Lettera aperta al cinema e al mondo della cultura in Italia Noi che lavoriamo e viviamo nel mondo della cultura, ci rifiutiamo di continuare a assistere indifferenti al genocidio in atto nei confronti del popolo palestinese dopo decenni di occupazione illegale e violenta, di pulizia etnica e di oppressione, di regime di apartheid. Non si [...]
Un video interessante che ci fa capire, tra le altre cose, come la "macchina dell'informazione" italiana sia pesantemente spostata ad est, con tutte le conseguenze che ne derivano per l'opinione pubblica.
Ecco perché, poi vediamo questo sentimento antioccidentale e il sentimento anti-armamento crescente. Forse, in molti casi, anche perché mancano le premesse.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
You might think you don’t need a hearing aid, and you might be right. But in general, hearing loss eventually comes to all of us. In fact, you progressively lose hearing every year, which is why kids can have high-pitched ringtones their parents can’t hear.
You’d think hearing aids would be pretty simple, right? After all, we know how to pick up sounds, amplify them, and play them back. But there’s a lot more to it. Hearing aids need to be small, comfortable, have great battery life, and cram a microphone and speaker into a small area. That also can lead to problems with feedback, which can be very uncomfortable for the user. In addition, they need to handle very soft and loud sounds and accommodate devices like telephones.
Although early hearing aids just made sound louder and, possibly, blocked unwanted sound, modern devices will try to increase volume only in certain bands where the user has hearing loss. They may also employ sophisticated methods to block or reduce noise.
A Brief History
Hearing loss is nothing new. Ear trumpets appeared around the 17th century. These were just simple sound baffles that directed sound to your ear and, perhaps, cut some noise out that wasn’t in the trumpet’s direction.
The modern hearing aid dates back to the akouphone in 1895. [Miller Hutchison] developed the device for a friend who was deaf from a bout of scarlet fever. It was bulky — sitting on a table top — and used a carbon microphone, but it did work. He was also able to sell several models to royalty, many of whom suffered from hereditary deafness. This included Denmark’s Queen Alexandra, who, reportedly, was very impressed with the results. The Acousticon microphone (left) and complete unit (right) (From Hawkins Electrical Guide #7, 1923) Around 1902, [Hutchison] changed the device’s name to the acousticon, making it more portable with battery power. Despite impressive marketing, not all medical professionals were sold. If you were totally deaf, the device did nothing, unsurprisingly. In addition, the bulky batteries required frequent replacement, and the frequency response was poor.
It was still better than nothing, and the invention also led to the massacon and akoulalion that converted sound into vibration for the profoundly deaf. He later sold the rights for the acousticon to [Kelley Turner], who would not only improve the device, but also use the technology to launch the dictograph, which was a well-known office machine for many years.
Modern Times
The Zenith Miniature 75 (photo by [France1978] CC-BY-SA-2.0).Amplified hearing aids appeared around 1913, but they were still large boxes. By 1920, the vactuphone used vacuum tubes to perform amplification. At “only” seven pounds, the vactuphone was considered quite portable.
Keep in mind that portable hearing aids in the 1920s was a relative term. Typically, you’d have a unit carried in a bag or hung around your neck. World War II brought advances in minaturization which benefited hearing aids like the Zenith Miniature 75.
Transistors, of course, changed everything, including hearing aids. The Sonotone 1010, which appeared in 1952, used both transistors and tubes. Early transistor units were known to fail early due to moisture and heat. Silicon transistors and encapsulation helped.
Naturally, all of these hearing aids were analog as were the earliest IC-based devices. However, with the advent of ICs, it was possible to use digital techniques. Patent drawing from 1984 — Hardly portable! The path to digital hearing aids was difficult. In the 1970s, large computers could program digital elements in hearing aids to tune the device to set frequency bands and gains.
By 1980, several groups were experimenting with real digital hearing aids, although many of them had wireless links to real computers. A fully digital hearing aid first appeared in a 1984 patent, but it wasn’t tiny. Since then, things have gotten smaller and more capable.
Physical Form
Hearing aids went from table-top devices, to boxes hanging on necks. Getting smaller devices allowed for small boxes that hug the back of the ear with the earpiece into the ear canal.
With even smaller devices, the entire apparatus can be placed in the ear canal. Many of these go so deeply into the ear that they are largely invisible. There are also hearing aids that can surgically attach to your skull using a titanium post embedded in the bone. This can transmit sound even to people who can’t hear sound directly since it relies on bone conduction.
Other places to find hearing aids are built into thick glasses frames. Doctors with hearing problems can opt for stethoscopes with integrated hearing aids.
Modern hearing aids sometimes have rechargeable batteries. Otherwise, there will be some kind of small battery. There was a time that mercury cells were common, but with those banned in most places, many aids now take zinc-air batteries that deliver about 1.4 V.
We hear from an 8th grader that you can make hearing aid batteries last longer by peeling the sticker from them and waiting five minutes before installing them. Apparently, giving them a little time to mix with the air helps them.
What’s Next?
On the market today are hearing aids that use neural networks, have Bluetooth connections, and use other high tech tricks. We’ve looked at the insides of a hearing aid and why they cost so much before. If you want to roll your own, there is an open source design.
“Basta con la retorica sulla Brexit”, dice John Healey. Il segretario alla Difesa del Regno Unito parla di difesa, ma anche di pesca. Perché i due dossier sembrano sempre più collegati man mano che ci sia avvicina al summit tra Regno Unito e Unione europea in agenda il prossimo 19 maggio. L’entente cordiale tra Londra […]
@Informatica (Italy e non Italy 😁) Proteggere le infrastrutture satellitari è un must sempre più impellente e per questo è necessario adottare un modello di sicurezza “robusto” e sposare un modello di sicurezza “zero trust”. Lo scrive l’Enisa, l’agenzia Ue per la cybersicurezza, in
@Informatica (Italy e non Italy 😁) Le minacce evolvono e Integral Ad Science (IAS) lo dimostra. Le 180 app rimosse non sono il classico repulisti che Google fa di tanto in tanto, ma rappresentano la parte visibile di un fenomeno sempre più complesso: una
Clearview AI ha ricevuto l’approvazione giudiziaria definitiva per un accordo che fornisce una quota azionaria del 23% della società a una categoria di consumatori che hanno affermato che la società di riconoscimento facciale ha utilizzato in modo improprio le immagini delle persone senza il loro consenso riporta Bloomberg.
