate advocacy groups, who file lawsuits against fossil fuel projects.... designed to bankrupt energy producers, Cruz said, and activist groups providing training to judges involved in climate litigation “indoctrinate” those judges in favor of the plaintiffs in these cases. [emphasis added]

Given Cruz's claims that lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry by climate advocacy groups are a Chinese Communist plot, this was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's (D-RI) response:

Sen. Whitehouse Enlightens Sen. Cruz in Hearing on Latest GOP Conspiracy Theory | Senator Sheldon Whitehouse | June 25, 2025 } YouTube

In the above video, Whitehouse claims that Cruz's conspiracy theory is a "fossil fuel-funded GOP fever dream." Whitehouse reiterates that climate change is real and the enormous costs that are stacking up because of fossil fuel-driven climate change need to be paid by someone. He prefers the fossil fuel industry rather than taxpayers:

One emblem of climate change's costs to governments is the proposed Ike Dike in coastal Texas, estimated to cost nearly $60 billion.... Governments faced with costs like that have a dilemma. Who do you get the money from? Taxpayers? You want to go to taxpayers, adding another hit on top of their spiraling insurance premiums and declining home values? Or do you want to look at the responsible party, the fossil fuel industry. To put this into scale, Exxon's profits in the last quarter of last year were $900 million per day. If they had to pay a billion dollar judgment, they'd be over it by 6 a.m. the next day.

Whitehouse describes other ways that taxpayers are hit by climate change, including damage to "essential infrastructure" and "climateflation" seen in rising "grocery prices," and "electricity costs."

But most notably, Whitehouse worries about the impact of climate change on the insurance industry.

And then there's insurance. This is the big one. Not just because of the added costs for consumers, but because of the risk that an insurance crisis triggers a deep and lasting recession.

Whitehouse particularly notes the danger of insurance companies refusing to renew homeowners insurance in certain parts of the country.

We found that nonrenewals are spiking around the country. Up 278% in Florida, 267% in Louisiana, 944% in Chambers County, Texas. Where insurance becomes unavailable, it becomes impossible to get a mortgage. No insurance, no mortgage. Without the ability to get a mortgage, property values crash.

Whitehouse believes the fossil fuel industry should be the ones to pay because they knew climate change was real "for more than 60 years," but nevertheless "lied" about it, "denied the science," "obstructed climate action," and "constructed the most complex and mischievous armada of phony front groups that America has ever seen, in order to do so." Whitehouse implies that it is the fossil fuel industry's dark money that is fueling Cruz's conspiracy theory.

Finally, Whitehouse claims:

The suits that are at issue in this hearing are brought under a variety of traditional state law, tort, public nuisance, and fraud claims. At their heart, they're about who should pay for the climate damages bearing down on folks around the country. [color emphasis added]

[edited]

__________________________ * Whitehouse said: "By the way, every time somebody on that side of the aisle says the word 'energy' in this hearing, what they really mean is 'fossil fuel.'" Note: The video above is a modified, slightly faster, shortened version of the one on YouTube, with auto-generated subtitles by Kapwing that were edited for accuracy.

[Under the cut is a transcript of the original video on YouTube, including the parts that were omitted in the above video.]

COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE'S JUNE 25, 2025 YOUTUBE VIDEO

NOTE: The parts of the transcript in blue type were cut out of this post's video in order to keep it under 10 minutes for Tumblr. All emphasis is Sen. Whitehouse's based on judgments made by this writer.

Thank you, Chairman. This hearing is a perfect display of projection. Blaming your adversary for what you are doing. Dark money? Judicial capture? Propaganda? Oh my. The fossil fuel industry would have nothing to do with those things.

The hearing ignores that the fossil fuel industry has for decades benefited from secret funding to wage war on the American consumer by making energy more expensive and dirtier. Higher utility bills. Worse pollution. Let's examine the facts.

First, money. The fossil fuel industry has spent 10 times more on lobbying than environmental groups and the renewable energy industry combined. That's not even counting fossil fuel elections spending. Republican and fossil fuel interests pushed for the "Citizens United" decision allowing unlimited election spending by special interests.

Second, dark money. My "Disclose Act" would require transparency in election spending. We voted on it a half a dozen times. Every time, every Republican voted against it.

Third, energy. Renewable energy is now the cheapest form of energy on the planet. The wind, our sunshine, flowing water, and the earth's own heat are all free and essentially unlimited fuel sources. Their price, again zero, does not depend on geopolitical events or international industry cartels beyond our control.

