Yemen might be the first country to actually run out of water

I just made a video about Yemen and honestly learned some pretty disturbing stuff.

The country was already running out of groundwater before the war even started. This was not drought. It was decades of pumping ancient aquifers faster than they could recharge. Wells got deeper, water got more expensive, and people without money slowly lost access.

By the early 2000s, experts were warning Sana'a could become the first capital to physically run out of water.

Most of Yemen's water goes to farming, especially qat, which only sped things up.

Once water disappears, everything else follows.

The war did not cause this. The water crisis made Yemen fragile.

I made a short documentary style video breaking it down if anyone's interested. Just wanted to share because this feels like one of those slow disasters we do not notice until it is everywhere.

submitted by /u/redpillbjj
[link] [comments]

On a new reissue, the early PC Music release remains an absurdist plastic wonder, the broken toy that comes with an "underground dance music"-themed Happy Meal.

Every Saturday, we're going deep on one song we've never reviewed before. This week, we look back on Giorgio Moroder's psychedelic synth workout from Midnight Express, which leapt off the screen to become a legendary club classic.

It's been several years since we last did this, but I'd like to remind you all that the National Football League plays a lot of make believe when it comes to what its trademarks for the "Super Bowl" do and do not allow it to do in terms of enforcement. Thanks largely to media outlets that repeat the false narrative the NFL puts out there, far too many people think that businesses, or even members of the public, simply cannot use the phrase "Super Bowl" in any capacity whatsoever if there is any commercial component to it.

TV companies advertising their goods and telling you to "be prepared for the Super Bowl"? Can't do it. A church holding a party for the game with invitations to the Super Bowl and a 5$ cover charge? Verboten. And this way of thinking is perpetuated by posts like this one from TVLine.

The term "Super Bowl" is an NFL trademark, and licensing that trademark is very, very expensive. After all, the NFL makes a lot of money from "Super Bowl" commercials - 30-second slots for this year's game have cost upward of $10 million.

Of course, there are ways around not being able to mention the Super Bowl in commercials. Brands that aren't willing or able to license the name will refer to it as "the big game" or something along those lines instead. What's more, the brands that pay to license the name still have to work within strict parameters. According to L.A. Tech & Media Law, parties that purchase Super Bowl ad spots can only mention the name of the event for a limited period of time.

In the past, the league has sent cease-and-desists to bars and even churches that host Super Bowl parties and charge an admission fee. In short, if an entity of any kind uses the term for commercial gain, they can expect a letter from the NFL's lawyers.

Yes, they can, but that shouldn't be the entirety of the post. The NFL can send whatever letters they like. What matters is whether they are asserting rights they actually have or not. Otherwise, posts like this leave the public with an, at best, incomplete idea of what rights the NFL has and what rights it doesn't.

The NFL certainly has a trademark on "Super Bowl." That does not automagically mean it can fully control all uses of that mark, even where there is money involved. Fair use defenses still apply, of course, as does the general standard that the use had to either confuse the public as to the source of the product or service, or falsely imply an association between the company and the NFL. Not all uses, even commercial, will do that.

Stop giving the NFL power it doesn't actually have. A restaurant putting out a sidewalk sign that says it will have the Super Bowl on its TVs is not trademark infringement by any sane reading of the law. An advertisement merely acknowledging the existence of the Super Bowl does not in and of itself make it infringing.

Yes, the NFL pulls overly protectionist crap with this trademark all the time. Yes, it would take coordinated pushback from more than one corporate entity with deep pockets to fight it. But it's a fight worth fighting and, at the very least, none of us have to pretend that the NFL has rights it doesn't have.

The last nuclear treaty between Russia and America has expired and neither Congress or the Duma have any interest in renewing or reformulating.

We (he) pulled out of the climate accords, later than we wish his father would have pulled out.

But I wanna talk about another issue, one that seems to be flying under the radar lately.

This recent article from Foreign Policy is primarily concerned with flagging - that is to say, when a ship uses literal false flags to operate in protected or contested waters. This may not immediately conjure images of collapse but it seriously compromises the estimates of the IPCC and other NGOs that are basing their models on the beautiful idea that nobody lies.

This is collapse related because just like methane and plastic pollution - this is yet another variable that is not taken into account or, perhaps, intentionally ignored.

Things are bad. That might be the most honest thing you can say about this decade. But they are far worse than what is presented by the "official" figures and studies.

*"It is worse - much worse than you think" *

• David Wallace-Wells

submitted by /u/Fast_Performer_3722
[link] [comments]

Waymo's confirmation that some of its autonomous vehicles receive assistance from remote human operators based in the Philippines has intensified a debate in Washington over how autonomous robotaxi systems truly are — and whether offshore human involvement introduces new safety, cybersecurity, and accountability risks. The issue first drew wider public ... [continued]

The post Waymo's Fully Autonomous Vehicles Have Fleet Response Agents in the Philippines appeared first on CleanTechnica.

Public Health Cannot Wait Almost Three Years Today, Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency gave a group of polluters a 33-month extension to clean up coal ash dump sites. This is twice as long an extension as what the EPA had proposed last year. According to the Sierra Club's Trump Coal Pollution Dashboard, ... [continued]

The post Donald Trump Forgoes Enforcement of Toxic Coal Ash appeared first on CleanTechnica.

Spain's prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, is looking to make a bold move and lead the way on an issue most of the world is struggling with but doesn't know how to handle. He wants to ban social media use by kids under 16 years old in Spain, calling social media ... [continued]

The post Is Spain's Prime Minister Right Banning Social Media For Kids? And How To Do It? appeared first on CleanTechnica.

Disgraced former minister, peer and key Starmer adviser Peter Mandelson has tried to exploit editors' code clauses usually reserved for grieving families to demand freedom from media scrutiny over his ardent relationship with serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein. It hasn't worked out too well.

