With modern tools, you have to try very hard to do something stupid, because the tools (rightly) recognize you’re doing something stupid. [Andreas Karlsson] can speak to that first hand as he tried to get four billion if statements to compile.

You may ask what state space requires four billion comparisons to evaluate? The answer is easy: the range of an unsigned 32-bit integer. The whole endeavor started with a simple idea: what if instead of evaluating whether an integer is even or odd with a modulo or bit mask, you just did an if statement for every case? Small ranges like 0-10 are trivial to write out by hand, but you reach for more automated solutions as you pass 8 bits and move towards 16. [Andreas] wrote some Python that outputs a valid C program with all the comparisons. For 16 bits, the source only clocks in at 130k lines with the executable less than 2 MB.

Of course, scaling to 32 bits is a very different problem. The source file balloons to 330 GB, and most compilers barf at that point. Undeterred, [Andreas] modified the Python to output x86_64 assembly instead of C. Of course, the executable format of Windows (PE) only allows executables up to 4 GB, so a helper program mapped the 40 GB generated executable and jumped into it.

What’s incredible about this whole journey is how performant the program is. Even large numbers complete in a few seconds. Considering that it has to thrash 40 GB of an executable through memory, we can’t help but shake our heads at how even terrible solutions can work. We love seeing someone turn a bad idea into an interesting one, like this desoldering setup.

Initially only seeing brief popular use as the filament in incandescent lighting, carbon fibers (CF) experienced a resurgence during the 20th century as part of composite materials that are lighter and stronger than materials like steel and aluminium, for use in aircraft, boats and countless more applications. This rising popularity has also meant that the wider population is now exposed to fragments of CF, both from using CF-based products as well as from mechanically processing CF materials during (hobby) projects.

It is this popularity that has also led to the addition of short CF sections to FDM 3D printing filaments, where they improve the mechanical properties of the printed parts. However, during subsequent mechanical actions such as sanding, grinding, and cutting, CF dust is created and some fraction of these particles are small enough to be respirable. Of these, another fraction will bypass the respiratory system’s dust clearing mechanisms, to end up deep inside the lungs. This raises the question of whether CF fragments can be carcinogenic, much like the once very popular and very infamous example of asbestos mineral fibers.

Making Carbon Fiber

The process of producing carbon fiber is fairly straightforward, involving a carbon-rich monomer, the precursor, that’s coaxed into becoming a polymer prior to having the non-carbon elements removed from the polymer. This then leaves the pure carbon, which depending on the precursor material will have certain physical and mechanical properties. The two most common precursor materials are polyacrylonitrile (PAN, (C3H3N)n) and pitch, the latter being a viscoelastic polymer that is either produced from petroleum or derived from plants. Both materials are used in many other applications as well.

In the case of CF production, the polymer is stretched and stabilized as part of pre-treatment, followed by carbonization and finally graphitization. In the case of PAN CF the precursor fiber is stabilized through oxidation while heated, followed by carbonization at much higher temperatures under an inert nitrogen atmosphere before undergoing a final third step called graphitization. This induces a graphite crystalline molecular structure arranged in a turbostratic (shifted planes) fashion and completing the CF which can then be wound on to bobbins and readied for shipping.
Schematic representation of carbon fiber preparation from polyacrylonitrile.
The turbostratic structure of PAN CF contrasts with the mesophase pitch CFs, which form strongly directional (sheet-like) graphitic structures. It is this difference in graphitic structure which ultimately determines the properties of PAN and pitch CF, such as a very high elastic modulus in the case of the latter and high tensile strength for the former. Currently the overwhelming majority of CF produced today is in the form of PAN CF, but pitch- and rayon-based CF are also used where their properties are superior to those of PAN CF.

CF is commonly used to create composites, in which case they are referred to as carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP).

