Idk what he’s referring to, but wikimedia funds the operating costs of Wikipedia as well as the salaries etc of those that work to keep the site running.
They have been criticised for bloat, but the site itself is entirely dependent upon donations.
WP has a story that sums it up nicely: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/
Is this really true though? A neutral third party would not supply weapons or have any economic incentive to the outcome of the conflict, which China plainly does have. I’m not saying the US or really any NATO country is in a better position, however saying China is only interested in peace and are a neutral third party is disingenuous.
And as to what Blinken is saying, that’s something Ukraine has been saying since the invasion began. Sure it’s not his place, however if you interpret it charitably, it could also be construed as supporting the stance of your ally in the face of pressure towards an agreement they don’t really want.
AR stuff is cool, it really is, but this will not be something you wear around other people.
Maybe in many years from now, once the technology has matured to where you can wear it as normal glasses or even contacts, but I just don’t think a lot of people will want to use these except as a novelty or for specific purposes like gaming and then they will be competing against Meta which is priced much lower.
I’d still take a pair though if they were sold at a tenth of the price :)