Startup expects to complete construction of its first fuel plant later this year

Amazon inched closer to its atomic datacenter dream on Friday after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed its small modular reactor partner X-energy to make nuclear fuel for advanced reactors at a facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.…

Whilst the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) loves to brag about catching "benefit fraud", it's been called out for not doing enough to stop benefit errors in its own system.

DWP pulled in front of the Public Accounts Committee for their own fuck ups - again

The DWP was once again up in front of the Public Accounts Committee. This time, it was defending what it was doing to tackle fraud and error.

A big chunk of the committee was taken up with scrutinising the powers of the new bank snooping bill. This was covered extensively by the rags because the penny has finally dropped that they can spy on ALL our bank accounts.

However, much of the coverage misses that the DWP was also called to account for its own behaviour. Specifically, due to its own error, the department is overpaying and underpaying a huge number of claimants.

Underpaid benefits cancelled out overpaid benefits

PAC found that claimants were overpaid by £1 billion in 2024-25 due to the DWP's own errors. This is up from £0.8 billion in 2023-24. However, this is cancelled out by the fact that claimants were underpaid by £1.2 billion for the same reason 2024-25. This is up from £1.1 billion in 2023-24.

The report said:

The DWP has carried out some work to tackle the root causes of fraud and error - but this has focused on those committed by claimants, rather than errors by officials.

As usual, the DWP is spending all its time demonising claimants and not actually doing anything to fix its fucked up system that allows so many to fall through the cracks. This is clear through the media narrative of disabled claimants and the treatment of carers.

The report reiterates that errors in the system are largely down to those who control the system, who don't really give a fuck about fixing it.

Claimants not reporting worsening conditions, for obvious reason

Another issue, the report claims, is that not enough claimants are reporting when their circumstances change.

A particular problem is that disabled claimants are not informing the DWP when their condition worsens, meaning they could be entitled to more money.

This rose from approximately £3.1 billion in 2023-24 to £3.7 billion in 2024-25. However, there's a very obvious explanation for this.

When a disabled claimant reports that their condition worsens, they have to be reassessed. Anyone who's gone through the benefits assessment process knows how utterly soul-destroying it is.

There's also no guarantee that you will get more money at the end of it. With assessments being so cruel, there's always the possibility of ending up with less money or losing all your benefits. So for many, it's just not worth the stress.

Whilst a change of circumstance can be made online for Universal Credit, other benefits require you to call. The DWP Customer Service and Accounts 2023-24 report found that 3.6 million calls about PIP went unanswered in that same period.

The committee has said the DWP needs to address its own errors and how these can be fixed. But having reported on the DWP for a long time, I'm fairly certain this will be a tick-box exercise or something they attempt to sneak out.

Does the DWP actually care about changing?

The committee has ordered the department to do more to make it easier for claimants to report changes. Worryingly, though, beyond "build trust", there isn't really much mentioned about how the culture of the DWP has to change. If claimants felt safe enough to report changes and could be sure they wouldn't lose money, more would report worsening conditions.

Unfortunately, though, it's clear from the DWP's actions that the department would much rather demonise claimants and ensure as many are kicked off vital benefits as possible. Ensuring more who actually need the support get it just wouldn't fit their benefit scrounger narrative.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Dirty - no doubt Israel-driven - tactics are in play against UN special rapporteur for occupied Palestine Francesca Albanese.

Albanese being hit with dirty tactics again

Albanese has become a towering - and targeted - symbol of the dignity of the Palestinian struggle for freedom and of opposition to Israel's crimes against them. So fearless and effective has Albanese been that the Israeli regime and its western collaborator governments have tried desperately to silence her - and failed.

An attempt to prevent her re-accreditation in her (unpaid and voluntary) role was resoundingly defeated. Escalating sanctions against her have failed to intimidate her and have elevated her standing in the eyes of many right-minded people.

So now the Israel lobby has gone to the bottom drawer of its dirty tricks chest. And to their shame, several Western governments are aiding and abetting the genocidal occupier.

We love you @FranceskAlbs you are our lighthouse in a storm

— Carol Anne Grayson (@Quickieleaks) February 13, 2026

An edited version of an Albanese speech has been circulated in which she appears to say that Israel is the "common enemy of the world". Not that she'd be wrong if she did say it - but she didn't. More to the point, she provably didn't say it.

But shamefully, the French government - knowing that she didn't say it - is demanding her resignation for the comment. Even after this was shown beyond doubt, the French still won't apologise - and other governments continue to amplify the lie and the demand. Here's what she really said, versus the fake:

When sovereign states amplify claims rooted in doctored videos shown to be false, we must STAND IN SOLIDARITY AND DEMAND AN APOLOGY. France and others owe @FranceskAlbs an unambiguous apology and reckoning. pic.twitter.com/gTzVryKulv

— Ahmed Eldin | احمد الدين (@ASE) February 13, 2026

Albanese also responded publicly. With characteristic directness, she accused France of stepping in dogshit and refusing to clean its shoe by apologising:

A lie was exposed. Instead of retracting it, the SYSTEM that enabled the genocide, attacks the messanger. France knows it stepped in something foul, but pride forbids correction: the archives are ransacked for any stray word. Others repeat the falsehood.
The Inquisition is back. https://t.co/DeYmXN3Mgl

— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) February 13, 2026

The Israel lobby - in and outside Israel - is desperate to silence the fearless Ms Albanese. Instead, those using these disgusting tactics must be 'consigned to the dustbin of history'. You know, the type you see in parks - where the dogshit goes.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

News of the deal came about two weeks after CEO Bill McDermott swore off any "large scale" M&A this year. A spokesperson called this deal a "tuck in."

Despite its CEO's insistence that it wasn't doing any "large scale" deals soon, ServiceNow has acquired yet another company. This time, the software firm has scooped up Pyramid Analytics, an Israeli corporation with data science and preparation expertise. The goal is to build additional context and semantics into its software stack.…

Copyright owners increasingly claim more draconian copyright law and policy will fight back against big tech companies. In reality, copyright gives the most powerful companies even more control over creators and competitors. Today's copyright policy concentrates power among a handful of corporate gatekeepers—at everyone else's expense. We need a system that supports grassroots innovation and emerging creators by lowering barriers to entry—ultimately offering all of us a wider variety of choices.

Pro-monopoly regulation through copyright won't provide any meaningful economic support for vulnerable artists and creators. Because of the imbalance in bargaining power between creators and publishing gatekeepers, trying to help creators by giving them new rights under copyright law is like trying to help a bullied kid by giving them more lunch money for the bully to take.

Entertainment companies' historical practices bear out this concern. For example, in the late-2000's to mid-2010's, music publishers and recording companies struck multimillion-dollar direct licensing deals with music streaming companies and video sharing platforms. Google reportedly paid more than $400 million to a single music label, and Spotify gave the major record labels a combined 18 percent ownership interest in its now- $100 billion company. Yet music labels and publishers frequently fail to share these payments with artists, and artists rarely benefit from these equity arrangements. There's no reason to think that these same companies would treat their artists more fairly now.

AI Training

In the AI era, copyright may seem like a good way to prevent big tech from profiting from AI at individual creators' expense—it's not. In fact, the opposite is true. Developing a large language model requires developers to train the model on millions of works. Requiring developers to license enough AI training data to build a large language model would  limit competition to all but the largest corporations—those that either have their own trove of training data or can afford to strike a deal with one that does. This would result in all the usual harms of limited competition, like higher costs, worse service, and heightened security risks. New, beneficial AI tools that allow people to express themselves or access information.

Legacy gatekeepers have already used copyright to stifle access to information and the creation of new tools for understanding it. Consider, for example, Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, the first of many copyright lawsuits over the use of works train AI. ROSS Intelligence was a legal research startup that built an AI-based tool to compete with ubiquitous legal research platforms like Lexis and Thomson Reuters' Westlaw. ROSS trained its tool using "West headnotes" that Thomson Reuters adds to the legal decisions it publishes, paraphrasing the individual legal conclusions (what lawyers call "holdings") that the headnotes identified. The tool didn't output any of the headnotes, but Thomson Reuters sued ROSS anyways. A federal appeals court is still considering the key copyright issues in the case—which EFF weighed in on last year. EFF hopes that the appeals court will reject this overbroad interpretation of copyright law. But in the meantime, the case has already forced the startup out of business, eliminating a would-be competitor that might have helped increase access to the law.

Requiring developers to license AI training materials benefits tech monopolists as well. For giant tech companies that can afford to pay, pricey licensing deals offer a way to lock in their dominant positions in the generative AI market by creating prohibitive barriers to entry. The cost of licensing enough works to train an LLM would be prohibitively expensive for most would-be competitors.

The DMCA's "Anti-Circumvention" Provision

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "anti-circumvention" provision is another case in point. Congress ostensibly passed the DMCA to discourage would-be infringers from defeating Digital Rights Management (DRM) and other access controls and copy restrictions on creative works.

In practice, it's done little to deter infringement—after all, large-scale infringement already invites massive legal penalties. Instead, Section 1201 has been used to block competition and innovation in everything from printer cartridges to garage door openers, videogame console accessories, and computer maintenance services. It's been used to threaten hobbyists who wanted to make their devices and games work better. And the problem only gets worse as software shows up in more and more places, from phones to cars to refrigerators to farm equipment. If that software is locked up behind DRM, interoperating with it so you can offer add-on services may require circumvention. As a result, manufacturers get complete control over their products, long after they are purchased, and can even shut down secondary markets (as Lexmark did for printer ink, and Microsoft tried to do for Xbox memory cards.)

Giving rights holders a veto on new competition and innovation hurts consumers. Instead, we need balanced copyright policy that rewards consumers without impeding competition.

Republished from the EFF's Deeplinks blog.

The TSSA union's deeply unpopular general secretary Maryam Eslamdoust moved this week to disenfranchise all the union's retired members - and now she's boasting about it. Not just that, but senior TSSA figures say that she and her coterie are lying to justify it - and have put the union's structures into collapse.

TSSA union: yet more scandal

In an email to members, the union management boasted that it is "proud" of what it has done - and claimed that disenfranchising TSSA's many retired members was "long overdue" and "another important Kennedy Review milestone":

We are proud to share that TSSA has reached another important Kennedy Review milestone.Following a recommendation of the Kennedy Review, the Executive Committee has agreed to consolidate our retired members into a single National TSSA Retired Members' Branch. This is a long-overdue change and brings TSSA into line with the approach already adopted by many other unions.

