1
At least that's what I tell people staring at me on the bus
Support for this instance is greatly appreciated at https://sdf.org/support
5
xkcd #3220: Rotational Gravity
Title text:
I don't get it. The peak acceleration for passengers was WAY lower than in the giant-waterslide-loop-the-loop incident the other cruise line fired me for.
Transcript:
Transcript will show once it’s been added to explainxkcd.com
Source: https://xkcd.com/3220/
6
Only in Mississauga I find this disgusting behaviour.
Why are people just openly littering. It never used to be like this. What happened ?
7
Click here for the previous one. | Click here for the next one.
Cute Russian comic. The home of the official English version is here if anyone wants to skip ahead (or support them): https://boosty.to/gabiconomics-en
Simply put, racketeering is collecting consistent profit from others through unsavoury means. While it can be as simple as coercing businesses to pay up with threats of violence, racketeers often skirts the "gray" areas of the law, sometimes falling within its lines on a technicality - when utilising fraudulent or abusive extortion schemes. State racketeering is when it's done by government authorities, usually under the guise of legal measures — such as fines, taxes, or licensing procedures.
10
Hey! Why don't we overlap buttons on purpose! What a great idea!
11
12
13
14
15
16
26
The Digital Plague: When World of Warcraft Accidentally Simulated a Pandemic (my article!)
(lemmy.world)
In 2005, a bug in World of Warcraft turned Azeroth into a virtual pandemic, and gave scientists a rare glimpse into human behavior during an outbreak.
So recently I started a page in a notebook where I jotted down article ideas. Older games with interesting stories to them. Just as a part of a series of retrospectives I've been writing. So far I have done:
- Seaman
- GoldenEye 007
- Star Fox 2
- EarthBound
- Dune II
- Uniracers
...and now, obviously, World of Warcraft. This one is a bit more brief than the others, but the story is fascinating to me. An unexpected bug caused so much drama, and it ended up being studied. It came back to focus when Covid hit, it was covered by regular 'big' news services, the whole thing is such an odd story to me.
Anyway, I had a great time writing this up, maybe you were ther when it happened? I'd love to hear a comment if so!
17
20
23
35
‘Serious threat to the First Amendment’ as Trump admin wins first antifa terror charge
(therealnews.com)
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Mar. 15, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
The government has largely won its first case bringing material-support-for-terrorism charges against protesters alleged to belong to “antifa,” which President Donald Trump designated as a domestic terror group in 2025 despite the fact that no such organized group exists and the president has no legal authority to designate organizations as domestic terror groups.
A federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas agreed on Friday to convict eight people of domestic terrorism because they wore all black to a protest outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas on July 4, 2025, at which one of the protesters shot and wounded a police officer. Legal experts say the verdict could bolster attempts by the administration to stifle dissent.
“A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, told The Associated Press.
The administration promised it would be the first such case of many.
“The US lost today with this verdict.”
“Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities—not under President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Friday. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”
The trial revolved around a nighttime protest at which participants planned to set off fireworks in solidarity with the around 1,000 migrants detained inside the Prarieland ICE facility. Some participants brought guns, which is legal in Texas, as The Intercept reported.
Sam Levine explained in The Guardian what happened next:
Shortly after arriving at the facility, two or three of the protesters broke away from the larger group and began spray painting cars in the parking lot, a guard shack, slashed the tires on a government van, and broke a security camera. Two ICE detention guards came out and told the protesters to stop. A police officer arrived on the scene shortly after and drew his weapon at one of the people allegedly doing vandalism. One of the protesters was standing in the woods with an AR-15 and hit him in the shoulder. The officer would survive.
At first, the federal government charged those arrested after the event with “attempted murder of a police officer,” according to NOTUS.
However, that changed after Trump’s designation of antifa as a terror group in September and the release of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which directs federal law enforcement to target left-leaning groups and activities. The next month, the government’s case expanded to include terrorism charges.
“This wouldn’t be a terrorism case if it weren’t for that memo,” one defense lawyer told NOTUS on background.
The prosecution argued that the fact that the protesters wore black clothes to the protest was enough to convict them of material support for terrorism.
“Providing your body as camouflage for others to do the enumerated acts is providing support,” Assistant US Attorney Shawn Smith said during closing arguments, as The Intercept reported on Thursday. “It’s impossible to tell who is doing what. That’s the point.”
The defense, meanwhile, warned the jury about the free speech implications of the charge.
“The government is asking you to put protesters in prison as terrorists. You are the only people who can stop that,” Blake Burns, an attorney for defendant Elizabeth Soto, said, according to The Guardian.
“When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes ‘anyone who disagrees with Trump’—and this is the result.”
Ultimately, the jury decided to convict eight defendants of material support for terrorism as well as riot, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and use and carry of an explosive. However, they dismissed attempts by the state to argue that the protest constituted a pre-planned ambush and charge four people who had not shot at the police officer with attempted murder and discharging a firearm during a crime. Only Benjamin Song, the alleged shooter, was charged with one count of attempted murder and three counts of discharging a firearm.
The jury also convicted a ninth defendant, Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada, of conspiracy to conceal documents. Sanchez Estrada, who was not at the protest, had simply moved a box of zines out of his wife’s home after she was arrested for the protest, according to The Intercept.