As Republicans hold this hearing today, oil and gas gasoline prices have climbed in response to strife in the Middle East. As Republicans hold this hearing today, tens of millions of Americans swelter through a punishing heat wave made both more likely and more intense by climate change caused by fossil fuel emissions.

So, let's talk about climate change. By damaging Earth's natural systems, climate change costs Americans money. Lots of money. I suspect that Americans would be more interested in tackling climateflation than in unspooling yet another conspiracy theory from the fossil fuel-funded, fertile swamp of Republican fever dreams.

Climate change is raising grocery prices. Coffee, chocolate, sugar, and orange juice are just a few of the staples whose prices have spiked in response to floods, droughts, and heat waves made worse by climate change.

Climate change is raising electricity costs. Heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and floods raise generation and distribution costs, raising Americans utility bills. Heat waves force people to consume more electricity. Air conditioners are running all around Washington today, further raising consumers electricity bills.

And then there's insurance. This is the big one. Not just because of the added costs for consumers, but because of the risk that an insurance crisis triggers a deep and lasting recession.

Increasingly frequent and severe wildfires and storms are making property insurance both unaffordable and unavailable in many places. Texas had the fourth highest average homeowners’ premiums in the country last year at around $6,000. This year they're projected to increase by another $500.

In Louisiana, premiums averaged almost $11,000 last year. In Florida, they were over $14,00, and those are projected to get far worse. That's when you can find a company to write coverage.

Last year, as chair of the Budget Committee, I investigated how climate change was driving nonrenewals, where your insurance company fires you after you've been a loyal customer for many years, because they can't afford the risk of your property.

We found that nonrenewals are spiking around the country. Up 278% in Florida, 267% in Louisiana, 944% in Chambers County, Texas.

Where insurance becomes unavailable, it becomes impossible to get a mortgage. No insurance, no mortgage.

Without the ability to get a mortgage, property values crash. Unless, of course, you're billionaires swapping mansions back and forth with your excess income.

Rising insurance premiums on their own also cause home values to decline. And a wide scale crash in coastal and wildfire prone home values is likely to trigger a larger economic meltdown like we saw in 2008.

I'm not the only one saying this. An "Economist" cover story last year predicted a $25 trillion hit to the global real estate market, the world's largest asset class.

Earlier this year, Fed Chair Powell told the Senate Banking Committee that in 10 to 15 years it will be impossible to get insurance or a mortgage in entire regions of the country.

It's already hitting home. I'll share a few articles for the record from the "Houston Chronicle": “Inside the costly new reality of insuring a home in Texas.” “Map: See where extreme weather is pushing up home insurance costs in Texas and the U.S.” "Houston Chronicle," again. “Texas has a home insurance crisis. These four charts show how it's getting worse.” “How much is your Texas home worth? If you pay a lot in insurance, less than you might think.”

Wouldn't it be great if colleagues on both sides of the aisle would focus on this, the real danger? Rather than attempting to project fossil fuel dark money mischief onto the organizations and elected governments that are trying to protect Americans from climate change.

Climate change is going to impose immense costs on state and local governments. That is indisputable. Sea level rise and other climate related phenomena are already damaging roads, bridges, ports, water treatment plants, and other essential infrastructure. And it will just get worse.

One emblem of climate change's costs to governments is the proposed Ike Dike in coastal Texas, estimated to cost nearly $60 billion. Who's going to pay for that? Governments faced with costs like that have a dilemma. Who do you get the money from?

Taxpayers? You want to go to taxpayers, adding another hit on top of their spiraling insurance premiums and declining home values? Or do you want to look at the responsible party, the fossil fuel industry,

To put this into scale, Exxon's profits in the last quarter of last year were $900 million per day. If they had to pay a billion dollar judgment, they'd be over it by 6 a.m. the next day.

And the oil and gas industry has known about this problem for more than 60 years. For three decades, they hired their own climate scientists and did their own research, and their own scientists confirmed that combusting fossil fuels would heat the planet with disastrous consequences for Earth's natural systems, i.e., for all of us.

And then, armed with that knowledge, they lied. They denied the science. They obstructed climate action. They constructed the most complex and mischievous armada of phony front groups that America has ever seen, in order to do so.

The suits that are at issue in this hearing are brought under a variety of traditional state law, tort, public nuisance, and fraud claims.