Creating Dust

Example SEM and TEM images of the released particles following the rupture of CFRP cables in the tensile strength test. (Credit: Jing Wang et al, Journal of Nanobiotechnology, 2017)
That CF produces fragments when mechanically or thermally stressed should come as little surprise, with research on the health implications of CF fragments going back far into the 20th century. It is however only much more recently that we have been able to fully study the effects of CF fragments on lung tissue, not only based on empirical studies but also by looking at gene expression changes, DNA breakage, inflammation markers and so on.

Recently there was a bit of a furore surrounding the topic of CF fragments resulting from CF-infused FDM 3D printer filaments, with the question being raised of whether CF might be the new asbestos. In the linked article a 2017 paper by Jing Wang et al. as published in Journal of Nanobiotechnology was referenced. The researchers compared the way in which asbestos and carbon fiber fragments formed, as well as in the case of carbon nanotubes (CNTs).

The SEM and TEM shown here on the right comes from a 2015 study by Schlagenhauf et al., in which PAN-based (Teijin IMS60) CFRP cable was exposed to extreme tension until failure. During this CFRP cable failure, many fragments were produced, some of which were deemed respirable according to the WHO criteria (minimum length of 5 µm and maximum diameter of 3 µm). This thus shows that PAN CF can in fact produce respirable fragments, but the pertinent question is whether these fragments are as harmful as pitch CF fragments, or even asbestos fibers.

In an article response on Twitter by Josef Prusa, the founder of Prusa 3D – a 3D printer and filament company – made the assertion that PAN-based filaments are in fact quite safe and that studies back this up, citing a 2019 study by Dominic Kehren et al. as published in Aerosol and Air Quality Research.

PSA You might have seen the recent videos from @NathanBuilds or an article on @ about the potential dangers of carbon fibers in filaments, comparing it to asbestos Given that we offer several filaments containing carbon fibers, I thought many of you would be… pic.twitter.com/SjTTbqGe4N

— Josef Prusa (@josefprusa) August 4, 2024

This study by Kehren et al. looked at the amount of respirable fragments produced due to a limited number of mechanical actions. Their conclusion was that pitch CF fragments pose a significant health risk, including lung cancer and mesothelioma, while for PAN CF fragments more research was warranted. Of note here is also that no study was made of the actual effects of these biopersistent carbon fragments on lung tissue. Only assumptions of potential health implications were made based on WHO criteria and the observed fragments.

The advice by Josef Prusa to always wear a respirator while working with CF-based materials would thus seem to be rather prudent advice. Meanwhile we got much more recent studies which actually consider the physiological impact of exposure to PAN-based CF fragments.

In Vitro Lungs

SEM images of the PAN-based CF. (Credit: Friesen, Int J Mol Sci, 2023)
Whereas previous studies would generally use in vivo study models with all of the (ethical) complications which doing so entails, more recently in vitro models have become a viable alternative. In a 2023 study on PAN CF fragment effects on lung tissue by Alexandra Friesen et al. as published in International Journal of Molecular Sciences, a series of in vitro lung tissue models were used to directly study the effects of these fragments, including inflammation, DNA breakage and changes to gene expression.
Schematic representation of the three cell culture models used for CF exposure experi-
ments. (Credit: Friesen et al., Int J Mol Sci, 2023)
These three different human cell culture models were exposed to both mechanically pre-treated (mCF) and thermo-mechanically pretreated (tmCF), using Teijin UMS40 filament yarn as the source of PAN CF. For both types of CF fragments the filament yarn was cut into 1 cm sections, which for mCF were immediately milled in a planetary ball mill. The tmCF pieces were first exposed to thermal stress in two furnaces (400°C for 4 hours, 800°C for ~30 minutes) in a nitrogen atmosphere before also being milled. The resulting fragments were then aerosolized and the cell culture models exposed.
Schematic representation of the setup for ALI exposure studies. (Credit: Friesen et al., Int J Mol Sci, 2023)
After exposure, the cell cultures were post-incubated for 0, 3 or 23 hours to give an indication of how the exposure affects them over time. During exposure, the mCF showed a WHO fiber fraction of around 20%, whereas for tmCF this was around 9.4%. When analyzing the exposed cultures following post-incubation no significant cytotoxic effects were observed (based on LDH release).