Approvando l’accordo giovedì, la giudice Sharon Johnson Coleman della Corte distrettuale degli Stati Uniti per il distretto settentrionale dell’Illinois ha stimato che la quota dell’accordo valesse 51,75 milioni di dollari, sulla base di una valutazione di 225 milioni di dollari di gennaio 2024.
“Certo, la natura di una quota azionaria è che potrebbe ridursi o crescere a seconda delle performance della società”, ha detto Coleman nel suo ordine. Ma “Clearview è ottimista sulla potenziale crescita della società in base al mercato disponibile”, ha detto.
In assenza di un accordo, non era chiaro se Clearview avrebbe potuto pagare milioni di dollari come parte di una sentenza, o se avesse i fondi per superare il processo, secondo un giudice in pensione che ha facilitato le negoziazioni per la conciliazione.
Clearview ha raggiunto questo accordo per risolvere le cause legali consolidate secondo cui l’azienda avrebbe violato l’Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act estraendo miliardi di foto online e inserendole in un database di riconoscimento facciale.
L’accordo prevede la nomina di un supervisore con il diritto di ispezionare le finanze di Clearview e di vendere la quota, al fine di proteggere gli interessi della class action che ha concluso l’accordo. Coleman ha ritenuto l’accordo equo, ragionevole e adeguato, nonostante le obiezioni politiche di 22 stati e del Distretto di Columbia, nonché dei gruppi di pressione.
Prosegue l’accelerazione americana sulla sesta generazione. Secondo un’indiscrezione riportata da Reuters, la Marina degli Stati Uniti annuncerà il vincitore della commessa per l’F/A-XX, il nuovo caccia imbarcato che rimpiazzerà gli F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, entro la fine di
THIS IS DIGITAL POLITICS. I'm Mark Scott, and continued my Euro-trash existence this week in Geneva where I'm moderated a panel on March 24 on tech sovereignty and data governance. I'll include a write-up in next week's newsletter.
Talking of events, I'll also be co-hosting a tech policy meet-up in hipster East London on March 27 at 6:30pm. There are a few spots left for this (free) event. Sign up here.
— We're living through an era of 'tech sovereignty.' No one knows what that concept means — and that's quickly turning into a problem.
— Brussels forced Apple to open up to competitors. That's going to help many US firms that, in principle, oppose the bloc's competition revamp.
— In what must be the least-shocking fact about the latest AI models, almost none of the data used to train these systems comes from Global Majority countries.
Let's get started.
Tech sovereignty in an era of zero-sum geopolitics
MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE I WAS IN SWITZERLAND to talk about this topic, but we need to focus on tech sovereignty. Bear with me. For most of us, this concept is either unknown or irrelevant. Or possibly both. But over the last five years, policymakers and lawmakers — first in Europe, but increasingly everywhere — have embraced this catch-all term for efforts by individual governments to regain control over parts of the technology industry that have historically been left to the private sector.
Think the United States (or European Union) Chips Act, or efforts to bring back high-end semiconductor manufacturing to the "homeland." Think Washington's Joe Biden-era export controls to stop Beijing getting hold of next generation chip manufacturing equipment. Think Brussels' litany of initiatives — from the creation of so-called 'data spaces' to the (badly named) AI 'gigafactories' — to give itself a seat at the global table of tech powers.
At its core, tech sovereignty is a realization by elected officials that they are no longer in control. They see complex technological global supply chains, the rise of world-spanning tech giants and the influx of billions of dollars in private capital and worry their voters (and homegrown companies) won't see the economic and social benefits of how tech has become so ingrained in everything from buying a car to sending your child to school.
Well, maybe that's one (slightly cynical) definition. After more than five years since 'tech sovereignty' became a thing, governments are still grappling with exactly what it means, how to implement it and what the consequences will be when everyone from London to Brasilia wants to "onshore" tech to boost their local interests.
Before 2025, that remained almost exclusively a headache for uber-policy types (like myself.) But this year has shown, already, that we are living in a more transactional, zero-sum mercantilist world where all elected leaders — and not just US President Donald Trump — are willing to use all the levers at their disposal to reshape the world order to their needs.
**A message from Microsoft** Each day, millions of people use generative AI. Abusive AI-generated content, however, can present risks to vulnerable groups such as women, children, and older adults. In a new white paper, developed in consultation with civil society, we present actionable policy recommendations to promote a safer digital environment.**
That means, inevitably, revisiting how we define 'tech sovereignty' because, like it or not, how we collectively approach the topic will have significant real-world implications for how technology is developed, governed and used in the years to come.
If done well, it could build upon the core tenets of what made the internet such a game-changing technology: open, rights-based core infrastructure that allowed anyone (read: with money and technical capacity) to build whatever they wanted, however they wanted.
If done poorly, it could undermine those key principles that have made technology crucial to both economic and social benefits for all.
Case in point: if a country decides to keep all of its citizens' data within national borders — a term known as data localization — for either commercial or national security reasons, then it makes it harder to trade, based on a reduction of global data flows, and starts to cut off specific countries from the now-fraying world order. This is not hypothetical: Russia, Nigeria, India and China are among states that already have such rules on the books.
What is urgently needed is an honest conversation about what people mean by 'tech sovereignty.' Currently, that falls into two camps.
Camp One leans toward isolationism. In this world, politicians funnel public cash into homegrown 'tech champions' that use siloed-off local data and technical skills to create services/products that are then sold worldwide in a race to build global giants.
Camp Two relies on each country shifting to tech-related areas where it can compete globally (eg: Taiwan/South Korea on microchips; Vietnam on device manufacturing), and then opening up each market to overseas competition. The goal isn't to own everything in tech. It's about figuring out where you can compete, globally, while giving local citizens access to (cheap) outside services/products that improve their daily lives.
You can probably figure out which version of 'tech sovereignty' would be my preference.
Before I get angry emails, I realize there's a lot of nuance that lies between those two extreme positions. Those who want to create a so-called "Euro stack," for instance, would probably argue their efforts are about giving Europe greater autonomy at a time when the US is not perceived as a trusted partner. Those in Brazil supportive of the country's data localization mandate would likely say such provisions are about keeping local's personal information safe under national laws.
I get it. Everyone has a reason why their version of "tech sovereignty" is OK, while everyone else's take is blatant protectionism.
Thanks for reading Digital Politics. If you've been forwarded this newsletter (and like what you've read), please sign up here. For those already subscribed, reach out on digitalpolitics@protonmail.com
But here's the problem with that. This ongoing nibbling at what has made technology an inherent force for good (despite, ahem, some significant downsides) has placed increased onus on equating national power as the only mechanism to get things done. That is especially true, in 2025, when long-standing allies are starting to not trust each other, and retaliatory tariffs are leading us toward a potential global trade war.
