What can you do with a laptop enough to drink even in the Puritan ex-colonies? 21 years is a long time for computer hardware– but [Chris] is using his early-2004 iBook G4 for game dev thanks to NetBSD.

Some of you might consider game dev a strong word; obviously he’s not working on AAA titles on the machine he affectionately calls “Brick”. NetBSD includes pygame in its repositories, though, and that’s enough for a 2D puzzle game he’s working on called Slantics. It’s on GitHub, if you’re curious.
Slantics: possibly the only game written on PPC Macintosh hardware this year.
Why NetBSD? Well, [Chris] wants to use his vintage hardware so that, in his words “collecting does not become hoarding” and as the slogan goes: “Of course it runs NetBSD!” It’s hard to remember sometimes that it’s been two decades since the last PPC Macintosh. After that long, PPC support in Linux is fading, as you might expect.

[Chris] tried the community-supported PPC32 port of Debian Sid, but the installer didn’t work reliably, and driver issues made running it “Death by a thousand cuts”. NetBSD, with it’s institutional obsession with running on anything and everything, works perfectly on this legally-adult hardware. Even better, [Chris] reports NetBSD running considerably faster, getting 60 FPS in pygame vs 25 FPS under Linux.

This is almost certainly not the year of the BSD Desktop, but if you’ve got an old PPC machine you feel like dusting off to enjoy a low-powered modern workflow, NetBSD may be your AI-code-free jam. It’s great to see old hardware still doing real work. If you’d rather relive the glory days, you can plug that PPC into a wayback proxy to browse like it’s 2005 again. If you get bored of nostalgia, there’s always MorphOS, which still targets PPC.

hackaday.com/2025/07/23/game-d…

One of the earliest commercially-successful camera technologies was the rangefinder — a rather mechanically-complex system that allows a photographer to focus by triangulating a subject, often in a dedicated focusing window, and and frame the shot with another window, all without ever actually looking through the lens. Rangefinder photographers will give you any number of reasons why their camera is just better than the others — it’s faster to use, the focusing is more accurate, the camera is lighter — but in today’s era of lightweight mirrorless digitals, all of these arguments sound like vinyl aficionados saying “The sound is just more round, man. Digital recordings are all square.” (This is being written by somebody who shoots with a rangefinder and listens to vinyl).

While there are loads of analog rangefinders floating around eBay, the trouble nowadays is that digital rangefinders are rare, and all but impossible to find for a reasonable price. Rather than complaining on Reddit after getting fed up with the lack of affordable options, [Mr.50mm] decided to do something about it, and build his own digital rangefinder for less than $250.

Part of the problem is that, aside from a few exceptions, the only digital rangefinders have been manufactured by Leica, a German company often touted as the Holy Grail of photography. Whether you agree with the hype or consider them overrated toys, they’re sure expensive. Even in the used market, you’d be hard-pressed to find an older model for less than $2,000, and the newest models can be upwards of $10,000.

Rather than start from scratch, he fused two low-cost and commonly-available cameras into one with some careful surgery and 3D printing. The digital bits came from a Panasonic GF3, a 12 MP camera that can be had for around $120, and the rangefinder system from an old Soviet camera called the Fed 5, which you can get for less than $50 if you’re lucky. The Fed 5 also conveniently worked with Leica Thread Mount (LTM) lenses, a precursor to the modern bayonet-mount lenses, so [Mr.50mm] lifted the lens mounting hardware from it as well.

Even LTM lenses are relatively cheap, as they’re not compatible with modern Leicas. Anyone who’s dabbled in building or repairing cameras will tell you that there’s loads of precision involved. If the image sensor, or film plane, offset is off by the slightest bit, you’ll never achieve a sharp focus — and that’s just one of many aspects that need to be just right. [Mr.50mm]’s attention to detail really paid off, as the sample images (which you can see in the video below) look fantastic.

With photography becoming a more expensive hobby every day, it’s great to see some efforts to build accessible and open-source cameras, and this project joins the ranks of the Pieca and this Super 8 retrofit. Maybe we’ll even see Leica-signed encrypted metadata in a future version, as it’s so easy to spoof.

youtube.com/embed/uzDwgYQVdWs?…

hackaday.com/2025/07/23/fusing…

We’ve seen our share of blinking light projects around here; most are fairly straightforward small projects, but this entry to the 2025 One Hertz Challenge is the polar opposite of that approach. [Peter] sent in this awesome tower of 16bit relay CPU power blinking a light every second.

There’s a lot to take in on this project, so be sure to go look at the ongoing logs of the underlying 16-bit relay CPU project where [Peter] has been showing his progress in creating this clicking and clacking masterpiece. The relay CPU consists of a stack of 5 main levels: the top board is the main control board, the next level down figures out the address calculations for commands, under that is the arithmetic logic unit level, under the ALU is the output register where you’ll see a 220 V lamp blinking at 1 Hz, and finally at the base are a couple of microcontrollers used for a clock signal and memory. [Peter] included oscilloscope readings showing how even with the hundreds of moving parts going on, the light is blinking within 1% of its 1 Hz goal.

It’s worth noting that while [Peter] has the relay CPU blinking a light in this setup, the CPU has 19 commands to program it, enabling much more complex tasks. Thanks for the amazing-sounding entry from [Peter] for our One Hertz Challenge. Be sure to check out some of the other relay computers we’ve featured over the years for more clicking goodness.

youtube.com/embed/P7Qtw9os0EM?…

hackaday.com/2025/07/23/2025-o…

Over on their YouTube channel [Science Buddies] shows us how to embed LEDs in soft robots. Soft robots can be made entirely or partially from silicone. In the video you see an example of a claw-like gripper made entirely from silicone. You can also use silicone to make “skin”. The skin can stretch, and the degree of stretch can be measured by means of an embedded sensor made from stretchy conductive fabric.