Where things got more interesting was in the gene expression profiles, with the tmCF-exposed cultures showing the strongest pro-inflammation, cell-death (apoptosis) and DNA damage response. Interestingly, the triple-culture with fibroblasts present showed a less dramatic picture after 23 hours since mCF exposure, with inflammation transcription factors in particular significantly downregulated, though DNA damage response transcription was still upregulated.

Correspondingly, interleukin-8 (IL-8) release increased, though by an extraordinary level in the triple-culture. The exact reason for this and related observations remain to be investigated.

Genotoxicity was assessed after the increased DNA repair transcription, by analyzing DNA breaks. This provided the most interesting results, as it was found that while single-strand breaks were present in the mono- and co-culture samples, the triple-culture showed a significantly higher number of single-strand breaks. This indicates a genotoxic response upon exposure to PAN CF fragments, with the tmCF fragments showing the strongest response, possibly due to the production of more smaller fragments.

Although not as aggressively toxic as the multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) which the authors contrast with, the triple-culture results hint at secondary genotoxicity caused by the pro-inflammatory response.

Actions To Take

Although these in vitro cell culture models are not a perfect representation of human lungs, they do provide us with some of the first concrete evidence of how PAN CF can affect human lung tissue. With a clear inflammatory response that seems to get more significant and more harmful the more complete the cell culture becomes compared to a living lung’s insides, there is at the very least a solid basis to treat any CF dust as potentially carcinogenic.

Similar to asbestos fibers, it is not so much the material itself that causes toxicity and promotes carcinogenesis, but rather the body’s response to this foreign matter. Through sustained irritation, inflammation and subsequent DNA damage with possibly flawed repairs, outcomes such as silicosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma become possible.

The reasonable response here thus would be to treat CF no different from asbestos and similar sources of respirable, biopersistent fibers. This means not disturbing them if possible, being wary around damaged CFRP products and always wearing a respirator with asbestos-rated filters when sanding, cutting or otherwise processing CF in any form or shape, making sure to properly ventilate the room.

As with asbestos, it’s quite possible that being exposed will not cause permanent harm, but when the choice is between taking all possible safety precautions now, or finding out that you should have done so in one or two decades, it should hopefully be obvious what the reasonable choice is as we wait for more studies to be performed.

If you’d like to measure the speed of your cycling then it’s easy enough to buy a cycle computer, but as [Clovis Fritzen] has done it’s also an option to build one. The result of his work is a smart PCB on which the speed is indicated with a row of LEDs.

The sensor is a straightforward affair, a reed switch with a magnet on a wheel, which is sensed by an ESP8266. The six LEDs are charlieplexeed over three lines. To keep the supply voltage correct for the ESP from the uncertain state of a lithium battery, a small buck-boost module is used. Sadly the code doesn’t seem to make the speed available via the wireless part of the processor, but we’re guessing that a bit of extra software work could fix that.

The result when put in a box on the handlebars, is a smart but simple instrument that would aid any bike. It’s by no means the first one we’ve brought you and we doubt it will be the last.

You only really need two data wires to transfer a ton of data. Standards like UART, USB2, I2C, SPI, PS/2, CAN, RS232, SWD (an interface to program MCUs), RS485, DMX, and many others, all are a testament to that. In particular, I2C is such a powerful standard, it’s nigh omnipresent – if you were to somehow develop an allergy to I2C, you would die.

Chances are, whatever device you’re using right now, there’s multiple I2C buses actively involved in you reading this article. Your phone’s touchscreen is likely to use I2C, so is your laptop touchpad, most display standards use I2C, and power management chips are connected over I2C more often than not, so you’re covered even if you’re reading this on a Raspberry Pi! Basically everything “smart” has an I2C port, and if it doesn’t, you can likely imitate it with just two GPIOs.

