The long-awaited return of the hit documentary series Unsolved Mysteries to Netflix has been confirmed, with a release date for volume four set for July 31, 2024. Nearly two years have passed since the release of the third volume, and fans are eager to dive back into the enigmatic world of unexplained deaths, baffling disappearances, and bizarre paranormal activities. ‘Unsolved Mysteries’ originally aired on NBC in 1987, quickly becoming a staple for viewers fascinated by cold cases and paranormal phenomena. Over the years, the series has seen various iterations, airing on CBS, Lifetime, and Spike TV. The show made its Netflix debut in 2020, a decade after its last season aired, reviving interest in its gripping and mysterious stories. The original series was hosted by Robert Stack, but the Netflix version opts for a host-less format, allowing the stories to take center stage. As mentioned in The Economic Times, the synopsis for the upcoming season promises to deliver more of the intense and eerie content that fans have come to love. “The iconic and gripping series returns, featuring more unexplained deaths, baffling disappearances, and bizarre paranormal activity.” This season is expected to continue the tradition of exploring a variety of mysterious cases that leave viewers both intrigued and unsettled. “This is our most unique volume yet. From one of the most notorious unsolved cases of all time to all-new baffling mysteries, there’s something for everyone to solve,” said co-creator and executive producer Terry Dunn Meurer. The post Unsolved Mysteries Volume 4 to premiere on Netflix appeared first on Anomalien.com.

“A pogrom,” the definition goes, “is an organized massacre of a people.” The events of October 7 in Israel is one example of a pogrom. 9/11 was another. A pogrom is limited only by the existence of external authorities — political and moral — that can intervene and check its primal bloodlust. Without such resistances, and with modern means at leaders' disposal, pogroms are primal sparks of genocide. My fellow Americans and my fellow American Jews: We have a problem. We, the American people, are losing our American minds. We are thinking and behaving badly, at a poison-Ivy-League level, and with trickle-down-scale consequences in the real world, beyond the twilight zone of academia.At its core, diversity, equity, and inclusion is nothing more than the passion for vengeance and redistribution.As goes American higher education — particularly elite education — so goes America. We wish it weren’t true, but sadly, it is.The caretakers of our finest schools have consciously stood up a rival to our inherited American experiment. And it’s on full post-American, Palestinian display. These elite social justice warrior students are victims. But not for the reasons they think. These students are unbearable by design. They were taught to think and act this way by those entrusted with shaping their minds. The intersectional hate-fest on parade at our best schools is not a glitch in the teaching code. It is an intended feature, a product of a self-conscious educational pipeline that now stretches from pre-K to Ph.D.Their program is our pogrom.Wake up to the wokeLet’s start with a nod to American free speech. Without it, we would not know what these protesters think of us, or about their extinction plans for our collective American future.Who are these new Americans? What do they believe and hope to accomplish? They are anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Western, anti-male, anti-white, and anti-meritocratic in mind and heart. What is “intersectionality”? It’s when each victim group gets to define its position — and each of the other victim groups of this rainbow coalition follows the “river to the sea” lead.Those who are not members of an aggrieved group, but overwhelmed with guilt for their own inherited privilege, can give their adjacent support and chant the slogans. “Jews for Palestine,” for example — or, as Douglas Murray rendered this madness, “Chickens for KFC.” Identity politics is minority tyranny against the majority, all in the name of a leveling understanding of equality and a pursuit of social justice that requires the active persecution of the present for the sins of the past. Its logic is racial, ethnic, and religious strife. The doctrine is self-evidently un-American to its core and dangerous. Its logic leads to Bosnian, Rwandan, and Gazan hunger games. This minority tyranny is not good for actual minorities, which explains their growing exodus from this mental and political plantation.Identity politics thrives on a gaslighting newspeak that is a mixture of moralism and gangsterism. On the moralism side of the equation, the new Americans justify their pogrom by appealing to a debased principle of equality.Their notion of diversity, equity, and inclusion means the opposite of the plain, shared meaning of those terms. At its core, DEI is nothing more than the passion for vengeance and redistribution.The individual and personal is out; group identity and group differences are in. DEI renounces