What I would prefer to see is a recognition by lawmakers about what they can — and what they can not — change when it comes to tech. Yes, much of the current global power dynamics mean the likes of the US, China and Europe have more say than other parts of the globe. That is not something, unfortunately, that will change overnight.
But while it's 100 percent legitimate for national leaders to want greater control of various forms of technology, I don't see how the ubiquitous calls to spend public money to "bring back" global supply chains to national shores as something that will achieve that.
First, it won't — given that these complex systems have grown over decades and won't just change quickly. And second, it will lead to short-term higher prices for consumers because of the inevitable cost hikes that will result from spending over the odds to onshore manufacturing when other countries can just do it cheaper (and faster.)
"Tech sovereignty" is a concept that sounds good as a talking point, but fails to deliver when confronted with reality. Yes, some form of greater control (or, at least, the semblance of control) over global tech forces is probably good for democracy, writ large. That's especially true for countries beyond the US and China that are net-takers of technology, at a global stage.
But you don't achieve that by putting up barriers to outsiders and investing public funds to develop clunky national champions that will struggle to compete worldwide.
What would be better is to set out a positive definition of 'tech sovereignty' that builds on what has worked for almost everyone over the last 80 years. Caveat: I understand that is a difficult pitch, politically, given the current geopolitical climate.
That would include: reaffirming open global markets based on right-based digital regulation that allows each country to 1) promote their own unique tech-related specialisms, both home and abroad and 2) allow national lawmakers to step in, where appropriate, when global tech forces undermine the rule of law or other key tenets within a nation state.
We already have such systems in other sectors like financial services and pharmaceuticals — and no one (at least not yet in 2025!) makes much political capital in undermining how those industries currently operate. Yes, tech is somewhat different as it's nominally not a separate industry. But, I would argue, neither is financial services.
Unfortunately, I don't see that positive agenda in any of the ongoing 'tech sovereignty' discussions that have become embedded in the geopolitical tensions of early 2025. That goes from Trump's MAGA approach to maintaining "US dominance" over AI to European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen's pitch to make the EU the hub for the next technological revolution.
That is a shame.
It's a shame because it undermines what has been built over the last 80 in so many tech-related fields that have benefited so many people worldwide. And it's a shame because it equally foretells a growing "splinternet" between countries/regions that solely focus on their short-term interests — without recognizing what damage that will produce over the mid-term.
Chart of the Week
THE LATEST ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS already skew toward more developed countries. But researchers analyzed the most common datasets used to build these systems, from 1990 to 2024, to figure out where that information actually came from.
Not surprisingly, regions like Africa and South America were massively underrepresented, both on the number of datasets (see "by count" below) from those regions and the amount of information (see "by tokens or hours" below) included from those parts of the world.
That's a problem when next generation AI models are being rolled out globally in ways that won't meet regionally-specific needs because of a lack of local data baked into these complex systems.
The darker the part of the maps below, the more data was used from that region to train AI models. Source: The Data Provenance Initiative
The complexities of antitrust enforcement
WHEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION ANNOUNCEDlast week it had forced Apple to make changes to comply with the bloc's new competition rules, the iPhone maker was quick to cry foul. The decision, according to the company, "wraps us in red tape, slowing down Apple's ability to innovate for users in Europe and forcing us to give away our new features for free to companies who don't have to play by the same rules."
Yet in many parts of the global tech world — including inside companies that equally dislike the EU's Digital Markets Act— there were cheers of victory. The split response highlights how these new competition rules, which allow European regulators to step into online markets before one specific company becomes too dominant, aren't as easy to define as many first thought.
First, a quick backstory. Last year, the European Commission's competition enforcers opened an investigation into how Apple allowed rival firms to interact with its products. On March 19, Brussels then ordered the iPhone maker to make it easier for non-Apple devices to connect to the company's products. It also demanded the Cupertino-based firm to provide its technical specs to outsiders so they could build services which more easily interact with Apple's operating systems.
**A message from Microsoft**New technologies like AI supercharge creativity, business, and more. At the same time, we must take steps to ensure AI is resistant to abuse. Our latest white paper, "Protecting the Public from Abusive AI-Generated Content across the EU," highlights the weaponization of women’s nonconsensual imagery, AI-powered scams and financial fraud targeting older adults, and the proliferation of synthetic child sexual abuse.
The paper outlines steps Microsoft is taking to combat these risks and provides recommendations as to how the EU's existing regulatory framework can be used to combat the abuse of AI-generated content by bad actors. We thank Women Political Leaders, the MenABLE project, the Internet Watch Foundation, the WeProtect Global Alliance, and the European Senior’s Union for their important work and support. Click here to read more.**
What does that mean? Over the next 12 months (caveat: Apple may still appeal these changes), it will become easier, say, for Garmin smartwatches to connect seamlessly with your iPhone — just as an Apple watch currently does. Rival apps will also be able to take advantage of Apple's technical wizardry to compete more directly with the company's own services that work hand-in-glove with its in-house software.
You can understand why Apple is not a fan. But, equally, it will be a boon for the likes of Meta and Alphabet, as well as scores of smaller tech firms, that have long complained that Apple creates artificial technical barriers so that rival devices/apps just don't work as well as the iPhone maker's own offerings. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's chief executive, even called out Apple in January over how it didn't allow other headphones to connect as well as the firm's (expensive) devices.
Sign up for Digital Politics
Thanks for getting this far. Enjoyed what you've read? Why not receive weekly updates on how the worlds of technology and politics are colliding like never before. The first two weeks of any paid subscription are free.
Subscribe Email sent! Check your inbox to complete your signup.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yes, you read that right. The European Commission and Zuckerberg are on the same page when it comes to digital competition.
That complexity can make my brain hurt. In the ongoing lobbying around new digital competition rules (looking at you, United Kingdom), the playbook often relies on claiming such legislation places regulators too squarely at the heart of business decisions of some of the world's largest tech companies. "It's killing innovation!," comes the claim. "Officials should keep their noses out of our business!"
I have some sympathy for that argument, especially when it comes to so-called ex ante regulation, or policy efforts to curb unfair dominance before a firm becomes too entrenched in a digital market. But I can also see a massive upside for consumers if a non-Apple product/service works as effortlessly as an in-house device designed in Cupertino.
For what such competition decisions lead to, we only have to look at a previous European Commission ruling to force the iPhone maker to switch all of its devices over to USB-C technology. Apple executives equally met that 'common charger' ruling with derision. But now, USB-C is the de fault global standard, allowing one cable to connect everything from iPhones to Samsung tablets.