If you’re building a cool board with a MCU, you should likely plan for having an I2C interface exposed. With it, you can add an LCD screen with a respectable resolution or a LED matrix, or a GPS module, a full-sized keyboard or a touchpad, a gesture sensor, or a 9 degree of freedom IMU – Inertial Measurement Unit, like a accelerometer+compass+gyroscope combination. A small I2C chip can help you get more GPIOs for your MCU or CPU, or a multi-channel motor driver, or a thermal camera, or a heap of flash memory; if you’re adding some sort of cool chip onto your board, it likely has an I2C interface to let you fine-tune its fancy bits.

As usual, you might have heard of I2C, and we sure keep talking about it on Hackaday! There’s a good few long-form articles about it too, both general summaries and cool tech highlights; this article is here to fill into some gaps and make implicit knowledge explicit, making sure you’re not missing out on everything that I2C offers and requires you to know!

Basics And Addressing

A common I2C EEPROM – you likely have a good few such chips within a dozen meter radius. By [Raimond Spekking], CC BY-SA 4.0I2C is a two-wire interface, and you can put multiple devices on these two wires – thanks to an addressing system and strictly defined hierarchy. One party on the bus is the one always initiating all conversations (old: master, new: controller), and this role is basically always static; usually, it’s your MCU. Your devices can’t send data to your MCU on your own – your MCU has to read data from your devices. As such, you usually can’t make bidirectional effortless communications UART style, unless you dig deep enough to make “multi-master” communications work – which is a cool feature but is often poorly supported.

Instead, if your device is the kind you expect to return important data at random points, there’s often an INT pin – the INT pin is not included in the standard and usually is not required to use any I2C device, but if your IC or breakout exposes the INT pin, you should consider using it, since it will save you a fair bit of CPU time spent polling your device for data.

I2C is wonderful in that you can put a large number of devices on your bus – as long as your communications can physically stay stable. How does it work? Addresses. Devices are pre-programmed with an address you can use to talk to them, and you can query a bus to get a list of addresses that the connected devices respond on. Some devices can only have a single address so you can only add one of them to a – unless you hack it in one of the ways I’ll describe below. Many devices that – for instance, SSD1306 displays have a single pin you can tie high or low, so you can put two of these devices on the same bus, and GPIO expanders tend to have three pins that result in eight possible addresses. Rarely, there are devices that let you reprogram their address with a command, too.

An I2C device’s address is specified in the datasheet. Beware – addresses are 7-bit, and during transfer, the address is shifted and the least significant bit signifies whether a write or read operation is happening; some datasheets will show the address in its proper 7-bit form and some show it already shifted. The way you can notice the latter if you see separate read and write addresses specified – that’s a non-shifted address. A surefire way is to connect your device to any I2C controller and scan for devices, of course. I2C addresses aren’t unique like MAC addresses, so, there’s way more kinds of I2C devices than there are addresses. Here’s a database you can check for fun, but it’s definitely incomplete. 10-bit addresses exist and they do widen the address space comfortably, but they’re still not that popular. Remember – an I2C bus can be scanned, and it’s a pretty wonderful feature – it gives you a sanity check showing that a device is connected, a check that you don’t really get with interfaces like SPI and UART!

An I2C device with a twist. ADDR here is set by connecting it to SCL/SDA/GND/VCC (4 bits with one pin), and, INT pin here is called ALERT. By [Pradeep717], CC BY-SA 4.0How do you avoid address conflicts, in case you’re planning to use multiple devices? Plan ahead, use address changing pins where possible, and use tricks. There are chips that help you put more devices on an I2C bus, for instance, acting like a “gateway” – it’s a saturated market, with Linear Technology taking up a lot of its space with their famously pricy but seriously worthwhile ICs, and they even have Linux drivers! There’s also a large number of tricks – some hackers suggest using SCL lines as chip selects, some suggest swapping SCL and SDA, and some talk about powering devices down selectively; if you’re experiencing address conflicts, you won’t be able to solve this purely in software, but it’s certain you won’t run out of hardware options.