This new national structure will provide retired members with a centralised branch through which they can coordinate strategically, share experience, and network with peers at their own pace and convenience. Just as importantly, it will amplify the collective voice of retired members, creating a strong "super branch" that can speak clearly and confidently within the union and beyond.

We look forward to working closely with members of the new National Retired Members' Branch and to the valuable contribution they will continue to make to TSSA's life and direction.

This change will also have an impact on working members. As retired members move into the national branch, there may be vacancies for officer roles in local branches/divisional councils. We strongly encourage members to step forward and consider standing for these positions where opportunities arise.

The Kennedy Report exposed the bullying and sexual harassment of former general secretary Manuel Cortes and his cronies. Members and staff, furious at Eslamdoust's endless war on union workers and member democracy, are not shy about saying that Eslamdoust is propagating the abuses of the Cortes era rather than undoing them.

But the Kennedy Report doesn't say one word about closing retired branches. Not one.

No recommendations to close branches

In fact, the report only mentions retired members - at all - one single time. Not to recommend closing their branches, but to say that the union relies too heavily on them and needs to encourage more working members to take up positions.

It also notes that if working members are not actively engaged in the union, TSSA management can easily stitch up elections to key positions - ironically exactly how Eslamdoust was installed despite having no relevant experience. Because of this, the report suggests that TSSA staff who are not TSSA members (most are GMB members, a union now de-recognised by Eslamdoust and her allies:

Finally, for this foreword, I want the TSSA to examine its democratic standing and traditions. It appears that engagement at branch level is dwindling and is heavily orientated towards retired members. This can present a real problem. Not only because it detaches the leadership from reality of the current world of work as it is being experienced by members, but also because it means there is no healthy throughput of talent to key roles within the organisation. Only TSSA members can stand for election to General Secretary (GS), the most powerful role in the union. The most likely candidate to be successful in a GS election is someone who knows the organisation inside and out - i.e. a staff member. Very few staff members belong to the TSSA. So, GS elections are, to all intents and purposes, uncontested (or are notionally contested by candidates who have little prospect of winning). A key individual is seen to be 'groomed' for the post by the small number of senior managers who hold power, and that individual is then 'crowned.'

That's all clear enough - and not remotely what the management claims. So to try to persuade furious members that it is, Eslamdoust's ally John Rees sent an email to retired members claiming that the change is "fully aligned" with Kennedy's recommendations. And to embellish the claim, he added that it was "comprehensively and fully accepted" by the union's annual conference after its publication:

This change is fully aligned with the recommendations of the Kennedy Report, which was comprehensively and fully accepted by TSSA Annual Conference in 2023. The report set out a clear direction to consolidate retired members' structures in order to strengthen representation, improve consistency, and ensure long-term sustainability.

Nonsense

Poppycock, says retired assistant general secretary Steve Coe - who wrote and moved the 2023 conference motion. Coe told Skwawkbox:

Mr Rees has been fed this from on high, a deliberate lie to justify their actions.

Coe added that the 2023 conference motion merely 'noted' the Kennedy Report and did not endorse it, let alone "comprehensively and fully". He underlined that there are no Kennedy recommendations "relating specifically to retired members" and "certainly not to consolidate retired members' structures".

He went on:

This is not only a massive blow to retired members, who have now almost entirely lost their representation and their voice at conference. It's also a massive blow to the majority of TSSA's working branches. Most branches run on retired members. Most will struggle to fill officer positions and struggle even to have a quorum in order to vote validly on anything or put motions to conference.

But this is not accidental. TSSA management is not just silencing retired members, it's silencing most members and neutering conference - all to protect a general secretary who is unfit for the role and held in contempt by members and staff.

Coe also pointed out the inherently discriminatory nature of the move:

Retired members are now all forced into a branch consisting only of other retired members. They have been summarily ousted from positions they were democratically elected and are barred from standing for them again. It's ageism and illegal, as well as completely undemocratic - neither retired members, nor the wider membership through conference, have been consulted, let alone asked to vote on it.

A wrecking ball to TSSA

In 2024, Eslamdoust and her allies wrecked the TSSA's annual conference and blocked a planned no-confidence vote against her.

But this is just the tip of a very large iceberg of member, rep and staff disgust with their 'leader'. The TSSA has been embroiled for years in strikes because of the union workers' fury at Eslamdoust's attacks on them and their GMB union reps, both public and private. The attacks culminated, in January 2026, with Eslamdoust de-recognising GMB as the workplace union - an outrageous move for a union boss that came after Eslamdoust told the Guardian that she is only being criticised because she is female.

After her demand for special treatment failed, the TSSA is now accused of trying to neuter democratic opposition - starting with retired members.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Throughout social media, people are warning that a Reform victory in a council by-election is a lesson for the parliamentary by-election in Gorton and Denton.

The results? Reform win.

Reform won in Fletton and Woodston with 29.4% of the vote. The Greens narrowly came second on 27.6%. Meanwhile, Labour were fourth on 16.8%.

Many social media users are pointing out that Labour has split the vote here. If just a few of the voters for the governing party had opted for the Greens, then the Zack Polanski-led party would've won the seat and not Reform.

One user said voting Green Party is a double win:

vote labour, get reform. vote green not just to keep out reform, but for policies you can actually believe in! that actually want to help normal people! what a revelation!

Commentator Owen Jones, meanwhile, called the council result a "warning":

A warning here. The Greens nearly won - but Labour split the vote, handing Reform the seat.

Former MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who defected to the Greens, added:

Labour splitting the vote and letting Reform in. Up and down the county the only way to stop reform is to vote Green.

Polanski: 'Labour is not a left-wing vote'

The Electoral Calculus has the Greens winning the seat, not Reform. But in the world of the corporate media, opting for the Greens splits the 'left' vote, not Labour. ITV's Robert Peston recently challenged Green leader Zack Polanski on that:

Wouldn't you regret Reform UK coming through in Gorton and Denton if The Greens split the left vote?

Polanski responded:

We cannot say that Keir Starmer's Labour would be a left wing vote. This is the party that wanted to slash disability benefits, then had to be shamed not to do it. It's the same party that eventually lifted the two child benefit cap, but it took over 18 months of children living in poverty. And it's the same party that is arming an ongoing genocide in Gaza. So I don't think on any metric you can say Keir Starmer's Labour party represents the left in the country. That's why I'm confident and not complacent that we can win in Gorton and Denton.

It's arguable that Keir Starmer's Labour is closer to Reform than the Greens. And as Polanski has previously said, it would take a change of leadership and direction for the Greens to work with Labour against Reform.

Featured image via the Canary

By James Wright

Reform's candidate for the parliamentary seat of Gorton and Denton, Matt Goodwin, claimed on social media:

One of the untold stories in British politics right now is Reform's very strong support among young men.

But people swiftly pointed out that the favoured party among young men is actually the Greens, according to YouGov.

The facts vs Matt Goodwin

For young men, Green support is at 30%, and Labour support is at 21%. When it comes to the Lib Dems, it's 17% for young men, while the Conservatives and Reform both trail on 12%.

Matt Goodwin's narrative is actually the opposite of the truth. Young men appear to understand that their material conditions will improve through cuts in the cost of living rather than through cuts to public services. And that a shift from landlords to affordable housing would benefit them. Free tuition for university may also play a part. The Greens harbour these policies.

There are other factors that play into how young men might vote. 42% of men aged 20-34 say they feel lonely "often or very often," and, concerningly, there is a very high suicide rate for men under 50.

But the YouGov polling suggests that young men are turning towards hope and a more integrated society that recognises the individual but also the importance of community.

Gorton and Denton

Matt Goodwin's rival in the Green Party at the Gorton and Denton by-election has exemplified why many are turning to her party. Speaking to Channel 4, Hannah Spencer said:

We care about lots of different things. We care about what's happening here locally, as well as things across the world… Living standards are lower here, people's incomes aren't changing, and we have fuel poverty, which is not even a phrase we should be using in 2026. We need people in parliament where the decisions are being made, that have got the background and the relevant lived experience, to be able to feed into decisions that are being made

As a plumber, Green candidate Spencer says she understands hard graft and will therefore represent the working class parliament.

Featured image via the Canary

By James Wright

By partnering with CodePath, AI biz aims to modernize how people learn to program

Can using AI teach you to code more quickly than traditional methods? Anthropic certainly thinks so. The AI outfit has partnered with computer science education org CodePath to get Claude and Claude Code into the hands of students, a time-tested strategy for seeding product interest and building brand loyalty.…

Oxide says AMD's Turin EPYCs are coming, switch revamp under review, more open hardware in the works

Remember that giant green rack-sized blade server Oxide Computer showed off a couple of years back? Well, the startup is still at it, having raked in $200 million in Series-C funding this week as it prepares to bring a bevy of new hardware to market with updated processing power, memory, and networking.…

A California police department is none too happy that its license plate reader records were accessed by federal employees it never gave explicit permission to peruse. And, once again, it's Flock Safety shrugging itself into another PR black eye.

Mountain View police criticized the company supplying its automated license plate reader system after an audit turned up "unauthorized" use by federal law enforcement agencies.

At least six offices of four agencies accessed data from the first camera in the city's Flock Safety license-tracking system from August to November 2024 without the police department's permission or knowledge, according to a press release Friday night.

Flock has been swimming in a cesspool of its own making for several months now, thanks to it being the public face of "How To Hunt Down Someone Who Wanted An Abortion." That debacle was followed by even more negative press (and congressional rebuke) for its apparent unwillingness to place any limits at all on access to the hundreds of millions of license plate records its cameras have captured, including those owned by private individuals.

Mountain View is in California. And that's only one problem with everything in this paragraph:

The city said its system was accessed by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives offices in Kentucky and Tennessee, which investigate crimes related to guns, explosives, arson and the illegal trafficking of alcohol and tobacco; the inspector general's office of the U.S.. General Services Administration, which manages federal buildings, procurement, and property; Air Force bases in Langley, Virginia, and in Ohio; and the Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada.

Imagine trying to explain this to anyone. While it's somewhat understandable that the ATF might be running nationwide searches on Flock's platform, it's almost impossible to explain why images captured by a single camera in Mountain View, California were accessed by the Inspector General for the GSA, much less Lake Mead Recreation Area staffers.

This explains how this happened. But it doesn't do anything to explain why.

They accessed Mountain View's system for one camera via a "nationwide" search setting that was turned on by Flock Safety, police said.