all calls for peace and reconciliation as evidence of an unconscious racism, colonialism, and patriarchy — among other evils (it’s hard to keep track of them all).It’s a “shut up and give us what we want” social-justice Ponzi scheme. It’s time for Americans to wake up to the woke. The Ivy League’s social-justice vanguard is full of haters. We need a counterrevolutionAmericans, particularly American Jews, are pulling their heads out of the sand. They are rightfully terrified of the graduates of 2024. But this nihilism did not arrive recently or on its own.Truth be told, we are all complicit in its long, glacial ascent to commanding power. Their revolution has largely been won. They are in charge. Our counterrevolution to theirs is hopefully at the end of its beginning.Their revolution revealed itself in the student protests and riots of the 1960s. Fortunately, this behavior scared a silent majority of Americans and threatened America’s “commanding heights” interests (the power centers of the public- and private-sector: education, entertainment, media, Wall Street, and the deep state that Eisenhower warned against) enough to send it down to defeat at the ballot box in 1968.After this electoral and cultural thumping, these educated radicals and those who shaped them pursued a more patient, generational course of social transformation. They would make a “long march” through the university, steadily increasing their numbers on the faculty; with each graduating class, they would increase mind share outside the academy and within the heights of the ranks that had previously rejected them.What a difference 56 years of deliberate, networked action can make.What is the mindset of America’s education establishment today? How about entertainment, culture, and media? They are all progressive monocultures, and they have been so for decades. During the COVID and Black Lives Matter scares, big business, Wall Street, advertising, and the permanent bureaucracy — State, Justice, FBI, CIA, which last time around were part of the “permanent opposition” — have become progressive assets. And let’s not forget Big Tech and its willingness to play Big Brother for this new American mind and state.The graduating class of 2024, unlike the class of 1968, enjoys the backing and support of everything that had previously stopped it and then some. Today, these graduates have enough political clout to affect American foreign policy — so much so that it appears that the U.S. is waging a “color revolution” against Israel’s Prime Minster, Benjamin Netanyahu.And to make matters worse, the American people — a necessary bulwark going forward if we are to have a snowball’s chance in hell — seem to have become habituated in the intervening years to bending their knee to this growing and spreading madness. Will the silent speak up again, or has it too been co-opted? We will find out soon enough.We’re all deplorables nowWhat are we to do, individually and collectively, to stop it?We need to wake up to it — now! This is a call to liberals, independents, conservatives, and Jews to “wake up to the woke.” We think that by keeping our heads down and staying silent that we can make it go away, or, at least, the revolution will eat the “deplorables” first. But we are all deplorables now.We need to starve it of public and private funding, our employment, and our votes.Most importantly, this Palestinian mindset must be starved of respect. We — the too-silent majority — must free ourselves from this mental plantation.The new radicals’ power derives from our opinion of them. This is the source of their real power — and its real weakness. They see themselves as our moral and social superiors. And they need us to see them that way. Refuse to do so, and their power deflates in real time. Recognizing and calling out its “pogromatic” illiberal logic and its poisoned identitarian fruit will cause it to wither on the public vine.The new radicals didn’t get to where they are overnight. Taking back the American Mind from these levelers will require an equally long march and commitment. If the graduating class of 2024 represents the American mind and future going forward, then this experiment in self-government that we inherited — this “shining city on a hill” — is over and out. This is how democracy dies in daylight. “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order,” George Soros has declared, “is the United States.” Might the purpose of his supremely destructive philanthropy be to undermine the bulwark from within by seeding a Disunited States of America?We have all been going along with the program and failing to see its anti-American, “pogromatic” soul. We must remember that Israel is still just “little Satan.” The big prize is bringing down the Great Satan itself: America.We who don’t want to see that happen need to wake up to the woke. We need to push back mightily against this vision of the world. The hour is late. Is it too late? Let’s believe and act as if it’s not, while we still can. We have no other choice. The woke program is our pogrom. It’s up to us to stop it.

While Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters project their hopes on the big man to make America great again, it appears the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is on a mission to have his most notorious acronym stand for “make America gay again.”At a time when poll after poll shows that Republican voters (and many independents) have increasingly soured on the absurd idea of gay marriage, a 16-page draft of the new party platform circulated on Monday by the Trump campaign to platform committee members completely erases the party’s opposition to gay marriage. If we adopt the Democratic Party’s policies as our own, what’s the point? We might as well go the way of the Tories.Here is the operative wording from a draft first obtained by the Washington Post and later made public:The new platform draft also removes language from 2016 condemning the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry. The new language does not weigh in on same-sex marriage at all. “Republicans will promote a culture that values the sanctity of marriage, the blessings of childhood, and the foundational role of families, and supports working parents,” it says instead. “We will end policies that punish families.”We already knew Trump was seeking to remove the goal of a national abortion ban from the party, and this draft reflects that idea. It only briefly mentions opposition to late-term abortion. But the clause on marriage shows that Trump’s leftward shift goes beyond concerns about the pro-abortion movement’s electoral strength. It is much more systemic.A ‘Harriet Miers moment’?Remember, since winning the primary, Trump has endorsed nearly every liberal down-ballot candidate. He has stymied conservatives fighting the agenda of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). He has endorsed Ukraine funding, opposed the repeal of Obamacare, thrown cold water on the Bud Light boycott, expressed support for a new FBI building, argued for an increase in immigration, and won’t even commit as a Florida resident to opposing the abortion referendum on the ballot, which would enshrine a right to murder up until birth. In fact, even as Trump says he wants to “leave abortion to the states,” he specifically pressured the Arizona legislature to repeal its anti-abortion law. Apparently, letting the states decide is a one-way street. All of this is happening as Trump elevates figures like Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R), neocon technocrats whom his ardent supporters have opposed in the past. This occurs against the backdrop of him attacking Project 2025, a Steve Bannon-endorsed initiative to set the policy and personnel agenda for Trump's administration to avoid the “Javanka” globalism issues from his first term. The Trump campaign not only rejected this agenda but also made it clear it will ignore the “conservative LinkedIn” set up by his loyalists to hire MAGA-only applicants for administrative positions. Meanwhile, billionaires like Bill Ackman are promising to staff Trump’s administration.All these betrayals in such a short period should give conservatives pause and motivate them to voice displeasure. Trump needs a “Harriet Miers moment.” Back in 2005, conservatives made it clear that George W. Bush’s nomination of his personal counsel to the U.S. Supreme Court was unacceptable. Thanks to pushback, we have enjoyed the jurisprudence of Samuel Alito for nearly two decades. I’m sure glad we didn’t have losers on the right back then telling us to shut up and not express our dissatisfaction with the GOP leader because, “Do you want the Democrat?”Normalizing liberalismWhich brings us back to the party platform. Trump’s agenda to remake the platform is further proof that his leftward lurch is not just a temporary strategic choice to win an election but a permanent paradigm shift for governing more aligned with Britain’s Rishi Sunak and France’s Emmanuel Macron than Nigel Farage or Marine Le Pen. The new platform aims to replace the social and fiscal conservatism disliked by some, which was adopted by two successive Trump-led conventions, without any committee meetings or amendment votes. Unlike abortion, an issue on which Republicans seem to be losing ground, they are gaining traction against the rainbow jihad, with growing opposition to gay marriage and even stronger opposition to the transgender agenda. There is no need to moderate on these issues, even when considering the old establishment’s tendency to abandon conservatism when it temporarily loses in polls. Yet the draft, shaped by carefully selected delegates, shows that Trump essentially supports Bruce Jenner’s view: acknowledging transgenderism as real and important while arguing for the protection of female sports and opposing funding for minors’ castration.Here is how the Washington Post explains the new platform in the context of the existing one:The new platform stops short of seeking to bar parents from seeking medical treatment for minor children, while condemning any taxpayer funding of such procedures. “We will keep men out of women’s sports, ban taxpayer funding for sex change surgeries, and stop taxpayer-funded schools from promoting gender transition, reverse Biden’s radical rewrite of Title IX education regulations, and restore protections for women and girls,” the new platform says.Jenner and Ric Grenell have long