Mandelson told a representative to contact mainstream press pseudo-regulator IPSO invoking clauses in its editors' code intended to protect grieving families and other vulnerable people from harassment by pushy reporters. And he tried to keep it secret, marking it "strictly not for publication". But it came out anyway, after the National saw the public interest in publishing it. The notice was not sent to Skwawkbox or the Canary, which are properly regulated — and not by IPSO — so there are no issues with publishing it here.

Read IPSO's communication to 'mainstream' editors on Mandelson's demand in full below:

CONFIDENTIAL - STRICTLY NOT FOR PUBLICATION: Ipso has asked us to circulate the following advisory:

Ipso has today been contacted by a representative acting on behalf of Peter Mandelson.

Mr Mandelson's representatives state that he does not wish to speak to the media at this time. He requests that the press do not take photos or film, approach, or contact him via phone, email, or in-person. His representatives ask that any requests for his comment are directed to [REDACTED]

We are happy to make editors aware of his request. We note the terms of Clause 2 (Privacy) and 3 (Harassment) of the Editors' Code, and in particular that Clause 3 states that journalists must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist, unless justified in the public interest.

Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss any Code issues on [REDACTED] or out of hours on [REDACTED].

If this cowardly 'hide behind the vulnerable' tactic looks familiar, it's because it is. Yesterday, Keir Starmer hid behind Epstein's victims to avoid disclosing documents showing just how much he knew (lots) about Mandelson's closeness to Epstein, Mandelson's insider trading with the paedophile and his leaking of sensitive government information.

Mandelson has mentored both Keir Starmer and Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. It shows. On Friday, 6 February, Mandelson's properties were raided by police investigating his actions. If there's any justice, the same will soon be true of his two protégés.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents continued to use aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign, including breaking down doors in Minneapolis homes, a bombshell report from the Associated Press on Jan. 21, 2026, said that an internal ICE memo - acquired via a whistleblower - asserted that immigration officers could enter a home without a judge's warrant. That policy, the report said, constituted "a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches."

Those limits have long been found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Conversation's Politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed Dickinson College President John E. Jones III, a former federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002, for a primer on the Fourth Amendment, and what the changes in the ICE memo mean.

Okay, I'm going to read the Fourth Amendment - and then you're going to explain it to us, please! Here goes:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Can you help us understand what that means?

Since the beginning of the republic, it has been uncontested that in order to invade someone's home, you need to have a warrant that was considered, and signed off on, by a judicial officer. This mandate is right within the Fourth Amendment; it is a core protection.

In addition to that, through jurisprudence that has evolved since the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, it is settled law that it applies to everyone. That would include noncitizens as well.

What I see in this directive that ICE put out, apparently quite some time ago and somewhat secretly, is something that, to my mind, turns the Fourth Amendment on its head.

What does the Fourth Amendment aim to protect someone from?

In the context of the ICE search, it means that a person's home, as they say, really is their castle. Historically, it was meant to remedy something that was true in England, where the colonists came from, which was that the king or those empowered by the king could invade people's homes at will. The Fourth Amendment was meant to establish a sort of zone of privacy for people, so that their papers, their property, their persons would be safe from intrusion without cause.

So it's essentially a protection against abuse of the government's power.

That's precisely what it is.

Has the accepted interpretation of the Fourth Amendment changed over the centuries?

It hasn't. But Fourth Amendment law has evolved because the framers, for example, didn't envision that there would be cellphones. They couldn't understand or anticipate that there would be things like cellphones and electronic surveillance. All those modalities have come into the sphere of Fourth Amendment protection. The law has evolved in a way that actually has made Fourth Amendment protections greater and more wide-ranging, simply because of technology and other developments such as the use of automobiles and other means of transportation. So there are greater protected zones of privacy than just a person's home.

ICE says it only needs an administrative warrant, not a judicial warrant, to enter a home and arrest someone. Can you briefly describe the difference and what it means in this situation?

It's absolutely central to the question here. In this context, an administrative warrant is nothing more than the folks at ICE headquarters writing something up and directing their agents to go arrest somebody. That's all. It's a piece of paper that says 'We want you arrested because we said so.' At bottom that's what an administrative warrant is, and of course it hasn't been approved by a judge.

This authorized use of administrative warrants to circumvent the Fourth Amendment flies in the face of their limited use prior to the ICE directive.

A judicially approved warrant, on the other hand, has by definition been reviewed by a judge. In this case, it would be either a U.S. magistrate judge or U.S. district judge. That means that it would have to be supported by probable cause to enter someone's residence to arrest them.

So the key distinction is that there's a neutral arbiter. In this case, a federal judge who evaluates whether or not there's sufficient cause to - as is stated clearly in the Fourth Amendment - be empowered to enter someone's home. An administrative warrant has no such protection. It is not much more than a piece of paper generated in a self-serving way by ICE, free of review to substantiate what is stated in it.

Have there been other kinds of situations, historically, where the government has successfully proposed working around the Fourth Amendment?

There are a few, such as consent searches and exigent circumstances where someone is in danger or evidence is about to be destroyed. But generally it's really the opposite and cases point to greater protections. For example, in the 1960s the Supreme Court had to confront warrantless wiretapping; it was very difficult for judges in that age who were not tech-savvy to apply the Fourth Amendment to this technology, and they struggled to find a remedy when there was no actual intrusion into a structure. In the end, the court found that intrusion was not necessary and that people's expectation of privacy included their phone conversations. This of course has been extended to various other means of technology including GPS tracking and cellphone use generally.

What's the direction this could go in at this point?