Apparently, this is neither opt-in or opt-out. It just is. The Mountain View police said they "worked closely" with Flock to block out-of-state access, as well as limit internal access to searches expressly approved by the department's police chief.

Flock doesn't seem to care what its customers want. Either it can't do what this department asked or it simply chose not to because a system that can't be accessed by government randos scattered around the nation is much tougher to sell than a locked-down portal that actually serves the needs of the people paying for it.

And that tracks with Ron Wyden's criticism of the company in the letter he wrote to Flock last October:

The privacy protection that Flock promised to Oregonians — that Flock software will automatically examine the reason provided by law enforcement officers for terms indicating an abortion- or immigration-related search — is meaningless when law enforcement officials provide generic reasons like "investigation" or "crime." Likewise, Flock's filters are meaningless if no reason for a search is provided in the first place. While the search reasons collected by Flock, obtained by press and activists through open records requests, have occasionally revealed searches for immigration and abortion enforcement, these are likely just the tip of the iceberg. Presumably, most officers using Flock to hunt down immigrants and women who have received abortions are not going to type that in as the reason for their search. And, regardless, given that Flock has washed its hands of any obligation to audit its customers, Flock customers have no reason to trust a search reason provided by another agency.

I now believe that abuses of your product are not only likely but inevitable, and that Flock is unable and uninterested in preventing them.

Flock just keeps making Wyden's points for him. The PD wanted limited access with actual oversight. Flock gave the PD a lending library of license plate/location images anyone with or without a library card (so to speak) could check out at will. Flock is part of the surveillance problem. And it's clear it's happy being a tool that can be readily and easily abused, no matter what its paying customers actually want from its technology.

Killing Satoshi, an upcoming biopic about the elusive creator of Bitcoin, will reportedly rely heavily on artificial intelligence to generate locations and adjust actors' performances, Variety reports. The film was announced in 2025 as being directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, The Edge of Tomorrow) and starring Casey Affleck and Pete Davidson in undisclosed roles, but its connection to overhyped technology was previously understood to begin and end with cryptocurrency.

According to a UK casting notice viewed by Variety, the producers of Killing Satoshi reserve the right to "change, add to, take from, translate, reformat or reprocess" actors' performances, using "generative artificial intelligence (GAI) and/or machine learning technologies." No digital replicas will be created of performers, but it sounds like plenty of other AI-driven tweaks are on the table. The production's use of AI will also extend to the setting of its shoots, per Variety's source. Killing Satoshi will be shot on a "markerless performative capture stage" and things like backgrounds and locations will be entirely generated by AI.

You guess is as good as mine as to why a film about blockchain technology needs to be filmed this way, but Doug Liman has been connected with plenty of unusual projects in the past, including a rumored Tom Cruise film that was supposed to film on the International Space Station. Killing Satoshi will be far less practical in comparison, and walking a much finer line of what's acceptable in the entertainment industry.

A major sticking point in SAG-AFTRA's 2023 contract negotiations was guaranteeing protections for actors who could be replaced by AI. Equity, the union representing actors in the UK, is currently negotiating protections for members that are concerned that AI could be used to reproduce their likenesses and voices and let studios use them without their consent.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/tv-movies/bitcoin-biopic-starring-casey-affleck-to-use-ai-to-generate-locations-and-tweak-performances-210657775.html?src=rss

As debates about Britain's history, race, and responsibility continue to surface, Quakers in Britain have co-hosted a discussion in Parliament exploring what reparations might mean in practice.

The event took the title 'Approaches to Reparations: Faith-Based, Community, and Grassroots Perspectives'. The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on African Reparations co-hosted and Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP chaired.

It brought together faith leaders, community organisers, and racial justice advocates. They took part in an open conversation about accountability, repair, and justice in a UK context.

Reparations are a process

Interest in reparations for African chattel enslavement has grown in recent years. And particularly since the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Yet the UK continues to struggle with how, or whether, to respond.

In 2024, the Canary published a stinging letter from academic Gus John to then foreign secretary David Lammy. He described reparations as "a process, not a single act". And he accused the government of "insisting that this is all in the past".

Recent pushback against the new Archbishop of Canterbury for defending the Church of England's programme for repairing the harms of African chattel enslavement underlined how contested these conversations remain.

Panellist Richard Reddie, director of justice and inclusion at Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, said:

There is a great deal of literature in the Bible that makes the case for reparations.

Kojo Kyerewaa, national organiser for Black Lives Matter UK, said:

We need to relate reparations to the daily lives of people, and make the links between that which they already know about what is unjust and reparations as a liberatory pathway.

That way we can begin to reshape the world towards justice, and we deserve nothing less.

Quakers in Britain agreed in 2022 to consider making practical reparations for the transatlantic trade in enslaved people, colonialism, and economic exploitation.

Marghuerita Remi-Judah, co-clerk of the Quakers in Britain Trustees' Reparations Working Group, said:

We need to name our part in the history.

The Quaker testimony is one of peace…enslavement was violence, antithetical to peace.

The decision followed years of research, listening, and discernment. And it reflects a wider commitment to anti-racism, truth-telling, and action rooted in faith.

The panel, which also included Reverend Wale Hudson-Roberts, head of racial justice for the Baptist Union, explored how reparations work has developed from grassroots and local initiatives.

Panellists discussed the role of education and community leadership, and how institutions respond to difficult questions and resistance.

Featured image via Michael Preston for Quakers in Britain

By The Canary

Last fall, I wrote about how the fear of AI was leading us to wall off the open internet in ways that would hurt everyone. At the time, I was worried about how companies were conflating legitimate concerns about bulk AI training with basic web accessibility. Not surprisingly, the situation has gotten worse. Now major news publishers are actively blocking the Internet Archive—one of the most important cultural preservation projects on the internet—because they're worried AI companies might use it as a sneaky "backdoor" to access their content.

This is a mistake we're going to regret for generations.

Nieman Lab reports that The Guardian, The New York Times, and others are now limiting what the Internet Archive can crawl and preserve:

When The Guardian took a look at who was trying to extract its content, access logs revealed that the Internet Archive was a frequent crawler, said Robert Hahn, head of business affairs and licensing. The publisher decided to limit the Internet Archive's access to published articles, minimizing the chance that AI companies might scrape its content via the nonprofit's repository of over one trillion webpage snapshots.

Specifically, Hahn said The Guardian has taken steps to exclude itself from the Internet Archive's APIs and filter out its article pages from the Wayback Machine's URLs interface. The Guardian's regional homepages, topic pages, and other landing pages will continue to appear in the Wayback Machine.

The Times has gone even further:

The New York Times confirmed to Nieman Lab that it's actively "hard blocking" the Internet Archive's crawlers. At the end of 2025, the Times also added one of those crawlers — archive.org_bot — to its robots.txt file, disallowing access to its content.

"We believe in the value of The New York Times's human-led journalism and always want to ensure that our IP is being accessed and used lawfully," said a Times spokesperson. "We are blocking the Internet Archive's bot from accessing the Times because the Wayback Machine provides unfettered access to Times content — including by AI companies — without authorization."

I understand the concern here. I really do. News publishers are struggling, and watching AI companies hoover up their content to train models that might then, in some ways, compete with them for readers is genuinely frustrating. I run a publication myself, remember.

But blocking the Internet Archive isn't going to stop AI training. What it will do is ensure that significant chunks of our journalistic record and historical cultural context simply… disappear.

And that's bad.

The Internet Archive is the most famous nonprofit digital library, and has been operating for nearly three decades. It isn't some fly-by-night operation looking to profit off publisher content. It's trying to preserve the historical record of the internet—which is way more fragile than most people comprehend. When websites disappear—and they disappear constantly—the Wayback Machine is often the only place that content still exists. Researchers, historians, journalists, and ordinary citizens rely on it to understand what actually happened, what was actually said, what the world actually looked like at a given moment.

In a digital era when few things end up printed on paper, the Internet Archive's efforts to permanently preserve our digital culture are essential infrastructure for anyone who cares about historical memory.

And now we're telling them they can't preserve the work of our most trusted publications.

Think about what this could mean in practice. Future historians trying to understand 2025 will have access to archived versions of random blogs, sketchy content farms, and conspiracy sites—but not The New York Times. Not The Guardian. Not the publications that we consider the most reliable record of what's happening in the world. We're creating a historical record that's systematically biased against quality journalism.

Yes, I'm sure some will argue that the NY Times and The Guardian will never go away. Tell that to the readers of the Rocky Mountain News, which published for 150 years before shutting down in 2009, or to the 2,100+ newspapers that have closed since 2004. Institutions—even big, prominent, established ones—don't necessarily last.

As one computer scientist quoted in the Nieman piece put it:

"Common Crawl and Internet Archive are widely considered to be the 'good guys' and are used by 'the bad guys' like OpenAI," said Michael Nelson, a computer scientist and professor at Old Dominion University. "In everyone's aversion to not be controlled by LLMs, I think the good guys are collateral damage."

That's exactly right. In our rush to punish AI companies, we're destroying public goods that serve everyone.

The most frustrating bit of all of this: The Guardian admits they haven't actually documented AI companies scraping their content through the Wayback Machine. This is purely precautionary and theoretical. They're breaking historical preservation based on a hypothetical threat:

The Guardian hasn't documented specific instances of its webpages being scraped by AI companies via the Wayback Machine. Instead, it's taking these measures proactively and is working directly with the Internet Archive to implement the changes.

And, of course, as one of the "good guys" of the internet, the Internet Archive is willing to do exactly what these publishers want. They've always been good about removing content or not scraping content that people don't want in the archive. Sometimes to a fault. But you can never (legitimately) accuse them of malicious archiving (even if music labels and book publishers have).

Either way, we're sacrificing the historical record not because of proven harm, but because publishers are worried about what might happen. That's a hell of a tradeoff.

This isn't even new, of course. Last year, Reddit announced it would block the Internet Archive from archiving its forums—decades of human conversation and cultural history—because Reddit wanted to monetize that content through AI licensing deals. The reasoning was the same: can't let the Wayback Machine become a backdoor for AI companies to access content Reddit is now selling. But once you start going down that path, it leads to bad places.

The Nieman piece notes that, in the case of USA Today/Gannett, it appears that there was a company-wide decision to tell the Internet Archive to get lost:

In total, 241 news sites from nine countries explicitly disallow at least one out of the four Internet Archive crawling bots.