At their heart, they're about who should pay for the climate damages bearing down on folks around the country.

We Democrats believe that the responsible party, the polluter, the fossil fuel industry, should pay. So does Milton Friedman, by the way. It's Econ 101 that pollution, a negative externality, should be baked into the cost of the product.

Republicans, on the other hand, believe that American families should pay to protect the free-to-pollute business model of their favored fossil fuel industry.

By the way, every time somebody on that side of the aisle says the word “energy” in this hearing, what they really mean is “fossil fuel.” Every time they say the word “energy dominance” in this hearing, what they really mean is “fossil fuel dominance.”

It's gotten so bad that the Trump administration actually wrote wind energy and solar energy, which are extremely prevalent and successful in Texas, out of their own definition of “energy.” They're not just violating economic principles; they're violating the dictionary.

That's where we're at. Well, I'm willing to bet that the American people are with us on this one. Thank you, Chairman.

_______________ The transcript is based on auto-generated subtitles by Kapwing that were edited for accuracy.

[grogumaximus]

Nelson Piquet jr called Max during a podcast to wish him a happy birthday

[youling-the-ghost]

To whoever is making the sfth subtitles: I love you and I wish you everything good in life <3

[atthebell]

"The Bloody Countess" she beheads people and bathes in their-- There's really this story, about a woman who killed young people to bathe in their blood because she thought it would rejuvenate her, right? If that hottie wanted to bathe in my blood... she would have to deal with my girlfriend first, asshole, slut, you think I'm that easy? [blows a kiss] Kiss, love. [laughs] Now you can clip it and send it to her, to show her that I'm romantic and faithful. [laughs again] Cut this part, cut this part.

[namtan]

WANDEE GOODDAY | Ep 1

[tuttle-did-it]

PSA FROM EXHAUSTION.

Signed up for a series of online lectures. Couldn't understand a word, couldn't lip-read speaker (which is very difficult anyway). Couldn't participate, couldn't engage, couldn't understand. Had to leave because it didn't even occur to them to put captions on

Folks, if you are posting ANY video online or send it to another human, please enable captions/subtitles.

Deaf people need captions

Hard of hearing people need captions

People with audio processing conditions need captions

People with ADHD often need captions to maintain attention

People who are not native speakers of the primary language need captions

People who are watching something in a private space and are not able to watch with volume need captions

People with learning difficulties/differences/disabilities need captions

People trying to watch something with bad audio recording need captions

People who have migraines/headaches and really can't deal with sound but still need to watch the video (for whatever reason) need captions

People who have colds/ear infections/went to a concert without ear protection and have bad tinnitus need captions

People who are very new to a topic need captions

People who are multi-tasking need captions

people with misophonia need captions

People who are neurospicy and just need fucking captions need fucking caption

People need captions.

And, whilst I have your attention, don't just use autocraptions from the computer that only get about 65%. I mean, look-- I'll take auto craptions over nothing, but there is a reason deaf people cal them 'craptions.' We hate them, it's very often word salad, and it's just useless. You can process the video through with autocraptions, and then go in and make corrections where the craptions got it wrong. And, if you feel super fancy, you could even put in things like full stops and commas to make it easier to read.

Also, when captioning, please put actions/reactions in brackets. Anything off screen, any noises we may not be able to hear. Examples: [Audience cheers] [Explosion off screen, people shouting] [sound of phone ringing.]

If something is inaudible or the sound does not catch what they said, please signify this. If it's a montage and there's music with no dialogue, say this. Examples:

[Mulcahy speaks indistinctly.]

[inaudible]

[audio cuts out]

[no audio, no music]

[music- Sinatra' song (song) plays; no audible dialogue or sound from scenes]

[dialogue from film 'My Darling Clementine' plays in background whilst Hawkeye whistles]

[music is interrupted by the sound of a record being ripped or pulled off a record]

If you just feel REALLY generous to the audience and really want me to love you, please feel free to put tone that I might miss, such as [Hawkeye whispers] or [Klinger shouts]. Maybe it's visible on the screen from expressions/body language, maybe not.

Hawkeye: [imitates Groucho] Hello, Room Service? Send up a larger room.

Hawkeye [imitates British accent:] [drops accent]

And, when there may be confusion on when characters are speaking. Examples:

[Multiple characters talk at once.]