It's still unclear if the recent Apple decision will lead to US pushback after the White House threatened retaliatory tariffs on countries/regions that went after American tech firms. But beyond the iPhone maker, many US companies remain supportive of this specific European Commission competition decision — mostly because it's good for their own business interests.
What I'm reading
— A subcommittee of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on the "Censorship Industrial Complex" on March 24. Watch along here. A counterpoint to that subcommittee's focus.
— AI Now gives the European Commission a report card on tech for the Berlaymont Building's first 100 days. More here.
— The UK regulator Ofcom outlined what companies must now do after a deadline passed for firms to conduct illegal harms risk assessments. More here.
— Small AI language models offer a cheap option for indigenous communities to take advantage of this emerging technology, argue Brooke Tanner and Cameron Kerry for the Brookings Institution.
Leonardo ha realizzato il primo ricevitore accreditato a livello europeo per il Public regulated service (Prs) di Galileo, il servizio criptato del sistema di navigazione satellitare dell’Unione europea. Il dispositivo, sviluppato su mandato
@Notizie dall'Italia e dal mondo L'aviazione militare del Sudan ha bombardato un mercato in Darfur, facendo strage di civili L'articolo SUDAN. Bombardato un mercato, strage di civili proviene da Pagine Esteri.
La riapertura ai traffici marittimi del Mar Nero compare tra le pieghe della trattativa per la fine del conflitto. Si parla di rivitalizzare l’accordo di due anni fa per l’esportazione del grano ucraino in corridoi sicuri di transito, con la Turchia in veste di
Il Texas ci riprova: la nuova proposta di legge SB 3003 prevede l'obbligo di documento d'identità con foto, con ripercussioni penali se i rivenditori non verificano rigorosamente l'età degli acquirenti.
Di fatto, la norma costringerebbe i venditori a tornare a spacciare i sex toy come "dispositivi medici" per aggirare le restrizioni. La legge sarebbe invasiva, ostacolando l'acquisto per tutti, non solo per i minorenni, ed esponendo informazioni personali in giro, il tutto con multe fino a 5.000 dollari per chi sgarra. Insomma, la legge non appare solo inefficace, ma potenzialmente dannosa: un tassella nella grande guerra legislativa contro i sex toy che in Texas portano avanti da anni.
Texans Might Soon Have to Show Photo ID to Buy a Dildo Online
A newly introduced bill in Texas would require online sellers to show a photo ID before buying a dildo.
SB 3003, introduced by Senator Angela Paxton (wife of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton), would criminally charge online retailers for selling “an obscene device” without verifying the buyers’ age. Sellers would have to require customers to submit their government-issued photographic identification, or use “third-party age verification services that use public records or other reliable sources to verify the purchaser's identity and age,” the bill says. Owning a credit card, which already requires the holder to be over 18 years of age, would not be enough.
Like the regressive and ineffective adult site age verification laws passing all across the country in the last few years, this law would drag Texans back to a not-so-distant time when sex toy sellers had to pretend vibrators were for “massage.”
Hallie Lieberman, journalist and author of Buzz: A Stimulating History of the Sex Toy, sold sex toys in Texas in the early 2000s under the state’s “six dildo” law, which criminalizes the possession of six or more “obscene devices,” defined as "a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." That law is still on the books but is now considered unenforceable and unconstitutional. Lieberman told me sellers got around the law by claiming the toys were for “medical purposes.” This bill could send retailers back to that time.
Lieberman told me she had to call the clitoris “the man in the boat” at the time to avoid breaking the law. “When we can't speak openly about our bodies and sexual pleasure, when we're forced to use euphemisms, we not only are under informed about our bodies, but we also feel shame in seeking out pleasure,” she said.
Like age verification laws for websites, the bill would make buying sex toys online harder for everyone, not just minors, and would send consumers to less-safe retailers with lower-quality, possibly dangerous toys. And also like those laws, people who do upload their government ID or undergo other age verification measures could risk having their purchases exposed to a hostile government.
“The government should not have a record of what sex toys we buy. This isn't just a frivolous concern,” Lieberman said. “In a nation where the president has declared that there are only two genders and that transgender people don't exist, where trans people are erased from government websites and kicked out of the military, it would be dangerous for the government to have a record that you purchased sex toys designed for trans people. Imagine you're a school teacher at a public school in Texas and there's a record you purchased a sex toy designed for queer people in a state where a parental bill of rights bill was just passed prohibiting discussion of sexual orientation in schools.”
"We are literally going back in time with this law."
Texas legislators have been trying to limit access to sex toys for their constituents for years. In late 2024, Hillary Hickland, a freshman member of Texas’ Republican House, introduced a bill that would ban retailers in the state from selling sex toys unless they file paperwork to become sexually oriented businesses—effectively forcing stores like Walmart, CVS and Target, which sell vibrators and other sex toys, to take those products off their shelves and forcing brick-and-mortar boutiques to verify the ages of all customers. The bill was referred to Texas’ Trade, Workforce & Economic Development committee earlier this month.
Paxton’s bill would charge online retailers with a Class A Misdemeanor if they don’t verify ages, and would open them up to fines up to $5,000 for each violation.
Invasive and ineffective age verification laws that require users show government-issued ID, like a driver's license or passport, are passing like wildfire across the U.S.
Risposta di EM Seconda un corno.
Migliore deriva dall'unione dell'equipaggiamento migliore con l'addestramento migliore per i piloti e l'integrazione migliore interforze.
al mondo c'è chi è vecchio dentro... come i trilobiti (porelli). e non è una bella cosa. l'idea che i russi abbiano una buona areonautica è piuttosto datata. non hanno neppure un grande amore per la tecnologia: basta ricordare lo z80 realizzato a transistor invece che come chip.
comunque a me va il sangue al cervello quando sento "ma l'ucraina è russa"... che poi a dirlo è la stessa gente che si lamenta che l'itala è USA... quindi completiamo con la cattiveria finale che mi fa girare le palle a me quando la sento: "ma dove sono i comunisti stalinisti italiani quando si tratta della libertà dell'italia?"
Garibaldi M. Lapolla – Il fuoco nella carne freezonemagazine.com/news/gari… In libreria dal 28 Marzo 2025 Il fuoco nella carne (The Fire in the Flesh, 1931), romanzo d’esordio di Garibaldi Mario Lapolla, una delle voci più importanti della letteratura italo-americana del primo Novecento. Il romanzo segue due linee narrative che si intrecciano, una storia d’amore segnata dal desiderio e dalla colpa e una scalata sociale […] L'articolo Garibaldi M.