Most of those sites (87%) are owned by USA Today Co., the largest newspaper conglomerate in the United States formerly known as Gannett. (Gannett sites only make up 18% of Welsh's original publishers list.) Each Gannett-owned outlet in our dataset disallows the same two bots: "archive.org_bot" and "ia_archiver-web.archive.org". These bots were added to the robots.txt files of Gannett-owned publications in 2025.

Some Gannett sites have also taken stronger measures to guard their contents from Internet Archive crawlers. URL searches for the Des Moines Register in the Wayback Machine return a message that says, "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."

A Gannett spokesperson told NiemanLab that it was about "safeguarding our intellectual property" but that's nonsense. The whole point of libraries and archives is to preserve such content, and they've always preserved materials that were protected by copyright law. The claim that they have to be blocked to safeguard such content is both technologically and historically illiterate.

And here's the extra irony: blocking these crawlers may not even serve publishers' long-term interests. As I noted in my earlier piece, as more search becomes AI-mediated (whether you like it or not), being absent from training datasets increasingly means being absent from results. It's a bit crazy to think about how much effort publishers put into "search engine optimization" over the years, only to now block the crawlers that feed the systems a growing number of people are using for search. Publishers blocking archival crawlers aren't just sacrificing the historical record—they may be making themselves invisible in the systems that increasingly determine how people discover content in the first place.

The Internet Archive's founder, Brewster Kahle, has been trying to sound the alarm:

"If publishers limit libraries, like the Internet Archive, then the public will have less access to the historical record."

But that warning doesn't seem to be getting through. The panic about AI has become so intense that people are willing to sacrifice core internet infrastructure to address it.

What makes this particularly frustrating is that the internet's openness was never supposed to have asterisks. The fundamental promise wasn't "publish something and it's accessible to all, except for technologies we decide we don't like." It was just… open. You put something on the public web, people can access it. That simplicity is what made the web transformative.

Now we're carving out exceptions based on who might access content and what they might do with it. And once you start making those exceptions, where do they end? If the Internet Archive can be blocked because AI companies might use it, what about research databases? What about accessibility tools that help visually impaired users? What about the next technology we haven't invented yet?

This is a real concern. People say "oh well, blocking machines is different from blocking humans," but that's exactly why I mention assistive tech for the visually impaired. Machines accessing content are frequently tools that help humans—including me. I use an AI tool to help fact check my articles, and part of that process involves feeding it the source links. But increasingly, the tool tells me it can't access those articles to verify whether my coverage accurately reflects them.

I don't have a clean answer here. Publishers genuinely need to find sustainable business models, and watching their work get ingested by AI systems without compensation is a legitimate grievance—especially when you see how much traffic some of these (usually less scrupulous) crawlers dump on sites. But the solution can't be to break the historical record of the internet. It can't be to ensure that our most trusted sources of information are the ones that disappear from archives while the least trustworthy ones remain.

We need to find ways to address AI training concerns that don't require us to abandon the principle of an open, preservable web. Because right now, we're building a future where historians, researchers, and citizens can't access the journalism that documented our era. And that's not a tradeoff any of us should be comfortable with.

The Trump administration has fired one of the few remaining members of the administration that had even a passing interest in antitrust enforcement. DOJ antitrust boss Gail Slater has been fired from the administration after having repeated contentious run ins with key officials. It's the final nail in the coffin of the log-running lie that MAGA ever seriously cared about reining in unchecked corporate power.

Slater's post to Elon Musk's right wing propaganda website was amicable:

But numerous media reports indicate that Slater's sporadic efforts to actually engage in antitrust enforcement consistently angered a "den of vipers" (including AG Pam Bondi and JD Vance). Some of the friction purportedly involved Bondi being angry Slater was directing merging companies to deal directly with DOJ officials and not Trump's weird corruption colorguard. Other disputes were more petty:

"Tensions between Bondi and Slater extended beyond the merger. Last year, Slater planned to go to a conference in Paris - as her predecessors had done and as is required under a treaty to which the United States is a party.

But Bondi denied Slater's request to travel on account of the cost. When Slater went to the conference anyway, Bondi cancelled her government credit cards, the people said."

Mike and I had both noted that there had been signs of this fracture for a while. Slater was still a MAGA true believer. Before Google's antitrust trial last year, she gave a speech full of MAGA culture war nonsense about how Google was trying to censor conservatives. She seemed happy to use the power of the government to punish those deemed enemies of the MAGA movement for the sake of the culture war. However, what she seemed opposed to was the growing trend within the MAGA movement of deciding antitrust questions based on which side hired more of Trump's friends to work on their behalf.

First when the DOJ rubber stamped a T-Mobile merger some officials clearly didn't want to approve (the approval was full of passive aggressive language making it very clear the deal wasn't good for consumers or markets) there were signs of friction. Later when Slater wanted to block a $14 billion merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks, it was clear that the Trump admin's antitrust policy was entirely pay for play, which was apparently a step too far for Slater. I've also heard some insiders haven't been thrilled with the Trump administration's plan to destroy whatever's left of media consolidation limits to the benefit of right wing broadcasters.

Amusingly and curiously, there are apparently people surprised by the fact that an actual antitrust-supporting Republican couldn't survive the grotesque pay-to-play corruption of the Trump administration. Including Politico, an outlet that spent much of the last two years propping up the lie that Trump and MAGA Republicans had done a good faith 180 on antitrust:

When I read that headline my eyes rolled out of my fucking head.

I had tried to warn people repeatedly over the last four years that the Trump support for "antitrust reform" was always a lie. Even nominally pro-antitrust reform officials like Slater tend to inhabit the "free market Libertarian" part of the spectrum where their interest in reining in unchecked corporate power is inconsistent at best. And even these folks were never going to align with Trump's self-serving corruption.

Yet one of the larger Trump election season lies was that Trump 2.0 would be "serious about antitrust," and protect blue collar Americans from corporate predation. There were endless lies about how MAGA was going to "rein in big tech," and how the administration's purportedly legitimate populism would guarantee somewhat of a continuation of the Lina Khan efforts at the FTC.

In reality MAGA was always about one thing: Donald Trump's power and wealth. These sorts of egomaniacal autocrats exploit existing corruption and institutional failure to ride into office on the back of fake populism pretending they alone can fix it, then once entrenched introduce something far worse. The administration's "anti-war," "anti-corporate," "anti-corruption" rhetoric are all part of the same lie.

It's worth reminding folks that MAGA's phony antitrust bonafides wasn't just a lie pushed by MAGA.

It was propped up by countless major media outlets (including Reuters, CNN, and Politico) that claimed the GOP had suddenly taken a 180 on things like monopolization. Even purportedly "progressive antitrust experts" like Matt Stoller tried to push this narrative, routinely hyping the nonexistent trust-busting bonafides of obvious hollow opportunists like JD Vance and Josh Hawley.

Surprise! That was all bullshit. Trump's second term has taken an absolute hatchet to federal regulatory autonomy via court ruling, executive order, or captured regulators. His "antitrust enforcers" make companies grovel for merger approval by promising to be more racist and sexist, or pledging to take a giant steaming dump on U.S. journalism and the First Amendment (waves at CBS).

Under Trump 2.0, it's effectively impossible to hold large corporations and our increasingly unhinged oligarchs accountable for literally anything (outside of ruffling Donald's gargantuan ego, or occasionally trying to implement less sexist or racist hiring practices). This reality as a backdrop to these fleeting, flimsy media-supported pretenses about the legitimacy of "MAGA antitrust" is as dystopian as it gets.

Anybody who enabled (or was surprised by) any of this, especially the journalists at Politico, should probably be sentenced to mandatory community service.

An upcoming update to Steam includes a helpful improvement to game reviews. As part of the Steam Client Beta update Valve released on February 12, users will now be able to attach information about their hardware specifications when they post a new game review or update an old one.

It's not uncommon to find negative reviews that complain about a game's performance, information that's hard to draw a conclusion from without knowing what kind of hardware the reviewer is using. With specs attached, the usefulness of complaints becomes a little bit easier to gauge. A game's sales performance and discoverability on Steam is heavily influenced by its review average, a data point Steam users sometimes manipulate for reasons unconnected to the quality of a game. Provided reviewers actually attach their specs — at least in the beta, the feature is entirely optional — Valve's mercurial reviews ecosystem could end up becoming more nuanced overall.

Alongside the new option in reviews, Valve is also experimenting with a way for users to share "anonymized framerate data" with the company. When framerate sharing is enabled, "Steam will collect gameplay framerate data, stored without connection to your Steam account but identified with the kind of hardware you are playing on," Valve says. The feature is specifically focused on devices running SteamOS, Valve's Linux-based operating system for the Steam Deck and some third-party handhelds. The extra information could help the company's attempts to improve game compatibility using software like Proton.

The beta update also includes bug fixes, and a tweak to how Valve collects feedback about whether a game should be Deck Verified. Now when Steam prompts you to confirm whether you agree with a game's rating, if you disagree, you can provide a reason as to why.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/pc/valves-latest-steam-beta-lets-you-add-your-pcs-specs-to-game-reviews-195038078.html?src=rss

The Hypergear 3-in-1 Wireless Charging Dock is meticulously engineered to reduce the cable clutter and streamline your daily routine. Featuring 2 dedicated wireless charging surfaces, you can power up your phone and AirPods easily. In addition, you can charge your Apple Watch with the built-in charger mount. Stylish and compact, the dock is perfect for your tabletop, desk, or nightstand and will effortlessly charge your everyday essentials in one convenient place. It's on sale for $33.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Judge Boasberg got his vindication in the frivolous "complaint" the DOJ filed against him, and now he's calling out the DOJ's bullshit in the long-running case that caused them to file the complaint against him in the first place: the JGG v. Trump case regarding the group of Venezuelans the US government shipped off to CECOT, the notorious Salvadoran concentration camp.

Boasberg, who until last year was generally seen as a fairly generic "law and order" type judge who was extremely deferential to any "national security" claims from the DOJ (John Roberts had him lead the FISA Court, for goodness' sake!), has clearly had enough of this DOJ and the games they've been playing in his court.

In a short but quite incredible ruling, he calls out the DOJ for deciding to effectively ignore the case while telling the court to "pound sand."

On December 22, 2025, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion finding that the Government had denied due process to a class of Venezuelans it deported to El Salvador last March in defiance of this Court's Order. See J.G.G. v. Trump, 2025 WL 3706685, at *19 (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 2025). The Court offered the Government the opportunity to propose steps that would facilitate hearings for the class members on their habeas corpus claims so that they could "challenge their designations under the [Alien Enemies Act] and the validity of the [President's] Proclamation." Id. Apparently not interested in participating in this process, the Government's responses essentially told the Court to pound sand.