“The US lost today with this verdict,” Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said, as AP reported.
Support the Prarieland Defendants said in a statement, “Everything about this trial from beginning to end has proven what we have said all along: This is a sham trial, built on political persecution and ideological attacks coming from the top.”
However, the group commended the solidarity that had sprung up among the defendants and their allies and vowed to continue to support them.
**“**We have a long journey ahead of us to continue fighting these charges along with the state level charges,” they said. “What happens here sets the tone for what’s to come. We are here and we won’t give up.”
Outside observers warned about the implication for the right to protest under Trump.
“Remember all the people who dismissed the alarm over NSPM-7 because ‘ANTIFA isn’t even a real organization’? We told you that didn’t matter. When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes ‘anyone who disagrees with Trump’—and this is the result,” said Cory Archibald, the co-founder of Track AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee].
Content creator Austin MacNamara said: “The Prairieland trial was given almost zero media coverage because of the blatant lies by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and Police. This verdict now sets a precedent for criminalization of dissent across the board. Noise demos, Black-Bloc, pamphlets/zines/red cards, all of this can be used to imprison you.”
Academic Nathan Goodman wrote that convicting people of terrorism based on clothing was a “serious threat to the First Amendment.”
The verdict gives new poignancy to what defendant Meagan Morris told NOTUS ahead of the jury’s decision: “If we win, I think it shows that Trump’s mandate is not working, that the people understand that you can’t criminalize, you know, First and Second Amendment-protected activities. And I think if we lose, then… a lot of the country is OK with what’s going on. And it will be a much darker time, it’ll just signify a much increased crackdown on political opposition and free speech.”
From The Real News Network via This RSS Feed.
24
33
'No Quarter' Declaration by Pete Hegseth 'Constitutes a War Crime': Experts
(www.commondreams.org)
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth's statement last week that "no quarter" will be given to "our enemies" in Iran—a declaration, in military parlance, that surrendering combatants will be executed rather than taken prisoner—constituted a clear violation of international law and a war crime.
The International Committee of the Red Cross explains that "the prohibition on declaring that no quarter will be given is a longstanding rule of customary international law already recognized in the Lieber Code, the Brussels Declaration, and the Oxford Manual and codified in the Hague Regulations." The Hague Convention of 1907, to which the US is a party, says it is "especially forbidden" to "declare that no quarter will be given."
During a press conference on Friday, Hegseth said that US forces attacking Iran "will keep pushing, keep advancing; no quarter, no mercy for our enemies."
Hegseth's statement sparked alarm among legal experts and members of Congress, particularly in the context of the Pentagon chief's ongoing efforts to loosen legal oversight of American forces and roll back rules aimed at protecting civilians.
"'No quarter' isn’t some wannabe tough guy line—it means something," said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy officer. "An order to give no quarter would mean to take no prisoners and kill them instead. That would violate the law of armed conflict. It would be an illegal order. It would also put American service members at greater risk. Pete Hegseth should know better than to throw around terms like this."
Oona Hathaway, a legal scholar and former special counsel to the Pentagon's general counsel, wrote in response to Hegseth's remarks that "declaring that no quarter will be given unequivocally violates international humanitarian law."
"Indeed, ordering that no quarter will be given, threatening an adversary therewith, or conducting hostilities on this basis is prohibited and constitutes a war crime," Hathaway added.
Daniel Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and judge advocate—a profession that Hegseth has treated with contempt—wrote a "hypothetical legal memorandum" advising the Pentagon chief to "publicly retract" his "no quarter" statement, warning that it "may expose you to criminal liability under 18 USC 2441(c)(2), and expose any subordinate servicemembers who carry it out to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as 18 USC 2441(c)(2)."
Maurer continued:
Given that “no quarter” is a clear violation of the Hague Convention IV and, as a consequence, U.S. federal law, we recommend the following immediate actions:
a. Publicly retract the comments and disavow any intention to induce, inspire, counsel, encourage, incite, order, threaten, tolerate, or give “no quarter” to Iranian combatants.
b. Communicate through the chain-of-command conducting Operation Epic Fury that “no quarter” is a war crime that will be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or 18 USC § 2441.
Hegseth's declaration of "no quarter" conflicts with US President Donald Trump's statement late last month announcing the illegal war on Iran, which is now in its third week with no end in sight.
Urging Iranian soldiers to lay down their arms, Trump pledged, "We'll give you immunity."
Ryan Goodman, founding co-editor-in-chief of the digital law and policy journal Just Security, told Axios that Hegseth is "putting the American military on a track to lawlessness in which we will lose more and more allies." Goodman noted that in the wake of the Second World War, the US prosecuted senior German military officials for refusing quarter to enemy soldiers.
"The best thing Secretary Hegseth can do for the country and for the US military is to say he misspoke and to retract the statement," said Goodman, who previously worked in the Defense Department's office of general counsel. "The Pentagon's law of war manual states unequivocally that such statements are war crimes."
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.
25
12
Predictions of another 9/11, amid Israel-US killing spree – Not a ceasefire Day 157
(israelpalestinenews.org)
view more: next ›