As silicone is translucent if you embed LEDs within it when illuminated they will emit diffuse light. Stranded wire is best for flexibility and the video demonstrates how to loop the wires back and forth into a spring-like shape for expansion and contraction along the axis which will stretch. Or you can wire in the LEDs without bending the wires if you run them along an axis which won’t stretch.

The video shows how to make silicone skin by layering two-part mixture into a mold. A base layer of silicone is followed by a strip of conductive fabric and the LED with its wires. Then another layer of silicone is applied to completely cover and seal the fabric and LED in place. Tape is used to hold the fabric and LED in place while the final layer of silicone is applied.

When the LEDs are embedded in silicone there will be reduced airflow to facilitate cooling so be sure to use a large series resistor to limit the current through the LED as much as possible to prevent overheating. A 1K series resistor would be a good value to try first. If you need the LED to be brighter you will need to decrease the resistance, but make sure you’re not generating too much heat when you do so.

If you’re interested in stretchy circuits you might also like to read about flexible circuits built on polyimide film.

youtube.com/embed/BsSRQozNZk0?…

hackaday.com/2025/07/23/embedd…

A recent news report about Secret Service surveillance of former FBI Director James Comey suggests that the Trump administration is abusing its spying powers.

You may remember that the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security launched an investigation into Comey for posting a picture on Instagram during his beach vacation of seashells spelling out “8647.” Conservatives claimed that Comey’s post was a threat to our 47th president, Donald Trump. Never mind that “86” is slang for banning someone or something, not killing them. There’s also that whole First Amendment thing.

Then, The New York Times reported earlier this month that the Secret Service, as part of its investigation, had Comey “followed by law enforcement authorities in unmarked cars and street clothes and tracked the location of his cellphone” as Comey returned home from his vacation, even though he had already submitted to a phone interview and agreed to an in-person interview.

As the Center for Democracy & Technology’s Jake Laperruque pointed out, that kind of surveillance — real-time location tracking based on cellphone data — generally requires court approval. Although the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on whether it requires a warrant, several other courts have held that it does.

There’s an important exception, however, to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Known as exigent circumstances, it allows for warrantless searches in emergencies. Sources told the Times that the Secret Service invoked that exact exception to justify following Comey.

But Reason Magazine does a good job explaining why that rationale is bunk:

“‘A variety of circumstances may give rise to an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search, including law enforcement’s need to provide emergency assistance to an occupant of a home…engage in ‘hot pursuit’ of a fleeing suspect…or enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause,’ the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Missouri v. McNeely (2013).

“None of those factors apply here: Comey was on the move, but he was not ‘fleeing’—he was coming home from vacation. If the Secret Service really thought he warranted further scrutiny, it had plenty of time to get a warrant from a judge.”

At least three federal appeals courts have permitted warrantless tracking of real-time cellphone location in emergencies. In one case, a man with a criminal history broke a window at his former girlfriend’s home with a gun and threatened to kill her, her seven-year-old, and other family members before fleeing. In another, a man running a drug operation murdered a potential informant, leaving police concerned that other informants who had infiltrated the operation were at risk. And in the third case, a gang member previously charged with drug crimes threatened to “shoot up” an informant.

These cases are a far cry from posting a picture of seashells on social media. And even if authorities truly believed Comey intended to threaten Trump, he had no way of carrying out that threat at the time he was tracked, since Trump was in the Middle East.

In other words, in Comey’s case, the Trump administration expanded the exigent circumstances exception beyond recognition. But it isn’t the only recent example of the government abusing its power to spy using cellphone data. A recent investigation by Straight Arrow News also detected evidence of a cellphone tracking device commonly known as a “stingray” at an anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protest, despite DHS policy requiring a warrant for its use except in — you guessed it — exigent circumstances.

These reports should raise red flags for everyone concerned about surveillance — including journalists and their sources. We already know that the government has tracked at least some physical movements of journalists in past leak investigations. Cellphone location data tracking allows even more all-encompassing surveillance.

If authorities are willing to claim that Comey’s social media post is an emergency justifying warrantless real-time cellphone location tracking, it’s not hard to imagine that they could make a similar (bogus) claim about a suspected whistleblower or a journalist who reports critically on the administration. It wouldn’t be any more meritless than their claims that journalism is inciting crimes or threatening national security.

Concerningly, there’s very little constraint on the government if it decides to abuse the exigent circumstances exception to make emergency requests to cellphone providers for users’ location information. While courts can suppress evidence obtained through illegal searches, they can’t undo the illegal search itself, and officers and officials who abuse the Fourth Amendment face no personal repercussions.

Cellphone providers also seem unable to detect and refuse bogus emergency requests. The three major cellphone carriers — AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile — receive thousands or tens of thousands of emergency requests every year. While they require a certification of emergency from the government authority making the request, clearly that process isn’t foolproof if something like the Comey “emergency” can slip through the cracks.

That makes public scrutiny of real-time cellphone location tracking and the government’s reliance on the exigent circumstances exception all the more important. The Fourth Estate — and confidential sources like those who spoke to the Times — may be our most powerful remaining check on the surveillance state.

freedom.press/issues/emergency…