Potter: [speaks dialogue from 'My Darling Clementine' at the same time as a character in the film]:

Margaret [interrupts Frank]:

Hawkeye and BJ [speaking together:]

Also also, if there are multiple speakers, please show this. [speaker 1: ] [Speaker 2]:

Even if you don't receive a request from anyone to put on captions, please just add captions. Simple accessibility considerations, please. Some people don't even realise they need captions until they see then and go 'oh, yay. Captions.'

I know it may take a little bit of time and planning, but there are more of us out there than you realise. So please, just add captions.

If you ever doubt how important captions might be to someone, sometime just put on a video. Put on an episode of a show you haven't seen before. Mute it, watch it with no captions. See just how much you manage to get without ANY captions.

CAPTIONS.

CAPTIONS.

[canon-gabriel-quotes]

(non gabe related clip)

voted most informative stream on twitch

Source

[blacklegsanjienthusiast]

Taz attended comic con Ecuador recently and he was asked about Sanji’s curly eyebrows. He said that they thought about it but figured that it would stand out too much because he would be the only member with a unique physical characteristic and they were worried that the general audience, especially new viewers, would focus more on his eyebrows than on his actual character. He also said that they actually tried to do the curly eyebrows in the make up test but it did not translate well. I can kind of understand this. What do you think?

i, like everyone i think, do definitely miss the curly eyebrows at times because they are such an iconic part of sanji’s look but i also do 100% think they would not have worked or translated well in a life action setting and i overall don’t really care that he doesn’t have them (i’d love to see the make up tests though, i wonder if someone will ever post them).

i see a lot of people who hate it and fair enough, you’re entitled to that but i do firmly believe it was the right choice. i once saw someone say if they could do mihawks funky beard or the bright, unnatural hair colours why couldn’t they do sanji’s eyebrows? and i think the answer to that is a matter of the human perception of those features. we as people are incredibly used to seeing people in real life with dyed hair in rainbow colours, people do it all the time. mihawks beard is very obviously cut into the shape it is and if he wanted to a real man could recreate that look and people do. the reason those features work in opla is because they exist within our world and so when they’re on screen surrounded by people who look more normal they don’t look massively out of place. they draw attention sure but it’s not all that different to what you can see on the streets of our real world so we don’t really think anything of it. sanji’s eyebrow (and also usopp’s nose) are two features that imo push too far past the boundary of what our brains consider “normal”. there is no real world equivalent of both of those features and when surrounded by other characters who don’t have any odd features like that they would look odd and out of place. all your attention would be pulled to it and that’s not what you want. it works in cosplays and the stage actors (who all look incredible) because you know that those are costumes but opla wants to feel as real as possible and yeah it just doesn’t translate properly (because as wacky as the op world is there isn’t actually many people with such unnatural features in the earlier arcs. odd hair colour and styles is usually the extent of it).

also i’ve seen some clips from the con but i don’t speak a word of spanish so if anyone has any subtitled clips please send them my way cause i’d love to hear what he had to say :)

[sallieraptor]

first of all

[nodosauriday]

game herlock is kind of asexual to me but lesbian herlock from the stageplay has a wild magnetic charisma and undeniably pulls

[danlous]

Really appreciate Sam shutting down this question and basically saying it doesn't matter, and also openly acknowledging that Lestat's violence is always coming from a place of toxic masculine rage and it's a core part of his character arc [x]

[petercushingscheekbones]

"What a piece of work is a man!"

Hamlet (2009) Act II Scene 2

[indycarnocontext]

[riddlerosehearts]

aaaaa riddle's dream is so soon and there are so many different directions it could go in... it could be riddle getting to have a kind, loving mother who doesn't place unfair restrictions on him, so he gets to grow up like a normal kid and have fun playing with trey and chenya. it could be him being the same tyrant that he was in book 1 except this time his subjects fall in line, he always gets his way, and he never has to go through the pain of realizing that he was wrong. it could be him being just, like, a normal dorm leader who's kind and understanding and still strict but not overly so, and being genuinely admired and respected by his dormmates for it. it could be my personal favorite theory, that he dreams of something not too far off from reality--his mother is still pretty strict with him and has high expectations for him, but lets him have strawberry tarts and see his friends every now and then (and doesn't yell at him when she catches him sneaking out, instead lightly reprimanding him while telling him she's glad that he made some friends), because he still loves his mother and just wants to be rewarded a little for his hard work. riddle's dream could be about so many different things and every single one of them would destroy me.