Clocks And Pullups

There’s three standard I2C clock speeds – 100kHz, 400kHz and 1MHz, some hosts and devices can go even higher but it’s not especially prominent. Technically, you can go higher or lower, software I2C implementations often do, but some devices might not like it. Hosts often run at 100kHz, but it’s common that you can up the frequency and switch it into 400kHz; however, there’s hosts that are hardwired to 100kHz operation, like VGA/DVI/HDMI port and desktop/laptop-internal I2C controllers.

This affects, and sometimes, if you have choice between I2C and some other interface, speed might be a deciding factor. For example, take SSD1306 or SH1106 OLED screens – they can be connected through either I2C or SPI, so if you’re using a breakout, it just depends on the way it’s wired. You won’t be able to send data to an I2C screen as quickly over SPI, because of the inherent data cap – they supports SPI links at multiple MHz clock rate, whereas an I2C link will be limited to 400KHz. Want faster screen refresh? You’ll want to wire the screen into SPI mode. Fine with possibly lower FPS? I2C is a valid choice, then.

You need pullups – and you cannot use GPIO-internal pullups like you can do with buttons, they are too high of a value as a rule. A typical range for a pullup is from 1K to 10K – going too high will distort the signal on the bus, and going too low will make the bus impossible to drive. Raspberry Pi boards use 1.8K pullups on the dedicated I2C bus, 4.7K is another popular value, and I’ve had 10K pullups result in unstable communications at higher speeds, so I typically go lower a fair bit, using 1.8K, 4.7K or 5.1K pullups. Mind you, if both your device, so if an I2C sensor breakout is failing to respond when connected to a Raspberry Pi but it really should work, check whether you maybe should desolder or disconnect the pullups on the sensor board itself.

I2C is pretty cool indeed – all those devices I mentioned in the intro, they’re a breakout board and a cable away, often, you don’t even have to solder. Looking to use I2C on your board as an expansion interface, but don’t know what kind of connector to use? It’s pretty simple, I’ve talked about it in my article on I2C ecosystems. One five-pin header and one four-pin JST-SH is all you need, and you can even get vertical JST-SH connectors if space is a concern!

Next time, let’s talk more about I2C devices, the kinds of I2C interfaces you will encounter and all the places they are usually hidden in, types of I2C transfers you can do, and notable implementation nuances, – leaving no stone unturned as usual.

Domenica scorsa gli hacker hanno attaccato il sistema dati centrale del centro espositivo Grand Palais di Parigi e di altri 40 musei della rete Réunion des Musées Nationaux in tutta la Francia.

L’incidente (a quanto pare di tipo ransomware) ha colpito la Réunion des Musées Nationaux et du Grand Palais (RMN-GP), un ente pubblico industriale e commerciale (EPIC) sotto la supervisione del Ministero della Cultura, e si ritiene che il tutto sia partiti da un account compromesso da un infostealer di un collaboratore.

RMN-GP gestisce 36 istituzioni: gestisce il Grand Palais e il Museo del Lussemburgo e collabora con i musei Cluny, National Archaeology e Maison Bonaparte, i musei nazionali di preistoria, Marc-Chagall, Fernand-Léger e diversi castelli e palazzi. Anche Versailles è stata colpita.

Il Grand Palais ospita gare di scherma e taekwondo, mentre Versailles, ex residenza reale costruita per ordine di Luigi XIV, ospita gare di pentathlon moderno e di equitazione.

“Nella notte tra il 3 e il 4 agosto 2024, il direttore dei sistemi informatici del sito del Grand Palais ha osservato un’attività insolita nei sistemi informatici e ha avvisato che era in corso un attacco ransomware”, ha riportsto La Parisien

L’Agenzia nazionale francese per la sicurezza dei sistemi informativi (ANSSI) ha affermato che gli attacchi non hanno interessato altri sistemi informatici correlati alle Olimpiadi e alle Paralimpiadi.