What I fear here - and I think ICE probably knows this - is that more often than not, a person who may not have legal standing to be in the country, notwithstanding the fact that there was a Fourth Amendment violation by ICE, may ultimately be out of luck. You could say that the arrest was illegal, and you go back to square one, but at the same time you've apprehended the person. So I'm struggling to figure out how you remedy this.

Drought and wildfires continue to adversely affect US beef production. Ground beef prices specifically continue to rise. Since hamburgers are a fundamental part of the American diet and a god given right, the President is taking action to ensure that demand is met. Rather than admit that this is a direct result of climate change and adapting our consumption we'll just import more from Argentina.

Collapse related because this is how it's going to go, isn't it? As wealthy countries lose the ability to produce their own food due to climate change we'll just buy it from other countries. It'll be fine, right?

submitted by /u/martian2070
[link] [comments]

Last month - courtesy of Bishopsgate Institute - I published the 1896 cycling accessories catalogue of the Metropolitan Machinists' Co of Bishopsgate Without and today I publish their catalogue from 1906 as an illustration of how rapidly cycling advanced into the new century, especially - as you will see - in the applied science of the 'Anatomical Saddle' which offered extra support to the ischial tuberosities.

 

Images courtesy Bishopsgate Institute

You may also like to take a look at

The Metropolitan Machinists' Co, 1896

Crowden & Keeves Hardware

Allen & Hanburys Surgical Appliances

Nicholls & Clarke Hardware

Piggotts Of Bishopsgate

The organizer of the event swears it's not a joke.

Kris Marszalek, CEO and co-founder of crypto and stock trading platform Crypto.com, has bought an expensive website. In this case it's AI.com, valued at one point at $100 million, which will serve as the online home for his new company of the same name. The website launch is being paired with a Super Bowl ad that will air this Sunday.

AI.com's main offering is an AI agent that "operates on the user's behalf — organizing work, sending messages, executing actions across apps, building projects, and more." It's a similar concept to what companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are promising with their own agents and agentic features, and notably lacking in hard details. Users can make multiple agents with AI.com and have them do a variety of tasks — the company's press release mentions trading stocks and updating a dating profile, for example — while remaining permission-based and private. It's not clear if AI.com is offering its own AI models or licensing those offered by other companies, but clearly whatever it offers, both for free and via a planned paid subscription, will be flexible.

Like Crypto.com's big push into the mainstream during late 2021 and early 2022, AI.com is arriving at a particularly hype-filled time in the AI industry. Anthropic's Claude Code and Claude Cowork tools have been taken up as evidence that AI might actually make people more productive, so AI.com's decision to push an agent of its own is timely. 

Of course, after Crypto.com's big Matt Damon ad in 2021, and Super Bowl ad in 2022, Bitcoin prices hit an all-time low in June 2022. Ironically, Marszalek's AI.com is also launching during a particularly nasty "crypto winter" which has lowered the price of Bitcoin to under $66,000, a steep drop from the $127,000 it cost in October 2025. That's not to suggest the AI.com CEO is a groundhog for deflating hype balloons. More likely, it's a sign that the future of AI could be as unpredictable and volatile as cryptocurrency. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/the-cryptocom-guy-bought-aicom-and-a-super-bowl-ad-234325394.html?src=rss

This latest season of the TV show Industry takes a look at the world of money and power through the eyes of a fintech baron.

Apple engineers are working to support AI chatbot apps over the next few months.

Last year we bought a combination washer and heat pump dryer and have been pretty impressed. Not only does the machine offer significant convenience where you put a load of clothes in and literally two hours later it is both washed and dried, it also uses a small amount of ... [continued]

The post Our New Combo Washer/Heat Pump Dryer Uses Less Than 1 kWh of Electricity Per Load appeared first on CleanTechnica.

The European Legal Support Center (ELSC) has posted a peer-reviewed study which shows a 'dramatic escalation' in the Jewish Chronicle (JC) crying antisemitism. The JC is a right-wing British newspaper with a history of having to make public retractions. Now, the ELSC have shown that the JC alleges antisemitism more often today than it did in 1938 (i.e. during the era of Nazi Germany).

These findings confirm widespread views that the JC uses the very real trauma of antisemitism to shield Israel. Furthermore, the findings provide evidence of how the hostile state and its Zionist supporters operate. They're using false antisemitism accusations to shut down the global protests supporting Palestinian liberation.

This is hardly a surprise. Obviously the Zionists and their colonialist buddies would want to use the victim-card to deflect from Israel's genocide. And the more war crimes Israel commits, the more they have to double down on the smears.

Our upcoming Britain Index of Repression documents the resulting patterns of repression across all sectors of society, revealing the institutionalised criminalisation of Palestine solidarity.

The consequences are real: careers derailed, students investigated, people referred to… pic.twitter.com/zoATHq5DqR

— European Legal Support Center (ELSC) (@elsclegal) February 5, 2026

The ELSC will release the full report on 26 February.

Jewish Chronicle — 'Zionist notion of antisemitism'

The ELSC's analysis covered 100-years of the JC's output. The hate-rag is well known for churning out potentially career-ending allegations against activists, politicians, creatives, and other professionals. The ELSC concluded that the Jewish Chronicle deliberately uses a 'Zionist notion of antisemitism' to stir up a moral panic intent on diminishing solidarity with Palestinians. As a result, the ELSC have concluded that the pro-Israel paper plays an active role in the UK in working to repress support for Palestine liberation.

Below are just a couple of the pages showing findings of the peer-reviewed analysis by Professor Neve Gordon:

Michael Rosen, the beloved Jewish author and poet, has often spoken out against the alleged antisemitism crisis created by Zionists. Pointing to the Labour Party, Rosen recently stated:

At the height of the claim that the Labour Party was riven with antisemitism and/or institutionally antisemitic, I pursued a theory as follows: 'If people are combatting antisemitism only in the Labour Party and not in the Tory Party, they're not combatting antisemitism, they're combatting the Labour Party'.