@Notizie dall'Italia e dal mondo Scambio di accuse tra Burundi e Ruanda. Falliti i vari tentativi di mediazione, in Congo avanzano i ribelli sostenuti da Ruanda e Uganda. Kinshasa offre le proprie terre rare agli Stati Uniti in cambio di sostegno militare L'articolo Allarme in Africa, la guerra in Congo rischia di estendersi proviene da Pagine Esteri.
@Politica interna, europea e internazionale Romano Prodi ha effettivamente tirato i capelli alla giornalista Lavinia Orefici, inviata del programma tv di Rete 4 Quarta Repubblica. Lo dimostra un video mandato in onda in esclusiva nella serata di ieri, martedì 25 marzo, durante DiMartedì, il talk show politico
🖼️Quadro con Veduta Piazza Montanara Roma; bassorilievo inciso su lastra Inscritta in duplice cornice in legno color oro e argento. Misure: 39 cm X 32 cm .Autore: Blumal ; acquistato presso gioielleria Puleo.
📦🚚Spedizione tracciata e sicura disponibile 📦🚚 👉Per ulteriori informazioni e foto non esitare a contattarmi🌟
Con l’acquisto di questo articolo
Puoi devolvere il 50% del costo di questo articolo a favore del salvataggio degli ALBERI di Villa PAMPHIILJ ROMA Si prega di contattarmi
NB: il 50% del costo di questo articolo potrai devolverlo per sostenere le spese per il ricorso al Tar a favore del salvataggio degli alberi promossa dal Neomondismo
Sostieni le spese per il ricorso al TAR! a favore del salvataggio degli ALBERI di Villa PAMPHIILJ ROMA
Tenera è la notte freezonemagazine.com/rubriche/… Nel 1994 a Los Angeles, dopo una tremenda scossa di terremoto che aveva provocato un blackout totale, molti cittadini si rivolsero alle autorità per sapere cosa fosse quella striscia lucente che avevano visto nel cielo: era la Via Lattea. La spropositata illuminazione notturna della “città degli angeli“, o meglio “El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina […] L'articolo Tenera è la notte proviene da FREE Nel 1994 a Los
In Germania la paura sta aumentando: "Questa potrebbe essere la nostra ultima estate di pace", ha dichiarato lo storico militare Sönke Neitzel alla Bild Zeitung il 22 marzo 2025, diffondendo così questo messaggio di panico tra la gente. “Putin potrebbe attaccare la NATO già in autunno”, ha affermato Neitzel. Penso che questo allarmismo sia completamente sbagliato. La paura viene utilizzata per controllare le persone e giustificare i miliardi spesi nell'industria delle armi. Ma la paura non è una buona consigliera. Divide la famiglia umana nella malvagia Russia e nella buona NATO. Oppure tra brave persone vaccinate e cattive persone non vaccinate. La paura ha sempre bisogno dell'immagine del nemico. Come persona non vaccinata, lo ricordo bene: cinque anni fa, a marzo 2020, il panico per i virus era dilagante e la società era divisa. Furono poi investiti miliardi nella vaccinazione contro il coronavirus. Il panico viene utilizzato ripetutamente per controllare le persone. Nel 2001, l'11 settembre alimentò la paura dei musulmani e la NATO dichiarò guerra all'Afghanistan per 20 anni. La guerra finì nel caos. La demolizione del WTC7 non è mai stata risolta. Conclusione: non dovremmo precipitarci ciecamente nel panico successivo, ma piuttosto praticare la consapevolezza e riflettere sugli ultimi 25 anni. Tutti appartengono alla famiglia umana. La paura e la divisione non ci porteranno da nessuna parte.
l'Unione psicopatica Europea vuole spendere 800 miliardi di euro in armi, ma per i giornalai da carta igienica è la Russia che ha un'economia di guerra.
Un grossolano errore commesso durante una discussione interna sulla recente aggressione militare americana contro lo Yemen potrebbe costare il posto al consigliere per la Sicurezza Nazionale del presidente, Mike Waltz, attorno al quale sembra giocars…
Nelle ultime 24 ore tre operai sono morti sul lavoro. La strage continua nel menefreghismo del governo. Chiediamo che sia finalmente introdotto il reato di omicidio sul lavoro perchè è inaccettabile che anche quando si accertano le responsabilità delle imprese le condanne risultino irrisorie. Il governo Meloni ha introdotto pene pesantissime inventando reati di ogni genere persino per reprimere le feste danzanti autogestite ma si guarda bene di intervenire per la sicurezza sul lavoro. C’è bisogno di repressione e prevenzione con una rete capillare di controlli perchè la vita umana dovrebbe valere più del profitto. Bisogna investire nella sicurezza per chi lavora che è una vera emergenza non buttare soldi per le armi che arricchiscono azionisti dell’industria bellica. Si assumano ispettori e si ricostruisca una rete di controlli efficaci. Purtroppo non c’è nulla da aspettarsi da questo governo. Per lanciare un segnale forte c’è bisogno di un grande partecipazione al voto nel referendum promosso dalla Cgil che, tra i quesiti, prevede un intervento sacrosanto per la sicurezza cancellando l’attuale norma sui subappalti. Non rassegniamoci alla strage.
Maurizio Acerbo, segretario nazionale del Partito della Rifondazione Comunista – Sinistra Europea
Vendo tavoletta grafica Wacom Bamboo Pen & Touch CTH-470, completa di tutti gli accessori e scatola originale.
La tavoletta è stata testata con Windows 11 anche con il driver ufficiale wacom e con Debian 12.
Dispositivo entry level per disegno digitale, fotoritocco sia con la penna che con il tocco delle dita. Dimensioni della tavoletta: 28 x 17,5 cm x 1 cm di spessore.
Disponibile per consegna a mano zona Torino. Contattatemi per concordare l'eventuale spedizione tramite subito o vinted.
Price: 20 € :: Questo è un articolo disponibile su FediMercatino.it
Si prega di rispondere con un messaggio diretto/privato al promotore dell'annuncio.
The hottest use of AI right now? Dora the Explorer feet mukbang; Peppa the Pig Skibidi toilet explosion; Steph Curry and LeBron James Ahegao Drakedom threesome.#AI #Instagram
An essay on user preferences, and how the fediverse’s interconnected network of communities can play into that, as well as some other news.