Come ha sottolineato il primo ministro francese Gabriel Attal, nei primi giorni delle Olimpiadi sono stati contrastati 68 attacchi informatici, due dei quali avevano come obiettivo le sedi olimpiche.

Nessun attore della minaccia ha rivendicato il cyberattacco e non si sa che tipo di dati siano stati esfiltrati. La procura di Parigi ha assegnato un’indagine per determinare la portata e i colpevoli alla sottodivisione Brigade for Combating Cybercrime.

L'articolo Gli hacker contro Parigi! 40 musei, tra cui Versailles e il Grand Palais presi di mira dal cybercrime proviene da il blog della sicurezza informatica.

slowforward.net
SLOWFORWARD
dal 2003 il sito italiano (e in parte anglofono) più testardo, aggiornato e anziano su scritture di ricerca, arte contemporanea, musica sperimentale, materiali verbovisivi, asemic writing, poesia concreta, prosa in prosa, scritture non assertive, littéralité, flarf, sought poetry, fluxus, anarchia, movimenti, disposofobia collezionistica, audio più o meno deliranti, network possibili di sperimentazione, dada & compagnia

segui il canale slowforward su telegram:
https://t.me/slowforward

l’account mastodon:
mastodon.uno/@differx

il canale whatsapp:
tinyurl.com/slowchannel

sostieni slowforward (e gli altri canali differx) con
ko-fi.com/differx57119
oppure
paypal.com/paypalme/MarcoGiove…

*

ko-fi.com/differx57119/posts

Mettiamo insieme: le "logiche" del presidenzialismo, lo sconcio dell'autonomia differenziata, gli attacchi alla magistratura, le collusioni con la criminalità organizzata (nuovo esercito della destra, relativamente ufficioso?), i capovolgimenti dei fatti storici accertati (le stragi neofasciste), la continuità di comportamento dei servizi segreti istituzionalmente deviati, la violenza poliziesca impunita contro chiunque, i regali legislativi ai padroni reali del Paese, la svendita del patrimonio pubblico, la guerra alla sanità e alla scuola pubbliche, l'incardinamento sempre più radicale nelle politiche frontalmente guerrafondaie della Nato; e leggiamo poi questo articolo - sul "manifesto" di oggi - di Alessandra Agostino: --> continua qui: slowforward.net/2024/08/05/ver…

slowforward

2024-08-05 14:27:16

Mettiamo insieme: le “logiche” del presidenzialismo, lo sconcio dell’autonomia differenziata, gli attacchi alla magistratura, le collusioni con la criminalità organizzata (nuovo esercito della destra, relativamente ufficioso?), i capovolgimenti dei fatti storici accertati (le stragi neofasciste), la continuità di comportamento dei servizi segreti istituzionalmente deviati, la violenza poliziesca impunita contro chiunque, i regali legislativi ai padroni reali del Paese, la svendita del patrimonio pubblico, la guerra alla sanità e alla scuola pubbliche, l’incardinamento sempre più radicale nelle politiche frontalmente guerrafondaie della Nato; e leggiamo poi questo articolo – sul “manifesto” di oggi – di Alessandra Agostino:

Il disegno di legge sulla sicurezza pubblica che la maggioranza vorrebbe licenziare alla Camera prima della pausa estiva infittisce la tela repressiva che oscura lo spazio democratico; una tela intrecciata da anni di decreti sicurezza adottati senza soluzione di continuità dai vari governi. La trama è sempre la stessa: punire il nemico, ovvero dissenzienti, poveri, migranti; il colore nero più intenso.

La criminalizzazione è funzionale a delegittimare e giustificare la repressione di chi potrebbe minare il modello neoliberista egemone e consente di sviare e occultare la responsabilità delle diseguaglianze sociali, della guerra, della devastazione climatica.
Della sicurezza come sociale nessuna traccia. La deriva autoritaria si salda con gli assunti del neoliberismo: si tagliano le fondamenta materiali della trasformazione sociale e si preclude la possibilità di rivendicarla.