To expand that slightly, I was in effect saying that it's hard to take such people's definition of antisemitism seriously if it's only directed at people in one organisation.

Rosen further added:

Could it be, I wonder, that my theory - as expressed above - could in any way be possibly slightly true? Could it be that some kind of double standard or two-tier policing of antisemitism had been and perhaps still is in place?

False victimisation: real abuse against Palestinians

The Zionist fury over the recent Fitton 6 acquittal underscores how Israel's protection drives these allegations. The defendants faced trial for their anti-genocide efforts as part of now-proscribed Palestine Action, a non-violent direct-action group. Nevertheless, the trial and subsequent acquittal by jury has led to yet more allegations of antisemitism. Seemingly, the intent now is to label the UK's criminal justice system as 'antisemitic'. Our own Skwawkbox wrote:

Of course we must never forget that Israel and its lobby are always the victim. Even when they're slaughtering innocent Palestinians and making up bollocks in court to imprison people trying to stop them.

We all know the story of the "boy who cried wolf". It's crucial that allegations of antisemitism come from genuine instances, or we risk exposing Jews to a backlash from people who equate Judaism with Zionism.

As we've reported, such a backlash is already happening within the American right. Over there, prominent figures like Nick Fuentes openly arguing that Israel has made a mockery of America, and that the correct response to this is antisemitism. We can't let such bigotry fester over here.

It's also crucial that Muslims and others are able to speak freely of their support for Palestine without fear of being harassed by the media.

Featured image via Facebook

By Maddison Wheeldon

The Israeli occupation sent a grisly delivery to what's left of the al-Shifa hospital in Gaza yesterday, 5 February. Bags were delivered containing dismembered bodies and body parts.

Speaking to al-Arabi, hospital director Dr Mohammed Abu Silmiya said that the occupation had delivered 66 bags of human body parts along with 55 Palestinian corpses to the hospital. On opening the bodies, shocked hospital staff found they contained skulls.

One of the dismembered bodies at al-Shifa hospital.

None of the bodies or body parts bore any identification. The bodies returned showed clear signs of severe mutilation consistent with systematic organ theft and medical experimentation. Many of the skulls also bore surgical incisions.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Mosab Abu Toha (@mosab_abutoha)

At least ten thousand Palestinians are detained indefinitely without charge in Israel, where many suffer starvation, rape and frequent torture. Thousands more are officially 'missing', many of them likely still buried under millions of tonnes of rubble. The occupation refuses to allow bulldozers and other clearance equipment into Gaza so that bodies can be recovered.

Abu Silmiya said that this latest horror is yet more evidence of Israel's serious and systematic violations of human dignity and international humanitarian law during the Gaza genocide.

No western 'mainstream' media have bothered to report it.

This is not the first such incident. Israel has routinely dumped large piles of its Palestinian victims' bodies on waste ground in Gaza. Many bear marks of torture, execution and organ theft.

Featured image via Aljazeera

By Skwawkbox

Israel has destroyed the graves of World War One and World War Two soldiers in Gaza. And as critics have highlighted, UK right-wingers would have had a very different response to this desecration if Palestinians had been responsible.

Nothing is safe from Israel's genocidal destruction

Although an October 2025 ceasefire slowed the pace of Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza, there have been almost daily attacks from the occupation forces. These have killed over 556 people and injured around 1,500. That's almost five murders for every day of the 'ceasefire' so far.

Israel, meanwhile, has accepted that it has killed over 70,000 people in Gaza since October 2023. Over 20,000 of these were children. Because of the extreme number of murders, and the colonial power's destruction of over a third of grave sites, mass graves have been necessary.

The graves of Israel's allies in the West have not been safe either. As the Guardian reported on 4 February 2026, Israeli occupation forces "bulldozed" largely British and Australian graves in 2025. These were in the previously pristine Gaza War Cemetery in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Military historian Peter Stanley called this a "deliberate" act from Israel, which hadn't informed its Western allies at the time:

Israeli occupation forces also destroyed or heavily damaged Canadian and Indian plots in the cemetery too.

According to the Guardian:

Essam Jarada, Gaza cemetery's former caretaker, whose home is also close by, said two bulldozing operations took place at the cemetery in April and May 2025.

A1 February Commonwealth War Graves Commission update on the cemetery had said:

the cemetery has suffered extensive damage to headstones, memorials, boundary walls, staff facilities and storage areas. Memorials with reported damage are the 54th (East Anglian) Division Memorial, the Hindu Section, Indian UN Memorial, the Turkish section and the Muslim section.

Israel has predictably sought to justify the destruction of graves by blaming Hamas. And the apartheid state's far-right cheerleaders in the West have been very quiet about the decimation of soldiers' graves.

This is something many online were fully conscious of:

Where is the outrage from Suella Braverman, Nigel Farage, Robert Jenrick, Robinson and the rest of the 'patriots' about this?

The National: 'Israeli military have bulldozed part of a Gaza cemetery containing the war graves of dozens of allied soldiers - including from the UK…

— Sangita Myska (@SangitaMyska) February 5, 2026

There would have been global outrage if Palestinians had desecrated Commonwealth war graves. But because Israelis did it - crickets. https://t.co/4kAsgJXiiT

— Frances 'Cassandra' Coppola (@Frances_Coppola) February 6, 2026

The Palestinians who did care for the graves

In January 2023, Commonwealth War Graves Commission noted that:

Throughout its 100 year existence the cemetery has been lovingly tended by the Jaradah family with each generation passing its passion and knowledge onto the next. Now in its fourth generation, Head Gardener Ibrahim Jaradrah regards himself as 'a son of the cemetery' and leads a team of six staff in Gaza territory ensuring our cemeteries remain oases of calm despite the missile strikes, power cuts and make do and mend machinery.