propagated this party line: Accept the premise of the homosexual and transgender agenda, but oppose a few of its more unpopular policies. This explains the absence of mentions of bathrooms, drag shows, or adoption issues. Additionally, the only two fundraisers held by Trump’s wife this cycle have been for the Log Cabin Republicans, whose entire purpose is to normalize homosexuality within the GOP. Bruce Jenner is also slated to speak at the convention and be introduced as “Caitlyn” to normalize that behavior on the right.So vociferous were party leaders in their pursuit to normalize liberalism in the platform that they tried to block social conservative delegates from the platform committee. I’ve heard from several socially conservative party delegates from Southern states that they were offered any committee of their choice at the RNC — as long as it wasn’t the platform committee. A bulwark against the unipartyMeantime, the lukewarm Republican chairman of the Missouri GOP just led his executive committee in an unprecedented maneuver to nullify the delegates chosen by the convention activists in favor of a new establishment slate. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) warned against watering down the platform on life and marriage, but those warnings ring hollow if they are not followed up with a Harriet Miers moment.Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) just suggested that the party platform should reflect Trump’s most recent views. He is exactly wrong. Trump is what he is at this point. What we need is a bulwark against the uniparty down the ballot in the GOP and the red states because clearly Trump, while superior to Biden, will not be that bulwark. Accusing those of us concerned with Trump’s direction of preferring Biden and the Democrats is a straw man. You can still nominate Trump at the convention while working to reverse the platform’s damage over the next few days. But if we adopt the Democratic Party’s policies as our own, what’s the point? We might as well go the way of the Tories.

America’s biggest problem today is it hasn’t quite figured out what kind of government its own technology has stuck it with. People on the right fear digital communism. People on the left fear digital “authoritarianism,” but the leading model of digital governance in Washington is a high-tech form of leftist authoritarianism. And as shown by the chaos and mania surrounding the debate around the Biden administration’s fate, not even all leftist authoritarians can agree on which regime form they want or need. Logic isn’t enough in this world, especially when it comes to America’s destiny. There’s the perversely nostalgic “Dark Brandon” variety, with Joe playing the familiar necrotic dictator role, yelling feebly into the microphone from behind a pricey suit and blacked-out Aviator shades. For those who favor more cosmic atavism, there’s the mummified emperor option, with Biden as the embalmed figurehead around whose inert ceremonial corpus the ornate and convoluted political universe turns. Both these roles are enhanced by advanced technology, which keeps the aged figurehead animated or, in the alternative, more durably above ground. And at the frontier of innovation, the merely physical body doubles available to 20th-century despots now look quaint. While cherry-picking a lone HuffPost op-ed is usually not the path to enlightenment in this world, a recent column made the striking case that yes, Biden is in rough enough shape that we ought to consider supplementing him with AI. “Given the president’s concerning performance last week, it’s time for the Biden campaign to consider leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) to effectively reach the voting public.” While of course there are reasonable hesitations to break this dam on the use of modern technology in presidential campaigning, the consequences of not taking this approach could be dire. Moreover, in the currently under-regulated electoral landscape, refusing to use modern tools like AI is akin to entering the boxing ring with one hand tied behind your back. With the bad orange man looming once again — not to be confused with the good orange man trotted out in a bizarre burnished glaze by one or another of his panicked handlers — surely we have no choice but to borg up the POTUS! It’s an argument many Americans might brush off as a cringey thought experiment evincing an exhausted ideology. But this particular column wasn’t written by woke wordserf toiling on the content farm labor camp. It was the work of a former staffer on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign with, count ‘em, three advanced degrees, one from Yale and two from Harvard. In other words, digitally enhanced leftist authoritarianism doesn’t have to settle for Saddam 2.0 or animatronic Lenin. In the digital age, premium leftist authoritarianism holds out the now-intuitive prospect of a cyborg president. In hindsight, the logic feels obvious. Obama himself, on the occasion of election 2020, warned the Atlantic that the internet itself was the greatest threat to American democracy because it eroded the ability of the body politic to coalesce around the shared cognitive and conceptual foundation of an agreed-upon ground reality. Denied this baseline, democratic politics would succumb to overwhelming wave attacks of misinformation, or what some