From a former FISC judge—someone who spent years giving national security claims every benefit of the doubt—"pound sand" is practically a primal scream.

Due to this, he orders the government to work to "facilitate the return" of these people it illegally shipped to a foreign concentration camp (that is, assuming any of them actually want to come back).

Believing that other courses would be both more productive and in line with the Supreme Court's requirements outlined in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 145 S. Ct. 1017 (2025), the Court will now order the Government to facilitate the return from third countries of those Plaintiffs who so desire. It will also permit other Plaintiffs to file their habeas supplements from abroad.

Boasberg references the Donald Trump-led invasion of Venezuela and the unsettled situation there for many of the plaintiffs. He points out that the lawyers for the plaintiffs have been thoughtful and cautious in how they approach this case. That is in contrast to the US government.

Plaintiffs' prudent approach has not been replicated by their Government counterparts. Although the Supreme Court in Abrego Garcia upheld Judge Paula Xinis's order directing the Government "to facilitate and effectuate the return of" that deportee, see 145 S. Ct. at 1018, Defendants at every turn have objected to Plaintiffs' legitimate proposals without offering a single option for remedying the injury that they inflicted upon the deportees or fulfilling their duty as articulated by the Supreme Court.

Boasberg points to the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia, saying that it's ridiculous that the DOJ is pretending that case doesn't exist or doesn't say what it says. Then he points out that the DOJ keeps "flagrantly" disobeying courts.

Against this backdrop, and mindful of the flagrancy of the Government's violations of the deportees' due-process rights that landed Plaintiffs in this situation, the Court refuses to let them languish in the solution-less mire Defendants propose. The Court will thus order Defendants to take several discrete actions that will begin the remedial process for at least some Plaintiffs, as the Supreme Court has required in similar circumstances. It does so while treading lightly, as it must, in the area of foreign affairs. See Abrego Garcia, 145 S. Ct. at 1018 (recognizing "deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs")

Even given all this, the specific remedy is not one that many of the plaintiffs are likely to accept: he orders that the US government facilitate the return of any of those who want it among those… not in Venezuela. But, since most of them were eventually released from CECOT into Venezuela, that may mean that this ruling doesn't really apply to many men. On top of that Boasberg points out that anyone who does qualify and takes up the offer will likely be detained by immigration officials upon getting here. But, if they want, the US government has to pay for their plane flights back to the US. And, in theory, the plaintiffs should then be given the due process they were denied last year.

Plaintiffs also request that such boarding letter include Government payment of the cost of the air travel. Given that the Court has already found that their removal was unlawful — as opposed to the situation contemplated by the cited Directive, which notes that "[f]acilitating an alien's return does not necessarily include funding the alien's travel," Directive 11061.1, ¶ 3.1 (emphasis added) — the Court deems that a reasonable request. It is unclear why Plaintiffs should bear the financial cost of their return in such an instance. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immig. & Customs Enf't ("ICE"), 2026 WL 313340, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026) (requiring Government to "bear the expense of returning these family units to the United States" given that "[e]ach of the removals was unlawful, and absent the removals, these families would still be in the United States"). It is worth emphasizing that this situation would never have arisen had the Government simply afforded Plaintiffs their constitutional rights before initially deporting them.

I'm guessing not many are eager to re-enter the US and face deportation again. Of course, many of these people left Venezuela for the US in the first place for a reason, so perhaps some will take their chances on coming back. Even against a very vindictive US government.

The frustrating coda here is the lack of any real consequences for DOJ officials who treated this entire proceeding as a joke—declining to seriously participate and essentially daring the court to do something about it. Boasberg could have ordered sanctions. He didn't. And that's probably fine with this DOJ, which has learned that contempt for the courts carries no real cost.

Unfortunately, that may be the real story here. Judge gets fed up, once again, with a DOJ that thumbs its nose at the court, says extraordinary things in a ruling that calls out the DOJ's behavior… but does little that will lead to actual accountability for those involved, beyond having them "lose" the case. We've seen a lot of this, and it's only going to continue until judges figure out how to impose real consequences for DOJ lawyers for treating the court with literal contempt.

Climate campaign group Fossil Free London has held a Valentine's Day themed protest in St. Dunstan's in the East churchyard. The stunt comes ahead of the UK government's decision on whether to approve or reject the Rosebank oil field.

Campaigners stood in couples - wearing suits and pastel frilly dresses - holding up oversized love heart sweet placards that read: 'Save Me', 'Hot Earth' and 'Stop Rosebank'.

Rishi Sunak's Conservative government originally approved the oil field in 2023. But the Scottish courts overturned this decision in January 2025. The ruling demanded that Rosebank's primary owner, Norwegian state oil giant Equinor, provide a more detailed assessment of the project's full climate impacts.

Burning Rosebank's total estimated oil and gas reserves would emit more carbon dioxide than the world's 28 lowest-income countries combined release annually.

Rosebank: UK pays, Norway profits

Equinor would sell the vast majority of Rosebank's oil on the international market for export. It would neither lower energy bills nor increase energy security in the UK. Meanwhile, UK public money would pick up the bill for most of its development costs.

Ahead of Equinor's profits announcement at the start of February, Fossil Free London staged a protest over its role in Rosebank.

Most of Rosebank's profits would flow into Norway's substantial sovereign wealth fund. This potential megapolluter could also send profits of over £200m to the Delek Group. Delek is an Israeli fuel conglomerate that the UN has flagged for human rights violations in Palestine.

Robin Wells, Director of Fossil Free London, said:

This Valentine's Day the U.K. government will be deciding whether Rosebank is hot…or not. But we know that Rosebank will be too hot to handle…Labour, save us from all new oil projects, because Rosebank will kill millions!

Featured image via Fossil Free London

By The Canary

The US armada president Donald Trump spent months assembling in the Caribbean will return to the Middle East. The news comes after reports that Venezuela had shipped oil to Israel for the first time in nearly two decades.

The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford arrived in the Caribbean in November 2025. The Ford and her fleet were one facet of a massive military build-up. The US also rebuilt regional bases and carried out drone strikes on alleged 'narco-terrorist' boats.

It was all about drugs, the US administration had claimed. That argument has fallen apart since the US kidnapped the country's president Nicolas Maduro on 3 January. Nearly every reference to the drug cartel Maduro supposedly ran was from dropped from the US indictment.

The New York Times said on 13 February:

The Ford strike group's new orders will have it joining the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf as part of President Trump's resurgent pressure campaign against Iran's leaders.

They added:

Mr. Trump had indicated earlier this week that he wanted to send a second carrier to the region, but neither he nor the Navy had identified the vessel.

It appears the US has achieved its immediate military aims in Venezuela.

Oil to Israel

Maduro's successor Delcy Rodriguez - who seems more at ease with US empire - has been in charge since Maduro was snatched. Though Venezuelan officials said the reports of oil shipments to Israel were "fake".

But Bloomberg reported on 10 Feb:

The oil is being transported to Bazan Group, the Mediterranean country's top crude processor, people with knowledge of the deal said, asking not to be identified because the information isn't public.

But details are still hazy and those involved are staying tight lipped:

Bazan, also known as Oil Refineries Ltd, declined to comment. Israel's energy ministry declined to comment on where the country gets its crude from.

The US carrier group's Caribbean mission seems to be done - for now. With a more amenable leader in place in Venezuela, the warships are being sent back to the the Gulf region to deal with Iran. The Ford will join the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier fleet in the area.

As the Canary argued on 29 January, a strike on Iran is far more complicated than the attack on Venezuela. The fact remains, however, that while the US is an empire in decline it still has a long reach. And it still has a president willing to threatened, cajole, and kill to meet his ever-changing imperial whims.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

The scene needed no explanation. A white shroud, rectangular and silent, lay in the middle of a small square crowded with weary faces. Around it, men lined up to pray, their eyes fixed on something that could not be fully seen, but only imagined. Inside, what were believed to be the remains of a mother and her four children. Four siblings who came into life after years of deprivation, then left it all at once.

The image encapsulates two years of heavy waiting in Gaza. Two years in which the story remained suspended between loss and hope, between unanswered questions and a small hope that the absent ones would return to be buried as befits human beings. Only today was the final scene completed: a funeral prayer that was two years late.

Gaza: four siblings buried together

In the front row stands the father, Fadi Al-Baba. Those who know him do not need to ask him how he feels. His eyes say it all. In front of him is the white shroud, inside which lie his wife and four children who came to him after a long wait. Four siblings, who were a promise of a life that would make up for years of patience, turned into a memory buried by Israel's genocide under its rubble, before the earth returned them in a small white bag.

The loss was not a fleeting moment. It was an extended period of time. From the day of their martyrdom until the day of their burial, the father lived on the edge of absence; no proper farewell, no grave to visit. Today, as he raises his hands in funeral prayer, it seems as if that first moment is returning with all its weight. As if two years have shrunk into a single tear.

The white shroud in the photo is not just a piece of cloth. It is the final resting place for five souls. It's a witness to a family story whose first chapter was never completed. It is a summary of questions bigger than a photo: How can such a long wait end in silence? How can a father say goodbye to his children together, after dreaming of them together?

The stories never end

The stories of Gaza never end, because they are never told in full. Every photograph opens the door to a postponed story, and every delayed funeral reveals a period of pain that remains unwitnessed. In this photograph, we see only a white shroud and a grieving father, but behind them lies a history of longing, deprivation and waiting.

The scene ends with a final burial, but it does not end the story.

Some losses are not buried, but remain alive in the memory of a father who, whenever he sees four children together, will remember that he had four… who returned to him in a single shroud.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Writer Joseph Tucker is working on a drama about Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party. The script will draw on Alex Nunns' book The Candidate and Paul Holden's recent release, The Fraud. To round out his research, he's appealing for additional eye witnesses.

Sabotage of Corbyn

Under the working title A Very British Sabotage, the drama promises to lay bare:

the subversion of UK democracy by vandal elements within the Labour Party. They prioritised sabotage over winning an election and governing the UK at a critical point.

Both Nunns and Holden wrote about how Corbyn and his team faced huge opposition from within their own party. Holden, writing more recently, was able to show how Keir Starmer succeeded Corbyn with the grubby help of Morgan McSweeney.

Clearly the stage is set for all manner of duplicity, intrigue and back-stabbing.

Tucker has already undertaken a great deal of research but he'd still like to obtain more contextual information. To this end he's put out an appeal for eye-witness accounts from anyone who was in the thick of it.