Just reached 10 years with @CWGC. Proud to represent the fourth generation of my family.

Away from #Gaza celebration feels difficult.

Our photos there aren't just memories, but our connection and hope

Rights issues have hovered around the killer's iconic mask for decades.

Back in August, we wrote about the Department of Justice's unprecedented decision to file a judicial misconduct complaint against D.C. Chief Judge James Boasberg. The complaint, which Attorney General Pam Bondi tweeted about in what was itself likely a violation of the law governing such complaints, accused Boasberg of violating judicial ethics by… privately expressing concerns to other judges that the Trump administration might not comply with court orders.

Concerns that, as we noted at the time, turned out to be entirely justified.

Let's back up and explain what happened. The DOJ's complaint centered on comments Boasberg allegedly made at a private Judicial Conference meeting on March 11, 2025, where he supposedly "push[ed] a wholly unsolicited discussion about 'concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts, leading to a constitutional crisis.'" The complaint cited "Attachment A" as evidence of what Boasberg said.

There was just one small problem: the DOJ never actually provided Attachment A with the complaint. Actually, there were many, many problems, but we'll get to those.

The complaint has now been fully resolved, and it went about as well for the DOJ as you might expect. Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, to whom Chief Justice Roberts transferred the complaint, dismissed it in a brusque seven-page ruling that reads like a judge who is deeply unimpressed with having his time wasted.

As court-watcher Steve Vladeck put it in his detailed breakdown of the ruling:

Chief Judge Sutton's ruling is not just a tour de force in how a judicial ruling can persuasively give the back of its hand to a claim; it is, or at least ought to be, a humiliating smackdown for the Department of Justice—which bungled every single aspect of its misconduct complaint, from publicly announcing it to making spurious arguments about what the alleged misconduct actually was (the distinction between "public" and "private" really shouldn't be hard, nor should the fact that March 11 is prior to March 15) to refusing to provide the very evidence on which the complaint purported to rest.

Vladeck also noted, in discussing how the DOJ never actually followed through on the steps it would obviously take if it were a legitimate complaint,that this proved how it was all political in the first place:

It turns out, it was never about adjudicating Boasberg's behavior; it was about making splashy headlines and fueling right-wing attacks on the judiciary without regard to whether DOJ's specious charges would withstand meaningful scrutiny.

Besmirching a long-time judge… for the memes.

The problems with the DOJ's complaint were numerous, but let's start with the most embarrassing one mentioned above: the DOJ never actually provided the evidence it claimed supported its accusations.

The Department identified one source of evidence, Attachment A, for the judge's statement and for the setting in which it occurred. The complaint, however, did not include the attachment. The D.C. Circuit contacted the Department about the missing attachment and explained that, if it failed to submit the attachment, the circuit would consider the complaint as submitted. The Department did not supply the attachment.

In the absence of the attachment, the complaint offers no source for what, if anything, the subject judge said during the Conference, when he said it, whether he said it in response to a question, whether he said it during the Conference or at another meeting, and whether he expressed these concerns as his own or as those of other judges. Later in the complaint, to be sure, the Department refers to a Fox News clip discussing the same allegation. But it does not identify any source, contain any specifics, or answer any of the above questions. A recycling of unadorned allegations with no reference to a source does not corroborate them. And a repetition of uncorroborated statements rarely supplies a basis for a valid misconduct complaint

So the DOJ filed an unprecedented misconduct complaint against a sitting federal judge, made a huge public spectacle of it, and then when asked to actually produce the evidence supposedly supporting its claims… just didn't. Vladeck's assessment is appropriately blunt:

DOJ's failure to produce Attachment A is, frankly, mind-boggling…

But even putting aside the DOJ's failure to provide any actual evidence, Sutton methodically demolished every other theory in the complaint.

On the claim that Boasberg's comments at the Judicial Conference were somehow improper, Sutton pointed out that this is literally what the Judicial Conference is for:

A key point of the Judicial Conference and the related meetings is to facilitate candid conversations about judicial administration among leaders of the federal judiciary about matters of common concern. In these settings, a judge's expression of anxiety about executive-branch compliance with judicial orders, whether rightly feared or not, is not so far afield from customary topics at these meetings—judicial independence, judicial security, and inter-branch relations—as to violate the Codes of Judicial Conduct. Confirming the point, the Chief Justice's 2024 year-end report raised general concerns about threats to judicial independence, security concerns for judges, and respect for court orders throughout American history

(For what it's worth, as someone who had the privilege a couple years back of being invited to a judicial conference to give a talk, I can confirm firsthand that there were many fascinating informal conversations that occurred over the course of a few days among judges comparing notes and thinking through larger issues that might impact the judiciary).

On the DOJ's claim that Boasberg's comments constituted an improper "public comment" on a pending case, Sutton noted two rather obvious problems: the comments were private, not public, and the case the DOJ was concerned about hadn't even been filed yet:

The alleged comment does not refer to a case, and the J.G.G. action was not filed until four days later: March 15, 2025. Because the judge did not refer to a case, that all but guarantees that his comments did not "violate[] Canon 3A(6), Canon 2A, or the Judicial-Conduct Rules." In re Charges of Jud. Misconduct, 769 F.3d 762, 788 (D.C. Cir. 2014). The comment at any rate was not a "public" one, as it was made in a closed-door meeting in which the communications are off the record and confidential. The complaint, notably, does not claim that the judge made public what was said in private at the Conference or its related meetings.

As for the DOJ's argument that Boasberg's subsequent handling of the J.G.G. case (involving the shipping of Venezuelans to a Salvadoran concentration camp) somehow proved bias, Sutton wasn't having that either. The complaint, he noted, "does not explain how a Supreme Court ruling about a prior action by the judge necessarily shows willful indifference when the judge addresses a distinct set of circumstances in a later ruling."