Emblematico è l’articolo 8, che interviene su un classico della recrudescenza punitiva, l’occupazione di immobili e terreni, prevedendo un nuovo reato: «occupazione arbitraria di immobile destinato a domicilio altrui» (con reclusione da due a sette anni).

Ancora una volta a fronte di un drammatico problema sociale, la casa, la risposta non è in termini di politiche che garantiscano il diritto all’abitazione, che la Corte costituzionale connette alla dignità umana e inserisce fra i diritti inviolabili, ma punitivo (la linea del «decreto Caivano»). Si colpisce il disagio sociale e insieme i movimenti di lotta per la casa, ovvero la partecipazione alternativa e dissenziente: ad essere punito è anche «chiunque si intromette o coopera nell’occupazione dell’immobile».

Fra i fili dell’ordito repressivo, quindi, ritorna un’altra costante: un’aggravante relativa ai reati di «violenza o minaccia a pubblico ufficiale e resistenza a pubblico ufficiale» (art. 14), con riferimento specifico al suo esercizio «al fine di impedire la realizzazione di un’opera pubblica o di una infrastruttura strategica» (la sperimentazione della repressione sul movimento no Tav si arricchisce visto che lo spettro del ponte di Messina aleggia).

Sono fattispecie tipicamente contestate a chi manifesta, il cui abuso crea un clima di intimidazione e dissuasione rispetto all’esercizio del diritto di riunione. La tutela privilegiata per gli operatori di polizia si estende alle lesioni (art. 15). Sono comprese le lesioni anche lievi o lievissime: si pensa forse agli agenti in tenuta antisommossa che si feriscono sempre nel “fronteggiare” gli studenti a mani nude? Alla repressione del dissenso si affianca il vittimismo del potere.

Una novità è la norma denominata «anti Gandhi», parte del pacchetto repressivo specificamente dedicato ai luoghi di detenzione (carceri e Cpr). Viene introdotto il delitto di rivolta penitenziaria, che comprende la resistenza «anche passiva». Si sperimenta su chi sta ai margini e si ara il terreno, nel contempo si innaffia il campo con una abbondante denigrazione nei confronti di chi pratica la disobbedienza civile (gli eco-attivisti)… e il prossimo decreto sicurezza prevederà punizione della resistenza passiva per tutti. Dall’accanimento nella criminalizzazione dei modi della contestazione, in relazione alla supposta violenza esercitata dai manifestanti, si giunge alla punizione della protesta pacifica: la via dell’espulsione del dissenso in sé è segnata.
Invero, già in questo disegno di legge (art. 11) il blocco stradale o ferroviario «con il proprio corpo» diviene illecito penale con una aggravante se il fatto è commesso da più persone; dato che è difficile immaginare un blocco in solitaria, la pena “normale” sarà la reclusione da sei mesi a due anni. È una norma ad hoc, come prassi di questo Governo, scritta pensando alle proteste di Ultima Generazione, ma – effetto collaterale chiaramente gradito dagli estensori del provvedimento – varrà anche a reprimere presidi e cortei spontanei fuori da fabbriche e scuole.
Non manca, infine, un altro passo nel percorso, nato nel “laboratorio migranti”, di amministrativizzazione della sicurezza: il disegno di legge amplia, come i precedenti decreti Minniti, Salvini, Lamorgese, Caivano, l’ambito di applicazione del daspo urbano (ordine di allontanamento modellato sulla falsariga del daspo sportivo). Per tacere della reclusione di madri e bambini e degli ulteriori emendamenti liberticidi che complice la distrazione agostana potrebbero essere inseriti.
La democrazia non può vivere sotto l’ombra di una tela repressiva, ma richiede l’orizzonte aperto del conflitto.