User Intents
The Bluesky Company (Bluesky PBC) recently announced a proposal to add User Intents to the AT Protocol (ATProto). The proposal allows people to set account-wide preferences how their data should be handled outside the network. It gives people the ability to opt in or opt out their account from a few different things, such as bridging to other protocols or not wanting any of their data being used in generative AI datasets. The proposal is similar to how robots.txt works, meaning that it is a machine-readable format which good actors are supposed to abide by, but is not legally enforceable.
I cover both the fediverse and Bluesky (including ATProto) under Fediverse Report because these networks are deeply interconnected and influence each other. Decisions on one network, like Bluesky’s User Intents proposal, can influence how the fediverse develops and builds their own features. My goal is to help readers understand the fediverse more deeply. By observing how Bluesky’s approaches default user preferences, the fediverse can build their own systems that use its strength of having many diverse and connected communities.
The proposal by Bluesky PBC is as follows:
People are able to set their preferences for four different categories:
generative AI
protocol bridging
bulk datasets
public archiving and preservation
These preferences are account wide. They are valid not only for Bluesky, but for every app build on ATProto.
The default value is ‘undefined’, not opt-in or opt-out.
Projects which are intending to use the public data should decide for themselves whether data reuse when the intents are classified as “undefined” is acceptable or not.
the current proposal is set to lead the way for more granular user preferences, allowing people to specify on an app-level or post-level what their preference is.
Also, some concepts of ATProto that are relevant, which makes the protocol different from ActivityPub:
On ATProto, a user has only 1 account, and can use that account to log into any service. This is in contrast with ActivityPub, where you need a new account for every service.
Data on ATProto is public by default, and designed to be accessible. Everyone has full and free access to the data of the entire network.
One thing about user preference settings in social apps is that they are a bit of red herring. The majority of people never change the default settings. Giving people choice is a good thing, but it is impossible force people to choose: the majority of people will just not choose anything. This makes it so that the default value for any preference is hugely important, as it is the de-facto value that the majority of people will experience.
Bluesky PBC tries to avoid this issue by introducing a default “undefined” value. The advantage of using a default value of “undefined” is that Bluesky PBC will not overstep their boundaries and determine the preference of everyone on the network, including people who are not using Bluesky but are using other platforms on the network. The downside is that Bluesky PBC effectively makes no decision at all for the majority of people. Bluesky PBC leaves it to the organisations who use the data to determine how data can be handled if the preference is set to “undefined”. These organisations are likely to value their own interests more than the interest of people whose data they intent to process.
Bluesky PBC has three options here, that all have a downside:
If Bluesky PBC sets default values for how ATProto account data can be handled it reinforces its centralising role in the network.
If Bluesky PBC does not set a default value, no decision is made for the majority of people, and it is left to organisations whose goals do not align with those of the people whose data they process.
If Bluesky PBC sets User Intent not on an ATProto-account wide level, but only on an per-app basis, choices quickly become overwhelming if users must set preferences for every app.
So far I’ve only been talking about Bluesky and ATProto. But the fediverse has a long history of debates, conversations and drama on how to deal with data processing that happens outside of the network. Some high-profile cases include the blowup around Bridgy Fed considering making the bridge between the fediverse and Bluesky opt-out, or the backlash against Searchtodon, which saved user’s timeline locally for searching.
These debates are around data scraping, consent, things being opt-in or opt-out. But one of the struggles that the fediverse has had is to build structural solutions. A significant portion of the fediverse does not consent to have their data handled outside of the network. A persistent problem is that this preference is not expressed in a machine-readable way. This leads to an endless cycle of new developers coming in that are not familiar with the culture who then cross lines of consent and it all blows up in drama again.
Moreover, the fediverse and ActivityPub have a significant advantage on how to deal with the dilemma of setting default values over ATProto. The fediverse is a network that is build up of many different communities connecting with each other. A variety of communities allows for diverse preferences, which can also be expressed in setting default values. And it is a shame that the fediverse is not capitalising on this advantage.
There are communities from whom discoverability is important. Just as there are communities for whom not being easily publicly discoverable is important. These preference can differ within an individual as well: people treat personal photos shared with friends differently from blog articles.
The fediverse can sidestep the question of default account values because people have many accounts on the fediverse, for different use cases. This gives the option to set a different default value for different services. A Pixelfed platform for close friends should set stricter default data-handling preferences. A Mastodon server for blogging platform Medium that has the goal of giving more visibility and reach to its writers could consider setting default values to be more open.
The power of the fediverse is in that there does not have to be a single default at all. Instead, communities and servers should be able to set default values for themselves. This can help shape the tone of the community, and makes it clear what the identity of a community is about. What’s even more powerful is that this only concerns the default value, giving people the ability to set their preferences as they desire. The state of the open social web is such that there are now two protocols in competition with each other. That gives the ability for the fediverse to take ideas from other networks, and improve on them in a way that plays up to the unique strengths that the fediverse has.
The News
Reminder: next week will be FediForum, on April 1-2, and you can register here.
FediverseSharing: A Novel Dataset on Cross-Platform Interaction Dynamics between Threads and Mastodon Users is a new academic paper (currently under review and up on arXiv) that explores the interaction between Threads users and Mastodon users. It takes a dataset of 20k Threads users that have fediverse sharing enabled and compares it to 20k Mastodon users that have interacted with these Threads users. The main goal of the research is to build up this dataset and share it with the community for further research. How sharing a dataset of aggregated user interactions relates to the above essay on user preferences for being included in bulk datasets is left as an exercise to the reader.
PeerTube has done a major redesign for their v7 of the software that came out a few months ago. The organisation now shared the design and development reports that shaped the update.
IFTAS recently had to shut down most of their larger projects due to a lack of funding. One of their projects, FediCheck is now available as open source for someone else to continue with. FediCheck is a deny list management tool that allows server admins to subscribe to external deny lists.
The Lemmy developers will hold an AMA on Wednesday March 26th.
Last week, Ghost made their ActivityPub integration available in public beta for Ghost Pro subscribers. Their weekly update says that now over 250 sites already use the integration. WeDistribute has a hands on with the new features that Ghost offers.
Note: Last week I wrote about the new fediverse platform Forte, and said that the repository did not include an install guide. This is incorrect, the guide can be found here.
That’s all for this week, thanks for reading! You can subscribe to my newsletter to get all my weekly updates via email, which gets you some interesting extra analysis as a bonus, that is not posted here on the website. You can subscribe below:
l'idea di base italiana, mediamente a sostegno dei bulli, è che se sei bullizzato è colpa tua, perché basterebbe non uscire di casa e quindi non offendi nessuno con la tua presenza e nessuno ti bullizza. e se io volessi uscire? la risposta: non si può avere la moglie ubriaca e la botte piena... STRAMALEDETTI BULLI. italia patria di bulli.