Furthermore, Sutton points out that if the DOJ doesn't like Boasberg's rulings in a particular case, its remedy is… to appeal. Not claim misconduct:

When the executive branch's deep convictions about the law meet the judicial branch's deep convictions about the law in a trial court, the answer is to invoke the appellate process, not the misconduct process, to resolve the dispute.

And then, almost as an afterthought, Sutton reminded the DOJ that even if it had prevailed, the judicial misconduct process can't do what the DOJ apparently wanted it to do:

To the extent the complaint asks that the underlying case be reassigned to another judge, that is not a form of relief available through the complaint process.

In other words:

1. the DOJ filed a complaint
2. that was based on misleading evidence
3. which it never produced
4. alleging misconduct that (even if true) wasn't actually misconduct
5. propped up with claims of bias based on actions that occurred later
6. which could not be signs of bias, and finally
7. sought relief that wasn't even available.

If the DOJ were capable of embarrassment, this would be the time for it.

In his initial post on the complaint last year when it was filed, Vladeck had noted that the entire complaint was supposed to be a warning to other judges to shut up about any concerns about the Trump admin. One hopes that this ruling by Judge Sutton will reverse that and embolden more judges to do what's right.

But wait, there's more.

Because we now have even more evidence of just how absurd this whole episode was, thanks to a FOIA lawsuit seeking the mysterious Attachment A that the DOJ never produced. And thanks to that lawsuit, we've learned something remarkable: neither the DOJ nor the judiciary can actually explain how the DOJ came to possess this document in the first place.

In a declaration filed in that case, DOJ Senior Counsel Vanessa Brinkmann reveals some truly remarkable details about this document that was supposedly central to the DOJ's case against Boasberg. First, the DOJ confirms the document exists and describes what it is:

Upon initial review of the document identified in this action as "Attachment A," OIP observed that the document is a memorandum that bears the markings of a United States Court, is authored by a Federal Judge, and discusses matters internal to the Judicial Conference of the United States.

So it's a document created by the judiciary, for the judiciary, about internal judiciary matters. And what does the judiciary think about the DOJ having this document? They're not happy:

AOUSC Counsel conveyed to OIP, in no uncertain terms, the Federal Judiciary's strenuous objection to the Department's release of "Attachment A." AOUSC Counsel further articulated that "Attachment A" was created to be an internal Judiciary document, for a specific Judiciary audience, concerning confidential Judiciary matters and is not now, nor was it ever an Executive Branch document. In sum, AOUSC Counsel advised OIP that it is the position of the AOUSC that "Attachment A" remains under the control of the Judicial Branch, is confidential, and is not subject to disclosure pursuant to the FOIA.

But here's where it gets really interesting. How did the DOJ get this internal judiciary document in the first place? Apparently, nobody knows:

AOUSC Counsel further stated that the Judiciary made efforts to identify how "Attachment A" ended up in the possession of the Department and has not been able to identify a source of transmission of "Attachment A" from within the Judiciary to the Department. AOUSC Counsel additionally articulated that the Judiciary did not officially transmit or authorize the transmission of "Attachment A" to the Department or any external recipient. Specifically, AOUSC Counsel explained that, given the privileged nature of the document, the Judicial Conference at large would be the only entity that could approve its official release, and that it is the view of the AOUSC that the document is not an Executive Branch record subject to FOIA disclosure, but rather, a judicial record that remains under the control of the Judicial Branch.

And the DOJ's own investigation into how it acquired this document?

Searches conducted of DOJ leadership office officials' Departmental email accounts using e-discovery software revealed no electronic trail indicating transmission of "Attachment A" into the Department, nor has OIP's point of contact within OAG been able to identify how "Attachment A" was received by the Department.

So let's recap again:

1. the DOJ filed an unprecedented judicial misconduct complaint against a sitting federal judge based on a document that
2. it never actually provided as evidence
3. was created by the judiciary for internal purposes
4. the judiciary never authorized to be shared with the DOJ, and
5. neither the DOJ nor the judiciary can explain how the DOJ obtained in the first place.

This is the same DOJ that Attorney General Bondi claimed was acting to protect "the integrity of the judiciary."

All of this suggests that perhaps one of Vladeck's theories for why the DOJ refused to hand over Attachment A may have some weight behind it. He theorized that either Attachment A doesn't actually say what the DOJ claims or that they got it "through means that it's unwilling to have to identify—even confidentially as part of the judicial misconduct process." The declaration in the FOIA case would seem to bolster that last point.

As Vladeck notes, Sutton's dismissal should be the final word on this matter:

The outcome here should be seen for what it is: how a sober-minded jurist actually views these charges, versus how they're manipulated and broadcast by the Department of Justice and right-wing mouthpieces to serve partisan political ends.

As for the less sober-minded among the commentariat:

Anyone who continues to claim at this point that Chief Judge Boasberg has done anything worthy of further investigation and/or impeachment is telling on themselves.

But of course, that would require the people pushing this narrative to care about things like facts, evidence, and the rule of law. Based on the DOJ's conduct in this case, that seems like a lot to ask.

TL;DR: Buy a refurbished Apple MacBook Air (2017) 13" for 80% off at just $199.97 (Reg. $999).

With livestream shopping, limited drops, and over-the-top activations, ecommerce brands are doing everything to get you to buy their products. However, novelty doesn't speak to quality. — Read the rest

The post Never pay full price for Apple products again with this hack appeared first on Boing Boing.

From the first AI-generated Big Game ad courtesy of Svedka to Anthropic's beef with OpenAI, here are the biggest ads from Super Bowl LX.

WordPress users can now leverage Claude to analyze web traffic or find information about other internal site metrics.