Tucker's request

I am producing a drama exploring Jeremy Corbyn's tenure as leader of the Labour Party, based on two books, The Candidate (Alex Nunns) and The Fraud (Paul Holden).

As part of my research I wish to speak confidentially with people who worked in Labour Party HQ (Southside) 2015-19. Accounts will inform dramatic reconstruction and institutional context. Identities will be handled with care. Anonymity and attribution will always be discussed and agreed in advance. All information shared will be subject to verification and corroboration.

Are you former:

• Political communications staff?
• Policy or governance staff?
• Junior employees with lived experience of internal culture?

A formal legal framework is in place to protect sources and the materials shared during this process. Material provided will not be published as standalone news reporting.

If this sounds like you, please email: Southside@MaximumVolume.com

Coming soon

Production on A Very British Sabotage should be beginning soon. So if you've got a story to share, please get in touch pronto. Otherwise, keep an eye out for further updates as the project moves towards release.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Several UK companies may be breaking the law over their exclusive use of the Nimbus Disability Access Card.

Had it confirmed by someone who knows the Equality Act that venues who only accept the Nimbus card are breaching the act.

A blue badge, PIP/DLA letter, letter from a GP/Consultant or any other form of proof should not be refused under the act.

— Disability Rebellion (@DRDisabilityReb) February 11, 2026

Under the Equality Act [2010, s.20], organisations must make reasonable adjustments for disabled people to ensure they are not at a "substantial disadvantage".

The law requires organisations to do this, regardless of whether a disabled person has paid for an access card or other third-party subscription.

However, some UK organisations are now only accepting Nimbus Access Cards as proof of disability, including Legoland Windsor, Alton Towers, and Thorpe Park. 

Basically, everything that Merlin Entertainment UK owns is now only accessible to disabled people who pay for an Access Card. There's no surprise that the same company that mistreats penguins is also mistreating disabled people.

Also on the list are Wembley Stadium, Download Festival, York Barbican, York Maze, and MCM Comic Con. And they're just the ones we've found in an hour.

Of course, this is already causing problems for both disabled people and their carers.

After 20 years as a carer to a severely disabled young person, I'm now facing barriers I've never faced before. Everywhere I go, the answer is "Nimbus."

No card? No carer entry. No PIP. No Blue Badge. No Carer's Allowance accepted.

That's gatekeeping & it's deeply worrying.

Robert F Kennedy Jr just told equally off-the-wall podcast mullet Theo Von he used to snort cocaine off toilet seats. Which is, uh, fine. But the conspiracist buffoon RFK, who thinks tap water turns kids gay — or something like that, I've lost track — was actually using this example to tell us something TRULY WEIRD. 

RFK, as he is known, was actually justifying his inane anti-intellectualism by saying he does not fear germs BECAUSE he used to snort cocaine of a toilet seats.

Reminder: this guy is in charge of what passes for healthcare in America.

Dear Lord…

Not scared

Kennedy was talking about addiction. Both he and Theo Von openly talk about addiction. And addiction is not a joke. Yet somehow they managed to make a mockery of the topic:

I'm not scared of a germ… I used to snort cocaine off of toilet seats.

Adding:

I know this disease will kill me.

They were complaining that Covid-19 meant they couldn't attend their addiction meetings. Kennedy told Von:

Like, if I don't, if I don't treat it, which means for me going to meetings every day. It's just bad for my life.

And in some level they have a point. Covid hit all kinds of people very hard: people with addiction issues, kids, older people, mentally ill people, women locked into abusive relationships and so on.

But the messenger matters.

Wild claims

RFK is known for making wild claims about medicine — something he appears to known (somehow) less than nothing about. Forbes did a useful list of some of his most colourful fantasies. These include that old classic that vaccines cause autism. He said the US government:

knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children.

Okay, toilet boy.

RFK once said Bill Gates exaggerated Covid to push vaccines as part of what he called:

a historic coup d'état against Western democracy.

Hmm…

He also claimed Covid targeted people ethnically:

COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people.

And that:

the people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.

Nice eugenics there, big man.

Kennedy also suggested AIDS does not cause HIV. That 5G gives you cancer. And that raw milk — knew it was in here somewhere — is fine. Also that fluoride:

is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease.

IQ loss, hey. Are you sure it was just cocaine on the toilet seat, mate? He also thinks that mass shooting are caused by anti-depressants.

Looking at the state of Trump's cabinet picks, we probably shouldn't be surprised this lad made the cut. Yet somehow even with all we know about US politics generally — and especially US politics under Trump — RFK still manages to come out with something so completely off-piste than you have to just stop and take it in.

Featured image via YouTube/the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Two Israel lobby groups have reacted with horror to the High Court's decision today, Friday 13 February, to unban Palestine Action, a group that specialises in sabotaging Israeli weapons factories.

What a shock.

Zionists need their fainting couches over Palestine Action

A panel of High Court judges have today declared the Starmer regime's 'terrorist' ban on Palestine Action to be unlawful and a breach of UK human rights. The so-called 'Jewish Leadership Council' (JLC) and the 'Board of Deputies' (BOD) have expressed their dismay.

Unsurprisingly, it was expressed in the most weaselly way possible. T

he groups start by claiming to respect the need for judicial oversight, lie that Palestine Action attacked "Jewish communal life" and turn the whole thing into - you've guessed it - an attack on the decision of the judicial oversight:

We recognise the vital importance of judicial oversight in matters of national security and civil liberties. However, the practical impact of Palestine Action's activities on Jewish communal life has been significant and deeply unsettling.

On top of everything else, this antisemitic statement doesn't explain how a group that only targets weapons factories and other support for Israel's genocide and war crimes is supposedly impacting "Jewish communal life".

And if this wording sounds a bit familiar, it's probably because it basically recycles the BOD's statement and logical gymnastics of just over a week ago - 4 February 2026 - when a jury acquitted six Palestine Action activists who were viciously attacked by security guards as they tried to disable an Israeli murder-drone factory in Bristol.

"While it is important to respect the integrity of the judicial process", the BOD said, it clearly didn't think it important enough to actually apply to the jury's decision:

We are concerned by the troubling verdicts acquitting members of Palestine Action, an organisation that has been proscribed as a terrorist group, and whose activities have included targeting businesses linked to the Jewish community in London and Manchester.

Hmmm. And while both the BOD and JLC present themselves as "Jewish" and "communal", the situation is not as clean as they paint it. The BOD has managed to remain a charity (though also a limited company), even though its core purpose is explicitly political - and explicitly to promote the interests of a particular foreign power.

Shilling for Israel

The BOD's constitution states that it exists to do everything it can to advance Israel's "standing":

Take such appropriate action as lies within its power to advance Israel's security, welfare and standing.

The 'mission statement' of the JLC, another limited company rather than actually a 'council', says that its job is to make the UK 'Jewish community' is engaged with Israel". JLC played a role in a 2025 smear campaign against then-new education union leader Matt Wrack, a vocal critic of Israel. It was also heavily involved in the efforts of Morgan McSweeney's so-called 'Labour Together' to destroy the Canary.

Both are prominent players in the UK Israel lobby that has boasted of its role in banning Palestine Action. As has been demonstrated, they were already trying to undo the decision of a British jury to suit Israel's interests. Not quite such a shock, then, that they are now clutching pearls over yet another court setback.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been forced to admit that a large number of privately contracted benefit assessors have not received safeguarding training.

This puts vulnerable disabled claimants at risk of harm whilst navigating the cruel benefits system, which has already claimed so many lives.

DWP were called up on their duty to safeguard in May last year

In May 2025, a report from the Work and Pensions Committee on safeguarding vulnerable adults called for a new independent organisation to be set up. The body would bring to light the number of claimants who had been put at risk by the DWP.

At the time, chair of the committee Debbie Abrahams said

Deep-rooted cultural change of the DWP is desperately needed to rebuild trust and put safeguarding at the heart of policy development.

Then in December 2025, in a written statement, DWP chief Pat McFadden gave an update to the House of Commons. He said he wished to "reaffirm" his department's commitment to safeguarding and their responsibility to protect claimants.

In his statement McFadden said:

Our immediate priority is to make safeguarding everyone's business, with clear steps to recognise, respond to, and report concerns.

Mcfadden pledged that all clinical roles will have mandatory Level 3 safeguarding training. He said:

Safeguarding must be a system-wide endeavour. It requires transparency, accountability, and collaboration across Government and with partners.

Surprise, Labour blames the Tories

However, as the WPC heard this week, that is not the case. Employment Minister, Diana Johnson, was giving evidence on the state of employment support for disabled people when she shared an update on safeguarding vulnerable claimants.

As is typical with this Labour government she started by blaming the Tories, as if Labour haven't been in power for a year and a half. In which time they've either done fuck all or made disabled people's lives worse with their policies.

Johnson said she was shocked that the last lot:

Didn't think that safeguarding was an issue that they needed to be concerned about

Which is all well and good but your lot haven't done much better Diana, despite you claiming that "things have moved on considerably"

Labour proved just as bad as Tories once again

As proof of this she shared that while all of the DWP's own clinical staff get mandatory Level 3 training, only 1 in 5 of contracted staff get the same level.

This means staff employed by Maximus, Capita, Serco, and Ingeus who inflict cruel benefit assessments on disabled people aren't trained in recognising harms or risks to life. These companies carry out hundreds of thousands of PIP and WCA assessments every year.

She blamed this huge oversight on the fact that there's such a high turnover rate of staff, meaning there's not enough time for training.

She said:

In terms of our contractors that we use in the DWP, we hover around 80 per cent in terms of the training at level three because of the churn and the turnover of those individuals

DWP staff don't stick around, wonder why

In January, the DWP published a report from 2022 which showed that 52% of new benefits assessors didn't make it through their first year. Assessors reported feeling "despised" and like "cogs in machines". So it's no wonder there's such a high staff turn over.

One of the respondents from the survey reported "working herself to death", as she had no choice but to work from 5am to 10pm. This will only be ramped up by the DWP's desperate attempts to massage the numbers of the PIP reassessment backlog.

As the Canary previously reported, the department diverted staff from dealing with new claims to get the backlog down. While the DWP got to brag that it carried out 96% more reviews in quarter 3 of 2024, 40,000 new claimants were kept waiting. As a recent report found, delays to PIP are endangering people's lives and costing the DWP too.