might call fake news. Fast-forward to 2024, however, and Americans are now witnessing the spectacle of the state-affiliated media turning against the sitting president because his administration froze them out of the (obvious) truth about just how bad a shape he’s in. Obama’s warning really had to do with the political instability technology was causing by undermining the regime form we ended up with that included “the media” as a core unelected branch of government. But Obama’s own elder heir, whom mocking Zoomers with no adult memory of 2016 now call Jeo Boeden, did far more to disempower and discredit the regime-aligned media in its governance functions than did anyone with a frog for a profile picture sitting at his basement keyboard. Now, “the media” gets to feel its obsolescence in real time. As talking heads splutter, younger, more savvy analysts are beginning to say out loud that AI allows the party to become “the media” in a way CNN could never dream of: every instant, every day, everywhere, merging the very person of the president himself with an infinitely scalable digital version of him-, her-, or itself. The appearance of ultimate power always glitters in a special way for those who feel their elevated position is in danger of slipping away. But you can hear the strain in the argument that AI is needed to save America because it will best prop up Joe Biden. The real ultimate held out by the prospect of a BOTUS — a Borg of the United States — isn’t iBiden but rather a regime of fanatics who see total technological control as the only way to actualize on Earth their idolization of what they see as perfect justice, a justice in the absence of which humanity merits little more than extinction or destruction. Does today’s technology open or close off to Americans an escape route from theocratic despotism at the digital hands of a woke borg? Some see the prospect of a benign high-tech Caesarism on the horizon — or maybe, uh, CEOsarism. There’s a palpable logic to that option, too: As incompetence and idolatry crumble our institutions, thinning America’s commercial and cultural lifeblood, perhaps only a hyper-competent butt-kicking businessman up to speed on emerging tech can step in, clean house, and turn things around. But logic isn’t enough in this world, especially when it comes to America’s destiny. Ours is a story dramatizing the ancient wisdom that the rot starts at the top in human society, whereas renewal comes from the humblest, smallest, and — for all but the most spiritually perceptive — the most imperceptible origins. Any path promising a return to greatness that shortcuts around the slow and painful regeneration of soul health among the people is, in the end, snake oil. Ball-busting cyborg CEOs unleashing Sulla mindset on a society gone to seed can deliver certain outsized results — that’s not (and has never been) in question. The question concerning the impact of technology on America’s political destiny is not about the heights of “excellence” but the depths of true vitality. And the answer is plain to those with ears to hear: Behold, a sower went forth to sow; and when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: and when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: but others fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

Last week, a Florida bill banning the sale of lab-grown meat went into effect. The bill is aimed at protecting American ranchers and farmers, targeting companies wanting to produce meat without killing the animal by using animal stem cells to create meat. It would not ban plant-based meats, like the famous Impossible burger. Do we really want to synthesize meats with more chemicals that elites claim are safe? After Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed the bill back in May, he took a jab at globalists and World Economic Forum elites, arguing that lab-grown meat threatens Americans. “What we're protecting here is the [agriculture] industry against acts of man, against an ideological agenda that wants to finger agriculture as the problem, that views things like raising cattle as destroying our climate,” said DeSantis. The governor portrayed lab-grown meat advocates as “people who will lecture the rest of us about things like global warming — they will say that, you know, you can’t drive an internal combustion engine vehicle, they’ll say that agriculture is bad. Meanwhile, they're flying to Davos in their private jets, and they’re living like they would ever want to live.” Food industrialization Critics of the policy argue that the Florida bill prevents competition with Big Ag, which receives huge federal subsidies to industrialize broad sectors of the food supply. The large-scale agricultural lobby wants policies that ensure its continued domination of the food market. Unlike local farmers and ranchers who also benefit from the lab-grown meat ban, Big Ag frequently sacrifices food quality in favor of maximizing market control and efficiency. While it’s true that Big Ag has driven the industrialization of food and lab-grown meat might have decreased its market power, the rise of synthetic meats has accelerated food industrialization due to its scalability and efficiency. When the technology becomes advanced enough — and if demand, whether voluntary or compulsory, rises to viable levels — scientists and technocrats will be able to