Marketing stunt backfires with creators

The first rule of AI-generated job loss is you don't talk about AI-generated job loss ... if you're the company that caused it. Higgsfield.ai, a startup offering AI video creation tools, recently generated outrage when it claimed it had caused artists to hit the unemployment line.…

What happens if a Waymo runs into an elephant? The world model knows.

Is this what a frothy bubble looks like?

Even with the full rollout of Amazon's Alexa+ and Google's Gemini for Home, it feels like we're still shouting into the void.

An adult cast romance about a poison assassin seeking love loosely riffing on 'Naruto' is about as peak‑shonen a premise as you can get.

The noise-drone duo's co-founder is crowdfunding treatment

She sang a medley of the Italian standard "Nel Blu, Dipinto di Blu" and her own "Nothing Is Impossible"

submitted by /u/Monsur_Ausuhnom
[link] [comments]

Apple plans to allow third-party voice-controlled AI apps in CarPlay, Bloomberg reports. Siri is the default voice assistant for things like controlling music and looking up directions, but future AI apps in CarPlay could handle the complicated, open-ended requests Siri can't answer.

The expanded support would let developers like OpenAI or Google offer versions of their ChatGPT and Gemini apps for CarPlay. Similar functionality is possible just by connecting a smartphone to a car over Bluetooth and using an AI app's voice mode, but CarPlay support would presumably make the process a little more seamless. 

Not so seamless that it replaces Siri, however. Bloomberg writes that these third-party apps won't be able to replace the Siri button in the CarPlay interface or use their own wake words ("Hey Google," etc.). Instead, anyone who wants to spend a long drive talking to Gemini will have to open the app first. That could cut down on the utility of using one of these apps, but Apple presumably wants to get Siri to a place where CarPlay users prefer it as their in-car assistant anyway.

Apple and Google recently announced that Gemini would power future versions of Siri and Apple Foundation Models, the AI models underpinning Apple Intelligence. The delayed, updated version of Siri Apple introduced alongside Apple Intelligence in 2024 is supposed to be able to take actions on user's behalf, work across apps and understand the context of what's on screen, all things Gemini can currently do. Reports suggest Apple wants to eventually use Google's Gemini models to transform Siri into a proper conversational chatbot, too. That future version of the voice assistant could be right at home in CarPlay.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/apple-will-reportedly-allow-third-party-ai-assistants-in-carplay-213432646.html?src=rss

Now that is a promotion.

The mysterious businessman pitched Jeffrey Epstein on numerous mobility startups in an era when the sector was white hot, according to TechCrunch's review of hundreds of documents released by the Department of Justice.

On the red carpet at the premiere of Wuthering Heights - Australian actress Margot Robbie, when asked about her stunning necklace made two glaringly inaccurate statements.

Firstly, Robbie legitimises the ownership of the jewel to Hollywood:

It's Elizabeth Taylor's necklace. It is the Taj Mahal diamond that Richard Burton gave it to her… there is something kind of Cathy and Heathcliff about Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in my mind.

Then, reaching for an older origin, she called the history of the necklace "amazing," musing that it belonged to "the woman whose grave is the Taj Mahal" — pointing not toward the powerful Empress Nur Jahan (1577-1645) who actually owned it, but to her more romantically memorialised stepdaughter, Mumtaz Mahal, who is indeed buried there.

The film has been accused of whitewashing Heathcliff — erasing his possible Romani or Black identity from the book to fit a palatable Hollywood romance.

While the BBC is busy rescuing the film's image by explaining away the backlash as passionate fandom or bold reinterpretation; maybe it's time to stop watering down these criticisms.

Margot Robbie — whitewashing the Origin Story

Margot Robbie's reply about the necklace shows just how successful Operation Legacy was.

Declassified British files reveal that Operation Legacy was the systematic, state-ordered destruction of thousands of "dirty" colonial documents in the 1950s and 60s. Lorries carried files to incinerators; crates of secrets were sunk at sea. In the words of a 2013 report, officials were desperate to consign atrocities and their paper trails to history, leaving successors and subjects in the dark.

It is not a stretch to imply that the history of the imperial loot of the diamond was buried with Operation Legacy.

The exact path of how the necklace left colonial India and entered the vaults of Cartier remains unclear, a gap in the record that itself speaks to the opaque channels of colonial extraction.

After being acquitted by Cartier in 1972, the jewel entered the orbit of Elizabeth Taylor through her then husband. It was later sold at auction in 2011 for a record $8.8 million to an anonymous bidder.

Again, Christie's auction house narrative also conveniently omits the Western acquisition, whilst exoticising the Mughal past.

An academic study of 19th century British press notes that:

Throughout imperial rule, both textual and illustrated newspapers produced reports and cultural representations of India, and more specifically its rulers, that highlighted exoticism and promoted a sense of cultural difference from British readers, subsequently creating an overall image of India that was stereotyped.

Christie's and Robbie have done the same thing: Romanticising the Mughal past but staying silent about the colonial loot.

Let's de-exoticise Nur Jahan.

Nur Jahan was politically one of the most important figures of the Mughal Dynasty. Historical and art history research reveals a formidable co-ruler: a skilled hunter depicted loading a musket in androgynous attire. A political strategist who issued coins in her name, and an economic strategist who commanded trade fleets and negotiated with European merchants .

According to a paper:

Maharani Nur Jahan, wife of Emperor Jahangir, was famed for her political intelligence and military skill and played an unrivalled role in ruling the Mughal Era. The Mughals were ardent supporters of art and culture, as seen by their exquisite buildings and distinctive handwriting

Nur Jahan's stepson, Shah Jahan, would later become famous for building the Taj Mahal in Agra, India, in memory of his wife, Mumtaz Mahal.