Una visione organica, che tiene insieme deterrenza e diplomazia, proiezione internazionale e consolidamento interno. È lungo questa direttrice che si è sviluppato l’intervento del capo di Stato maggiore della Difesa, il
#MiStaiACuore, partecipa anche tu alla campagna del Ministero volta a sensibilizzare scuole, studenti e famiglie sul primo soccorso e sull’utilizzo del defibrillatore semiautomatico esterno (DAE).
#MiStaiACuore, partecipa anche tu alla campagna del Ministero volta a sensibilizzare scuole, studenti e famiglie sul primo soccorso e sull’utilizzo del defibrillatore semiautomatico esterno (DAE).
@Politica interna, europea e internazionale Dare ai figli automaticamente il solo cognome della madre. La proposta arriva dal senatore del Partito democratico Dario Franceschini, che secondo l’Ansa sarebbe pronto a presentare un disegno di legge ad hoc a Palazzo Madama. Franceschini spiega la
A new bill introduced by Angela Paxton, wife of Texas AG Ken Paxton, would impose privacy-invading age verification requirements on online sex toy retailers.#ageverification #texas #sextoys #sex
Texans Might Soon Have to Show Photo ID to Buy a Dildo Online
A newly introduced bill in Texas would require online sellers to show a photo ID before buying a dildo.
SB 3003, introduced by Senator Angela Paxton (wife of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton), would criminally charge online retailers for selling “an obscene device” without verifying the buyers’ age. Sellers would have to require customers to submit their government-issued photographic identification, or use “third-party age verification services that use public records or other reliable sources to verify the purchaser's identity and age,” the bill says. Owning a credit card, which already requires the holder to be over 18 years of age, would not be enough.
Like the regressive and ineffective adult site age verification laws passing all across the country in the last few years, this law would drag Texans back to a not-so-distant time when sex toy sellers had to pretend vibrators were for “massage.”
Hallie Lieberman, journalist and author of Buzz: A Stimulating History of the Sex Toy, sold sex toys in Texas in the early 2000s under the state’s “six dildo” law, which criminalizes the possession of six or more “obscene devices,” defined as "a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." That law is still on the books but is now considered unenforceable and unconstitutional. Lieberman told me sellers got around the law by claiming the toys were for “medical purposes.” This bill could send retailers back to that time.
Lieberman told me she had to call the clitoris “the man in the boat” at the time to avoid breaking the law. “When we can't speak openly about our bodies and sexual pleasure, when we're forced to use euphemisms, we not only are under informed about our bodies, but we also feel shame in seeking out pleasure,” she said.
Like age verification laws for websites, the bill would make buying sex toys online harder for everyone, not just minors, and would send consumers to less-safe retailers with lower-quality, possibly dangerous toys. And also like those laws, people who do upload their government ID or undergo other age verification measures could risk having their purchases exposed to a hostile government.
“The government should not have a record of what sex toys we buy. This isn't just a frivolous concern,” Lieberman said. “In a nation where the president has declared that there are only two genders and that transgender people don't exist, where trans people are erased from government websites and kicked out of the military, it would be dangerous for the government to have a record that you purchased sex toys designed for trans people. Imagine you're a school teacher at a public school in Texas and there's a record you purchased a sex toy designed for queer people in a state where a parental bill of rights bill was just passed prohibiting discussion of sexual orientation in schools.”
"We are literally going back in time with this law."
Texas legislators have been trying to limit access to sex toys for their constituents for years. In late 2024, Hillary Hickland, a freshman member of Texas’ Republican House, introduced a bill that would ban retailers in the state from selling sex toys unless they file paperwork to become sexually oriented businesses—effectively forcing stores like Walmart, CVS and Target, which sell vibrators and other sex toys, to take those products off their shelves and forcing brick-and-mortar boutiques to verify the ages of all customers. The bill was referred to Texas’ Trade, Workforce & Economic Development committee earlier this month.
Paxton’s bill would charge online retailers with a Class A Misdemeanor if they don’t verify ages, and would open them up to fines up to $5,000 for each violation.
Invasive and ineffective age verification laws that require users show government-issued ID, like a driver's license or passport, are passing like wildfire across the U.S.
Nei paesini un altro momento di vitalità è più o meno verso l’ora di cena. Dai negozi che chiudono, ai bar che si svuotano, c’è movimento. Nessuno però, fa caso al bar dell’angolo perchè il lunedì è chiuso per turno. Le luci spente non impensieriscono nessuno.
Nemmeno Guido, che è quel tipo che cammina a passo spedito almeno un centinaio di volte al giorno su e giù per la via fa caso alle vetrine spente.
Nota però il gatto del bar appollaiato sul davanzale della finestra che miagola.
" Ciao Simba! Ti hanno chiuso fuori?" chiede come se potesse ricevere risposta.
Ma il gatto che lo conosce comincia a fare le fusa e dare colpi con la testa contro la mano.
Come per aiutarlo? Guido fa spaziare gli occhi in lungo e in largo ma purtroppo non scorge nessuno, nessuna luce nessun rumore dentro la casa adiacente al bar.
Sta sopraggiungendo la sera, la sera d’estate, con brevi folate di vento per un effimero refrigerio dall’afa che caratterizza le estati in pianura.
La gente ancora circola in bicicletta o a piedi per respirare più agevolmente e non sudare eccessivamente. Il tempo passa lentamente , solamente cinque minuti dopo il gatto è sparito, ritirato nella sua tana.
Come Anna è ancora ritirata nella sua tana, al caldo ma sembra non importarle, senza cena ma non ha fame. E’ ancora preda della rabbia per non avere sue notizie.
“ Non chiama! E figurati domani avrà tutto il giorno dedicato a se stesso, mangiare da solo, fumare da solo, STARE DA SOLO! Ecco quello che vuole, non me he gli ho dato tutto! vuole stare da solo! Basta prendo 40 gocce e resto immobile a letto."
📌 7,5 milioni per i “Viaggi della memoria” e 11 milioni per i “Nuovi giochi della gioventù”.
▶️ https://www.mim.gov.it/web/guest/-/viaggi-della-memoria-e-sport-via-libera-a-nuove-risorse-valditara-investiamo-sulla-crescita-dei-giovani-?