Labour are worse for disabled people than the Tories - it's time they admitted that

It's absolutely unacceptable that the people who are supposed to determine whether disabled people get the support they need are not trained to protect vulnerable people. In a department that is responsible for so many deaths, this seems like a deliberate, violent act. But it's just another in a long line for the DWP.

It's also getting beyond fucking old that the now Labour led DWP are still blaming the Tories. Not only have they been in power for a year and a half, but in that short time they've planned cuts and policies which are even more dangerous to disabled people.

You don't get to act like our saviours whilst you're building the gallows yourself.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Donald Trump has launched an attack on the very foundation of US climate regulation. And it could represent his biggest assault yet, leading to both higher greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in health risks for ordinary people. In the UK, meanwhile, Reform continues to mimic Trump's anti-climate agenda.

Trump's massive climate rollback could lead to "58,000 additional premature deaths"

Both Trump's regime and its critics have noted the scale of this move, calling it either the "largest deregulation" ever in US history or:

the most significant rollback on climate change yet

As the BBC reports, Trump has revoked a key:

scientific ruling that underpins all federal actions on curbing planet-warming gases.

The "endangerment finding" of 2009 ruled that numerous greenhouse gases are "a threat to public health". And this conclusion turned into:

the legal bedrock of federal efforts to rein in emissions, especially in vehicles.

According to the Environmental Defense Fund's Peter Zalzal, Trump's move could cost ordinary people more in:

additional fuel costs to power these less efficient and higher polluting vehicles

It could also:

result in up to 58,000 additional premature deaths, 37 million more asthma attacks

The winners, of course, would be billionaire polluters. And they're celebrating twice as hard, because Trump is also increasing funding for coal facilities and pushing the US military into deals with power plants using coal. Coal stocks are predictably doing well as a result.

"Trump's EPA repeals science" sums it up. pic.twitter.com/elI4YYIQVc

— Jeff (@jepaco) February 13, 2026

Today, the US @EPA rescinded its 2009 endangerment finding: a drastic move even in the context of the Trump administration's larger deregulatory and anti-climate agenda.

This move poses a particular threat to reproductive rights. Read more: https://t.co/CckiPuttHC

— Human Rights Watch (@hrw) February 12, 2026

Reform is a Trump tribute act

Reform UK, meanwhile, is busy mimicking Trump. And it would do that, because it's firmly in the pockets of the billionaire polluters mentioned above. Currently, Reform's anti-climate agenda is focusing on scamming people into thinking reducing greenhouse gas emissions is bad.

The party hasn't just been pushing climate-change denialism and dangerous industries like fracking. It's also been repeating over and over again its attacks on the global effort to limit carbon emissions ('Net Zero'):

Ed Miliband and Vladimir Putin are the same, in terms of your electricity bill

Superb by @KathrynPorter26

Net Stupid Zero is driving bills UP

Not down

We have been conned and misled

https://t.co/IENYf5oDrS

— Richard Tice MP

Rümeysa Öztürk, a doctoral student at Tufts University, arrives at Boston Logan International Airport following her release from federal custody on May 10, 2025. Photo: Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images

The video was shocking, and devoid of context, it appeared Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk was abducted off the street by masked men and hauled to a waiting van. In what turned out to be an immigration operation, the Trump administration arrested Öztürk in March 2025, jailed her in horrific conditions for 45 days, and sought to expel her from the country, claiming she supported terrorism, Hamas, antisemitism, or whatever jumbled combination of the three they lazily regurgitate whenever they target pro-Palestine speech. 

We now know that the sole basis for Öztürk's ordeal was an op-ed she co-authored in the Tufts Daily where she and three colleagues echoed opinions shared by millions of Americans about Israel's war on Gaza. It didn't mention Hamas, terrorism, or Jewish people. But it landed Öztürk, who was enrolled on an F-1 student visa, on the website of Canary Mission, a site that maintains a blacklist of activists, writers, and ordinary people who have voiced pro-Palestine views. The government has used the site to find people to deport for their constitutionally protected speech, according to court transcripts. 

This week, a judge finally dismissed the deportation case against Öztürk (although the government can still challenge that decision if it has the nerve to do so). This happened not because the legal system worked but because of the actions of courageous whistleblowers, whose disclosures discredited the administration's preposterous claims.

In April 2025, the Washington Post reported on leaked State Department memos from days before Öztürk's arrest. According to the Post, the first memo stated the administration "had not produced any evidence" linking Öztürk to terrorist organizations or antisemitic activities. A second memo recommended revoking her visa anyway on the grounds that she "engaged in anti-Israel activism in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israelis on October 7, 2023" by co-bylining the op-ed. These memos made clear that the administration deliberately decided to send masked ICE agents to abduct Öztürk near her Somerville, Massachusetts, apartment despite knowing full well it had no legitimate basis for its actions.

These were the early days of masked government goons kidnapping people off American streets, so the arrest got significant media attention. In the face of intense scrutiny, the administration continued to knowingly mislead the public, with the Department of Homeland Security claiming Öztürk "engaged in activities in support of Hamas" — without stating what those actions were. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also led the smear campaign against Öztürk, suggesting without evidence that she had been involved in activities "like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus" on campus, which he claimed would have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest." 

The government can't rely on operational security to cover up its own transgressions, and if revealing illegality impedes illegality, it's all the better.

Freedom of the Press Foundation, where I work, filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests with the State Department for the memos. The agency ignored us, forcing us to file a lawsuit. The agency continues to waste taxpayer dollars to stonewall us, even after a separate lawsuit won the release of one of the documents we requested. 

The State Department claims transparency would violate unspecified "privacy interests," presumably of the same person they quite publicly abducted, crammed into a very not-private jail cell, and slandered as a supporter of terrorism to the national media. The government has also claimed releasing the records would reveal law enforcement and investigative techniques and procedures. This reasoning is totally bunk: For one, the government publicly brags about its anti-speech immigration enforcement techniques — if you can call plucking people listed on a disreputable doxxing website a technique. And two, we're talking about procedures that result in completely innocent people being incarcerated over op-eds, which renders them ineffectual, unconstitutional, and illegal. The government can't rely on operational security to cover up its own transgressions, and if revealing illegality impedes illegality, it's all the better.    

Transparency doesn't just hinder the unconstitutional targeting of immigrants — it makes it harder for the government to trample on the rest of our rights. This administration doesn't value the First Amendment rights of citizens any more than those of noncitizens; immigrants are just the low-hanging fruit. 

When the government ignores and abuses laws designed to ensure transparency, it's no wonder that people of conscience decide to leak news to the press and public. This is why, at the same time it's persecuting the press and looking to expand ICE abuses, the government is demonizing whistleblowers. The Trump administration is certainly not the first to claim leaks are uniquely dangerous, but the escalation has been dramatic. Administration officials from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi, to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have all called leakers national security threats. Their position — which they've also adopted in their attack on the right to film law enforcement — is that they're taking away our right to know for our own good.  

It's been proven false every time, including when Bondi reversed a Biden-era policy protecting journalist-source confidentiality, blamed leakers for the change, and said whistleblowers "undermine President Trump's policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people." Bondi also called leaks "illegal and wrong." 

She focused her feigned outrage on the New York Times and the Washington Post reporting an intelligence community memo that completely undercut the Trump administration's legal rationale for invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans — reporting that another one of our FOIAs corroborated. The policy change came the same month the Post reported on the leaked Öztürk memos. 

The leaks didn't stop last April, despite Bondi's efforts. As FPF's Caitlin Vogus noted, in recent months, leaks about immigration enforcement have revealed everything from ICE's alarming instruction that officers can enter homes without a warrant signed by a judge to its taking a page out of Canary Mission's book to label people exercising their well-established right to protest the administration's immigration enforcement as "domestic terrorists." 

None of these revelations hurt legitimate national security or law enforcement operations. Instead, they reveal the operations' illegitimacy and embarrass the administration. The way for the press to win the administration's war against leaks is to publish more of them, and connect the dots when they're proven correct, like in Öztürk's case. That way, the administration's alarmist narratives about leaks don't get more press than when its narratives inevitably collapse.

The post Leakers Helped Destroy the Deportation Case Against Tufts Student appeared first on The Intercept.

As if admins haven't had enough to do this week

Ignore patches at your own risk. According to Uncle Sam, a SQL injection flaw in Microsoft Configuration Manager patched in October 2024 is now being actively exploited, exposing unpatched businesses and government agencies to attack.…

DoE bets AI can speed fusion, unlock decades of nuclear data, and probe fundamental physics

The Trump administration has outlined the first 26 goals for its project to inject AI into the government's scientific research, and everything from securing critical minerals to discovering a unified theory of physics is on the table. …

Q4 figures reveal shifting market share across PCs and cloud infrastructure

Intel continues to lose market share to rival AMD across server, desktop, and mobile processors, and this has been noticeable in PCs thanks to supply constraints on Chipzilla's processors.…

The forthcoming Nintendo Virtual Boy accessory for Switch and Switch 2 can play VR-supported games, as reported by Video Games Chronicle. There are four available games to play, including Super Mario Odyssey, Super Smash Bros Ultimate, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker.

These aren't new VR builds of the games, rather they are the versions previously released for the Nintendo Labo VR set. This was a kit for the original Switch that allowed users to build a cardboard VR headset, among other items.

However, this is very good news for Switch 2 owners as Labo creations generally don't work with Nintendo's shiny new console. So this is the only way to experience the VR versions of the aforementioned four games. It's also worth noting that the Switch 2 upgrade for Breath of the Wild still includes the VR mode.

There are some caveats. The Virtual Boy accessory is available to purchase as a hardware unit or in cardboard. The cardboard version is much cheaper, at $25, and is actually the preferred method for playing these games in VR.

That's because the hardware version sits on a stand, like the original Virtual Boy, making it harder to move one's head around. The cardboard headset is free from those constraints. The hardware also includes red filters over the lenses, to better mimic the original experience, but these can be removed.

However, the hardware version is better for playing actual Virtual Boy games, as they were designed for a static headset resting on a table. You'll have to decide if that trade-off is worth $100. It's also worth noting that Virtual Boy games will not work with the original Labo VR headset, which is a bummer for OG Switch fans.

Both versions of the Virtual Boy accessories will be available on February 17, which is the same day several of the retro console's games head to the Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack subscription service. They can be purchased at the My Nintendo Store. We got a chance to try the headset and came away fairly impressed, though noted that the revamped accessory is "just as eccentric and ungainly as the original was three decades ago."