But what's less well-known is that the beautiful white-marble tomb he created was actually inspired by an earlier gem in Agra: the mausoleum Nur Jahan commissioned for her own father, Itimad-ud-Daulah. Often called the "Baby Taj," her design pioneered the intricate marble inlay and graceful proportions that would define the Taj Mahal itself.

Nur Jahan died in 1645 and is buried in Lahore, a city she helped beautify, alongside her husband Jahangir.

Nur Jahan's legacy is still alive today across both India and Pakistan — in Lahore, where she's buried, and in Agra where she first set marble and gems into poetry.

That shared history deserves better than the watered-down, exotic story we've been handed. It's time for both countries to reclaim her — not as some romantic side character, but as the powerhouse she truly was a ruler, a hunter, and a builder.

Other Loot

It's the same story playing out on a larger scale in British establishments.

The Koh-i-Noor diamond — seized by the British East India Company from a 10-year-old Punjabi Maharaja in 1849 — still sits in the Imperial State Crown, glittering in the Tower of London.

The swords and jewels of Tipu Sultan, looted after he was killed defending his fortress of Srirangapatna in 1799, still lie behind glass at the Victoria & Albert Museum.

So, while the Indian government made diplomatic noise in 2023 about getting the loot back, the reality in London hasn't budged. This highlights the colonial dynamic that is still at play.

What Margot Robbie's comments reveal is a familiar colonial reflex — one Hollywood knows all too well — of laundering imperial theft through re-angling the narrative.

Until colonial extraction is called THEFT, and not just "amazing history," empire remains alive and well.

Featured image via the Canary

By Nandita Lal

This week's stellar episode of the new 'Star Trek' series looked back at the legacy left behind by the captain of 'Deep Space Nine' and found the best perspective it could.

There's no evidence that Epstein is alive and hiding in Israel.

Back in 2023 we noted how a company named Telly proclaimed it had come up with a new idea for a TV: a free TV, with a second small TV below it, that shows users ads pretty much all of the time. While the bottom TV could also be used for useful things (like weather or a stock tracker), the fact it was constantly bombarding you with ads was supposed to offset any need for a retail price.

But apparently there's been trouble in innovation paradise.

Shortly after launch, Telly proclaimed that it expected to ship more than half a million of the ad-laden sets. Within a few months it had announced it had already received 250,000 pre-orders. But a recent report by Lowpass indicates that only 35,000 of the sets had made it to peoples' homes.

What was the problem? Ars Technica, Lowpass and The Verge note that the problems began with a substandard shipping process that resulted in a lot of TVs showing up broken to folks who pre-ordered. Reddit is also full of complaints about general quality control issues, like color issues, ads being played too loudly, odd connectivity issues, remote controls randomly unpairing, and more.

Still, there's evidence that the idea might still have legs, as the premise itself appears profitable:

"The investor update reportedly said Telly made $22 million in annualized revenue in Q3 2025. This could equate to about $52 in advertising revenue per Telly in use per month ($22 million divided by 35,000 TVs divided by 12 months in a year is $52.38).

That's notably more than what other TV companies report, as Lowpass pointed out. As a comparison to other budget TV brands that rely heavily on ads and user tracking, Roku reported an average revenue per user (ARPU) of $41.49 for 2024. Vizio, meanwhile, reported an ARPU of $37.17 in 2024."

The TV industry had already realized that they can make more money tracking your viewing and shopping behavior (and selling that information to dodgy data brokers) long term than they do on the retail value of the set. This just appears to be an extension of that concept, and if companies like Telly can get out of their own way on quality control, it's likely you'll see more of it.

In one sense that's great if you can't afford the newest and greatest TV set. It's less great given that the United States is too corrupt to pass functional consumer privacy protections or keep its regulators staffed and functional, meaning there are increasingly fewer mechanisms preventing companies like this from exploiting all the microphone, input, and other data collected from users on a day-to-day basis.

I personally want the opposite experience; I'm willing to pay extra for a dumb television that's little more than a display panel and some HDMI inputs. A device that has no real "smart" internals or bloated, badly designed GUI made by companies more interested in selling ads than quality control. Some business class TVs can sometimes fit the bill, but by and large it's a segment the industry clearly isn't interested in, because there's much, much more money to be made spying on and monetizing your every decision.

The science here gets really dark.

Gulikit's TT Pro and TT Max have many more stick and button options than a Switch 2 Pro controller, and they have one feature no other gamepad does.

The DOJ's release of Epstein-related documents was supposed to be redacted, but whoever did the job left a backdoor wide open. Email attachments were stored as base64-encoded text — basically, the raw PDF data converted to a string of letters and numbers — and nobody thought to remove them. — Read the rest

The post How sleuths are recovering hidden Epstein documents appeared first on Boing Boing.

One of the most surprising things to come out of the war in Ukraine has been the rapid adoption of drones by both sides. Outnumbered and outgunned but certainly not outmatched, the Ukrainian military began using small, modified off-the-shelf drones to drop munitions, support reconnaissance, and conduct raids. — Read the rest

The post A terrifying weapon is being used to save lives in Ukraine appeared first on Boing Boing.

Season 2 of the Fallout TV show just wrapped up. I thought it was pretty good, even if it does often fall into the trap of too much setup and not enough payoff. While there was no sign of the rumored New Vegas remaster (as much of a slam dunk as that would have been on Bethesda's part), I've been warding off the Wasteland blues with these really damn cool Fallout-themed LEGO models. — Read the rest

The post These Fallout LEGO models are incredible appeared first on Boing Boing.

If you attend a protest and post about it on Instagram, federal agents may already have a way to find out who you are. The Department of Homeland Security has administrative subpoena power — meaning it can demand records from tech companies, schools, and individuals without a judge's approval, without proving probable cause, and without notifying the person being surveilled. — Read the rest

The post ICE can demand your data from Google without a warrant appeared first on Boing Boing.