@Politica interna, europea e internazionale La ministra del Turismo Daniela Santanchè ha deciso di cambiare avvocato: slitterà, quindi, l’attesissima udienza preliminare fissata per domani, mercoledì 26 marzo, in cui il gup di Milano avrebbe potuto pronunciarsi sul rinvio a giudizio della ministra
il silenzio degli intellettuali: articolo di roberta de monticelli sul ‘manifesto’ del 17 feb. 2025
C’è qualcosa di terribile nel silenzio con cui filosofi, giuristi, intellettuali specie accademici assistono oggi non solo alla violazione su larghissima scala, ma all’ostentato ripudio, da parte di molti governi occidentali, dei principi di civiltà enunciati nelle costituzioni rigide delle democrazie e nelle Carte del costituzionalismo globale che la seconda metà del Novecento ha prodotto. A esemplificare questo assunto, non c’è che l’imbarazzo della scelta.
Guerre e politiche di escalation bellica illimitata. Riarmo selvaggio nei programmi della maggior parte dei governi europei, genocidi tollerati alla luce del sole, deportazioni annunciate di interi popoli, respingimenti di massa di migranti e immigrati, detenzioni illegali, razzismo ostentato ai vertici dei governi, attacchi violenti all’indipendenza dei sistemi giudiziari nazionali e al diritto internazionale, asservimento delle politiche pubbliche a enormi concentrazioni di ricchezza privata, privatizzazione dello spazio cosmico, recesso dai pochi vincoli esistenti alla devastazione dell’ecosistema.
Assistiamo del resto – come ai tempi in cui fu scritto il famoso romanzo di Camus, La peste – al contagio inquietante con cui il cinismo della Realpolitik, sdoganata ai livelli di governo in alcuni stati democratici occidentali, si diffonde nella sfera dell’informazione e del dibattito pubblico; e al fenomeno complementare del silenzio, della non-partecipazione, quindi dell’apparente indifferenza che vi risponde.
Ma si può tacere quando su un grande giornale nazionale di tradizione progressista si legge, a proposito del piano trumpiano di deportazione di massa della popolazione di Gaza, che si tratta di una proposta, «fuori dagli schemi», e che da parte europea sarebbe segno di «poco coraggio» non prenderla in considerazione (Molinari, Repubblica 13 febbraio)? Oltre certi limiti cinismo o silenzio e indifferenza, i sintomi più classici della «banalità del male», equivalgono a complicità nei crimini: è il fenomeno che Luigi Ferrajoli chiama «l’abbassamento dello spirito pubblico» e il «crollo del senso morale a livello di mass» (L’ostentazione della disumanità al vertice delle istituzioni e il crollo del senso morale a livello di massa, sito di Costituente Terra).
La domanda che sottende questa angosciata constatazione è: c’è una corresponsabilità del dotto, dello studioso, del “filosofo” in senso lato in questo «abbassamento dello spirito pubblico»? E una risposta è: certamente.
È la lettura puramente politologica che ha prevalso della democrazia, tanto diversa da quella ancora prevalente da Calamandrei al primo Bobbio, e, sul piano globale, nel pensiero che portò alla Dichiarazione Universale del ’48. Un pensiero che sta al polo opposto di quello che, a destra e a sinistra, riduce l’idealità, il vincolo etico in funzione di cui sono progettate tutte le istituzioni democratiche, a ideologia. Cioè a pura retorica di battaglia.
Quel pensiero etico non si è prolungato fra gli intellettuali della guerra fredda prima, e di un atlantismo triumphans poi, ma nei documenti della perestroika e della politica dell’«Europa Casa comune» dello sconfitto Gorbaciov, assai più dei “nostri” leader consapevole della connessione inscindibile fra ordine internazionale e democrazia in ciascuno stato. E pensare che la sciagurata storia della nostra democrazia incompiuta, sempre di nuovo violentemente intimorita, avrebbe dovuto rendercene fin troppo consapevoli.
A proposito di Alleanza atlantica. Giova accostare gli estremi, il grande statista sconfitto e la visionaria che de Gaulle fece confinare in uno stambugio di Londra perché non intralciasse la politica, nel ’43 – e crepasse pure d’inedia e di dolore: Simone Weil. Profetici entrambi. «Nella politica mondiale odierna non c’è compito più importante e complicato di quello di ristabilire la fiducia fra la Russia e l’Occidente», scrisse Gorbaciov (appena prima di morire). «Sappiamo bene che dopo la guerra l’americanizzazione dell’Europa è un pericolo molto grave», scrisse Simone nel suo stambugio. La perdizione dell’Oriente (non solo mediterraneo) è la perdita del passato e dello spirito.
Ciò che accade oggi, e di cui siamo responsabili, è l’esito dell’avvenuta politicizzazione (ovvio, se l’idealità non è che ideologia) di ogni sfera di valori e di norme, dunque in particolare dell’etica e del diritto, una politicizzazione nel senso più arcaico e tribale di “politica”, intesa come sfera delle relazioni amico-nemico e continuazione della guerra con altri mezzi. Un’evoluzione dell’autoritarismo – più ferino e insieme indissociabile dalla tecnologia, e soprattutto radicato ormai nel potere aziendale e digitale, un completo rovesciamento del Leviatano o “stato etico” fascista, un nazismo a guida privata. Dove l’abolizione della differenza fra il vero e il falso avviene in nome della libertà di opinione e di espressione, e con la forza degli algoritmi che governano i social, per cui poi l’attacco allo straccio di stampa che resta sembra ancora quasi onesto: ti bastono perché non mi piace ciò che dici, all’antica.
Intanto il re non riscrive il passato (che importa) ma i nomi sul mappamondo. E noi? Vorrei rispondere con le parole di Raji Sourani, fondatore e direttore del Centro per i diritti umani a Gaza: «Mi sarei aspettato che l’Europa ci chiedesse di rinunciare alle armi. Macché. Ci chiedeva di rinunciare al diritto».
Glendon Swarthout – L’accompagnatore freezonemagazine.com/rubriche/… Alla fine dell’estate Line gli aveva detto di essere al secondo mese. Un’altra bocca da sfamare. E poi, diceva, a quarantatré anni era troppo vecchia. Diceva che sarebbe venuto con la testa di melone o tutto storpio o con il labbro leporino perché Dio doveva essere arrabbiato con loro perché guarda che cosa era già […] L'articolo Glendon Swarthout – L’accompagnatore proviene da FREE
404 MediaEmanuel Maiberg
PotatoLibre
in reply to Pëtr Arkad'evič Stolypin • • •Benissimo.
La versione depotenziata andrà a ruba sul mercato mondiale 🤣
like this
Pëtr Arkad'evič Stolypin likes this.