For those wondering what all the fuss is about, the Virtual Boy was an actual console released by Nintendo all the way back in 1995. It was one of the first mass-market VR devices and, as such, was decades ahead of the curve. It was cumbersome, the games were only in red and there was nothing by way of motion control. Americans only got 14 games before the console was discontinued.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/nintendo/nintendos-virtual-boy-accessory-lets-you-play-vr-mario-and-zelda-on-switch-2-172138483.html?src=rss

London-based deep tech startup Stanhope AI has closed a €6.7 million ($8 million) Seed funding round to advance what it calls a new class of adaptive artificial intelligence designed to power autonomous systems in the physical world. The round was led by Frontline Ventures, with participation from Paladin Capital Group, Auxxo Female Catalyst Fund, UCL […]

This story continues at The Next Web

Anthropic has just closed a $30 billion Series G funding round, pushing its valuation to $380 billion and catapulting it into the rarefied ranks of the most valuable private tech companies in the world. The financing was led by Singapore's sovereign wealth fund GIC and investment firm Coatue, with backing from a long list of […]

This story continues at The Next Web

If you opened a tech newsletter or even the internet in early 2026 and thought you'd stepped into a dystopian screenplay, or you are the main character in one of Isaac Asimov's writings, you wouldn't be alone. Headlines trumpet layoffs, companies blame "AI transformation," and somewhere in the background, billionaires cheer hot-off-the-press artificial intelligence strategies. […]

This story continues at The Next Web

Have you ever asked Alexa to remind you to send a WhatsApp message at a determined hour? And then you just wonder, 'Why can't Alexa just send the message herself? Or the incredible frustration when you use an app to plan a trip, only to have to jump to your calendar/booking website/tour/bank account instead of […]

This story continues at The Next Web

Imagine the moment you bring a new dog or cat into your life. That mix of excitement and responsibility. Vet visits, vaccines, learning what food suits them, managing check-ups, and always wondering how to keep them healthy as they grow. Most pet insurance only steps in after a costly accident or illness. It doesn't help […]

This story continues at The Next Web

In a technology M&A deal, whether you are acquiring or selling a tech or software business, valuation rarely hinges on a single dimension. Financial performance, growth efficiency, and cash flow durability remain the backbone of any transaction. In practical terms, this means metrics such as revenue and ARR, retention as a proxy for revenue quality, […]

This story continues at The Next Web

For families living with neurodegenerative disease, the hardest part is not always the diagnosis. It is the slow erosion that follows: memory fading, personality shifting, independence shrinking. It unfolds quietly. First, forgotten appointments. Then repeated questions. Then moments when a familiar face no longer feels familiar. The illness does not isolate itself to one body. […]

This story continues at The Next Web

We stand at one of history's most exhilarating crossroads. Artificial intelligence is rewriting the rules of work, business, and human potential at breathtaking speed. The very capabilities that make us most human, our creativity, our imagination, our ability to dream up what doesn't yet exist, are becoming our most valuable assets. This is not a […]

This story continues at The Next Web

Paris-headquartered Naboo has raised a $70m in Series B as it accelerates its ambition to become the operating layer for how large companies plan, book, and control corporate events. The round is led by Lightspeed Venture Partners, the same investor that backed Mistral AI in 2023, and lands just a year after Naboo closed a […]

This story continues at The Next Web

Databricks is having one of those years that most enterprise software companies would quietly envy. The data and AI platform says it has reached a $5.4bn annual revenue run rate, growing 65% year over year, at a time when growth across the sector has cooled noticeably. For a private company, that pace is rare. And […]

This story continues at The Next Web

We reported earlier today on the High Court's decision taken this morning, in which the Judge declared the government's proscription on Palestine Action was 'disproportionate'.

The judge even went as far to point out that the ban infringes on the human rights of people in the UK.

The government's choice to proscribe Palestine Action has been met by widespread public condemnation both at home and abroad. It has been viewed as an attempt to shut down solidarity that British people have shown with Palestinians through their legal right to protest.

Israel's ongoing, horrific genocide against Palestine has been met with absolute impunity by Western leaders, resulting in mass protest and civil disobedience across the UK since October 2023. This proscription of direct-action group Palestine Action in the UK has widely been declared as an authoritarian and draconian overreach into the hard-fought civil liberties of British citizens.

Today's ruling marks a positive step in the right direction. Nevertheless, as our own Skwawkbox pointed out:

However, the 'proscription' remains in place for at least another week while the government has a chance to prepare submissions on the court's finding. It remains a criminal offence, for the time being, to express support for Palestine Action. Police should, of course, weigh whether it's worth arresting people when no prosecutions are likely, but their record suggests they won't.

Court rules Palestine Action ban 'disproportionate' - but still banned for now…https://t.co/Frv3cct00j

— SKWAWKBOX (@skwawkbox) February 13, 2026

Palestine Action - anti-genocide protesters stand firm

We wrote recently about the fate of 2,787 people arrested on terrorism charges for holding up paper signs saying 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' Notably, acts of protest which are in line with our legal duty as citizens in response to the widely recognised genocide of Palestinians. As we wrote:

Evidence of UK complicity in crimes against genocide continues to mount. In October 2025 the UN issued its draft report Gaza Genocide: A Collective Crime detailing the complicity of states including the UK in the destruction of Gaza. Amongst other things, the UK continued to supply arms including components for F-35 stealth bombers, undertook daily surveillance flights over Gaza for Israel, maintained normal trade relations, and allowed Israel to undertake international crimes with impunity.

In December Declassified UK released its film Britain's Gaza Spy Flight Scandal, investigating the hundreds of RAF intelligence flights conducted on behalf of Israel.

MP Zarah Sultana has welcomed the court's decision, rightfully calling out how the government has abused its power to silence valid dissent from its own people:

The High Court has confirmed what we all knew: proscribing Palestine Action was unlawful.

The state must stop using "counter-terror" powers to criminalise solidarity and intimidate working-class people out of protest.

The Labour government must lift the proscription now and…

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 13, 2026

Sultana's statement in full:

The High Court has confirmed what we all knew: proscribing Palestine Action was unlawful.

The state must stop using "counter-terror" powers to criminalise solidarity and intimidate working-class people out of protest.

The Labour government must lift the proscription now and drop every case NOW.

We will not stop until Palestine is free, from the river to the sea

No more blurring right and wrong

We have all had to sit by whilst we learn more seemingly every day that make clear our own leaders cannot distinguish right from wrong. Whether it's supporting mass murder in Gaza or working alongside crooks who have willingly mixed with convicted paedophiles, a corrupt and sinister pattern speaks for itself.

In fact, our own Skwawkbox reported on how Starmer's apology for working with a paedo came armed with a propaganda-like attack at pro-Palestine protesters. All of this reinforces one point: the challenges we face are linked, bound together by a system of elite power and control.

Skwawkbox wrote:

Starmer said he was sorry for believing Mandelson's lies — 'Peter' was never added as Starmer tried desperately to distance himself. Distance himself from the man he took on as his senior adviser when Mandelson's closeness to child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein was already well known. From the man he then appointed as ambassador to the US, despite knowing the same.

Then added:

And then, out of nowhere, Starmer began attacking the hundreds of thousands of people who march against Israel's genocide. He repeated the Israel lobby's lie that marching against genocide makes UK Jews scared. Nonsense. UK Jews are front and centre of every march and rally — so much so, that the BBC and others have to hide them. Leaving them in would expose that lie and the lie that all Jews support Israel, you see.

Ordinary people see clearly what leaders do not

Those with power clearly have a real problem deciphering their moral compass. On the other hand, protesters have shown unwavering moral clarity, refusing to cower in the face of police intimidation and draconian penalties as they speak out over the tens of thousands of babies and children killed by Israel.

However, the fate of those nearly 3,000 protesters is still confusing. This follows the government being granted the right to appeal today's High Court decision. As a result, there is an arguably deliberate grey area now as to whether support for the 'unlawfully' proscribed group would still result in police arrest.

Q: Does this mean I won't get arrested if I say 'I support Palestine Action."

A: Technically arrests can continue because the government granted an appeal in a week.

But police told protesters outside the court they've been instructed from on high not to conduct arrests. https://t.co/rAjSzgs9bJ

— Owen Jones (@owenjonesjourno) February 13, 2026

Human rights lawyer Shoaib Khan broke down the absurdities of the case against Palestine Action:

Court: Even discounting Pal Action's non-peaceful activities, proscription resulted in very significant interference with rights of free speech & assembly. Since Home Sec's policy was not properly applied, interference did not meet requirement that it must be prescribed by law.

— Shoaib M Khan (@ShoaibMKhan) February 13, 2026

Since the High Court handed down its judgment, supporters have flooded in with reactions to its legal stance:

Massive victory as court rules that Palestine Action proscription ruled disproportionate and resulted in a very significant interference in the right to freedom of speech and assembly. BUT proscription remains in force until hearing on 20th! pic.twitter.com/Kxjrc1P4DM

— Campaign Against Arms Trade (@CAATuk) February 13, 2026

Now Palestine Action's ban has been ruled to be unlawful, this seems like a good time to get this petition moving.

Let's get Israeli influence out of our Government for good. https://t.co/f1bW3X7482 https://t.co/Fby6z8ZHwe

— Wolfie.

Ex-Inter, Man City and Italy player Mario Balotelli says he was racially abused by fans in UAE. Balotelli currently plays for Saudi team Al-Ittifaq.

The player said:

This kind of behaviour cannot be normalised, excused, or ignored. I'm speaking out to bring awareness - not just for myself, but for every player who has been subjected to this. Enough is enough.

He added:

I've always condemned all acts of racism, but I didn't expect it here. I hope serious measures are taken to prevent this from happening again.

The Independent said neither Al-Ittifaq nor their UAE opponents on the day have commented. Balotelli played for Inter and AC Milan, Man City, Liverpool and other clubs before joining the Saudi team.

Racism in football reflects society

Football writer Valerio Moggia said racism was common in the Saudi league. In a July 2025 blog, he wrote about racism experienced by Brazilian winger Malcolm:

Malcom was seen having a confrontation with some fans at the stadium, at the end of the match. Videos of this argument circulated online, causing critics for the Brazilian's behaviour towards fans: the player's Instagram account was stormed by angry people, and some of them have resorted to racist epithets, calling him "monkey".

Moggia said:

Gulf countries are not usually linked to racial discrimination's episodes, seen as a mostly Western issue. But a closer look to Saudi society reveal that ethnic and religious biases are very common, even between Saudi citizens.

His excellent study of racism in Saudi soccer can be read here.