Voi siete tranquilli? Personalmente, io no.

slowforward.net/2024/08/05/ver…

#000000 #333399 #AlessandraAgostino #criminalitàOrganizzata #fascismo #guerra #ilManifesto #magistratura #Nato #neofascismo #polizia #presidenzialismo #statoPoliziesco

verso il fascimo più scoperto e impudente

La deriva verso il fascismo è sempre più netta

^slowforward

da Chepalle blog - di Mario Salvini

In mezzo a uno tsunami cosí ti vien voglia di lasciarti andare. Se qualsiasi cosa provi a fare, quelli di là trovan sempre la maniera di frapporre una mano, un piede, un’anca, una coscia, un gomito tra il pavimento e la tua schiacciata, a un certo punto ti fai portar via.
O ti arrendi, o ti perdi, ubriacato da tutti quei prodigi. Quanti accidenti di giapponesi c’erano in quegli 81 metri quadri? E quanti cavolo di Yamamoto?
Ti sembrava di vederci doppio, quadruplo. E in più eri impallinato dalle loro battute. Che quei demoni tiravano a mille e non sbagliavano mai.
Qualsiasi squadra al mondo sarebbe stata trascinata via. Non i nostri. Nel post precedente ho messo Simo Giannelli, con gli occhi lucidi, in battuta sui loro match ball del terzo set. Un attimo prima di morire
Quel suo ace resterà per sempre nella storia della pallavolo italiana. Speriamo in quella dello sport italiano, se capite cosa intendo
Poi c’è molto altro.
Che il Giappone avrebbe potuto essere questo il mio amico e collega Davide Romani lo diceva da mesi. Smentito dal girone, e poi puntualmente ottimo profeta nel momento per noi peggiore
Fefè De Giorgi lo sapeva più di tutti. E lo sapeva ogni lettore che stamattina avesse letto la Gazzetta. Dove, riportando le parole del ct, Elisabetta Esposito ha scritto: “Il Giappone ha un libero straordinario che fa delle cose fuori dal normale. Noi dobbiamo essere bravi ad avere pazienza, che non significa aspettare, significa accettare la situazione”
Ecco, i nostri sono stati stupefacenti, per come hanno accettato la bravura dei loro avversari. Per come sono andati oltre gli errori commessi. Per come non si sono incolpati l’un l’altro.
Se ho avuto fiducia fino in fondo è stato per due palloni nella fase finale di secondo set, quando ancora mi stavo illudendo di poter andare sull’1-1. Due alzate NON precise di Giannelli, tutte e due per Lavia
“Lo schiacciatore non commenta le alzate, le risolve”, diceva - e dice - Julio Velasco
Lavia le aveva risolte, e lì per lì sembrava che non fosse servito a nulla. E invece è anche per quello che siamo rimasti vivi.
È la pallavolo, è la vita, direbbe Al Pacino se ogni maledetta domenica avesse fatto l’allenatore di pallavolo invece che di football
È l’insegnamento di questa che è stata una delle partite di pallavolo più belle di sempre
In cui una squadra italiana è stata capace di non farsi spazzar via, come sarebbe successo a qualsiasi altra squadra. E come a regola avrebbe dovuto capitare a un gruppo di ragazzi giovanissimi
Che invece sono stati duri come il granito.
E lo sono stati perché in panchina hanno un gigante
Che non solo aveva già visto questa partita, come avete letto sulla Gazzetta
Ma perché è un riferimento
Perché è un adulto. Non c’entra l’età.
Per come interpreta il suo ruolo con autorevolezza senza autoritarismi. Con competenza. Con sicurezza trasmettendo sicurezza. Che è poi esattamente quello per cui dopo il Mondiale vinto lo aveva ringraziato il presidente, Sergio Mattarella. Che magari di pallavolo non ci capisce molto, ma di uomini e di vIta sí.
Tutti, in qualsiasi ambito, avremmo bisogno di girarci verso la panchina e di trovarci un Ferdinando De Giorgi
Non è un’altra ragione di cui andare fieri, oltre alla vittoria.
È LA ragione per cui la vittoria l’abbiamo trovata, in quel modo disperato, esaltante, inimmaginabile.