produce petri-dish meat in a small lab in large quantities, increasing the supply of synthetic meats and crowding out meat produced by ranchers in local communities. Much of America’s meats, fruits, and vegetables are already tainted with pesticides, chemicals, and fertilizers. Do we really want to synthesize meats with more chemicals that elites claim are safe? It’s important to remember that curtailing Big Ag’s influence is not a goal in and of itself. Large-scale food production should be one of the means of delivering nutritious meals to American communities. Allowing synthetic meats to compete with processed hot dogs, for example, doesn’t actually provide a real alternative for Americans who want ethically sourced and healthy foods. Protectionism Other critics of Gov. DeSantis, playing a predictable theme, have accused him of food authoritarianism. A recent Reason article labeled DeSantis as “the real authoritarian” and accused him of unnecessarily framing cultured meat as a culture war issue. Such critics believe that protectionist regulations are harmful to individual liberty since consumers, not governments, should have the right to decide what they want to eat. There is, however, no “right” to eat or sell whatever you want. Farmers can’t sell unpasteurized milk because that could cause disease. Fishermen can’t sell shark fins because that is unethical. So why should technocrats have the right to sell cultured meat if it's a threat to ranching? These situations aren’t exactly parallel, but they show precedent for prohibiting certain food products if legitimate threats arise. Global elites have openly espoused anti-ranching sentiments, arguing that current levels of meat consumption should be cut back. At last year’s COP28 summit, the United Nations released a manifesto urging Americans to cut back on eating meat in order to meet the U.N.'s net-zero carbon emissions plan. Similarly, billionaire Bill Gates wants to drive down beef demand, which would be catastrophic for American ranchers and farmers. “I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef,” Gates recently told MIT Technology Review. “You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.” But encouraging globalist elites to replace all natural meat with cells grown in little petri dishes isn’t just dystopian; it threatens the American way of life. Ranching is part of the American way of life. Ranching helped build Texas, even before it was part of the United States, and it set up the foundation for America’s Western frontier. It’s more than just another economic activity; it’s a lifestyle ingrained into American tradition. The meme that globalists are forcing patriotic Americans into eating bugs and living in pods to save the planet is becoming a reality. But there’s still time for state legislatures to follow Florida’s lead and pre-empt “enlightened” elites from imposing the dark scenario.

Biden Campaign Tries to Mock Trump's Golf Challenge (Then It Gets Awkward)

VeepStakes: Trump Teases Rubio As Running Mate at Miami Rally; Barron Joins Dad for First Rally

Biden Team's Childish Response to Trump Golf/Debate Offer Gets Mocked Into Next Week

To Avoid 'Kids in Cages' Headlines, the Biden Administration Has Done Something Far Worse

Samsung just unveiled its 2024 foldables at the second big Unpacked press conference of the year, and they're available for preorder starting now. I came to Paris fully aware of what the rumors have been saying about this year's Fold and Flip phones. And they were largely on point. But I will say that you need to experience the phones in person, if you can, before dismissing them outright. Because, yes, that might be your first reaction, given that the Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Galaxy Z Flip 6 look a lot like last year's models. I'll get the bad news out of the way first: There is no cheaper Galaxy Z Fold 6 Lite/FE to buy, or at least not yet. Samsung only launched two new foldable devices that look almost identical to their predecessors. They feel similar, too. What's worse is that the Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Flip 6 will each cost you $100 more than their predecessors, with prices starting at $1,899 and $1,099. Samsung might be playing it safe again with its foldable devices, but that's because it can afford to. The Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Galaxy Z Flip 6 look like the previous models, but they feature plenty of novelties that make them appealing — especially to Fold and Flip owners who are ready for an upgrade. Then there's Galaxy AI, Samsung's suite of generative AI features that launched with the Galaxy S24 series earlier this year. After hitting last year's foldables, Galaxy AI will be available on the Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Flip 6 right out of the box, complete with some Gemini AI assistant integration thanks to a partnership with Google. Continue reading... The post Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6: Just like the Fold 5, but with AI and a price hike appeared first on BGR. Today's Top Deals Best deals: Tech, laptops, TVs, and more sales Today’s deals: July 4th sales, $19.50 AirTags, best-selling laptops, $300 Shark AI robot vacuum, more Best July 4th deals: Apple sale, $30 mosquito repellent, $50 Waterpik, $70 SodaStream, 36% off eero, more Best Apple deals for July 2024