If you need to drive a big screen for a project, it’s fair to say your first thought isn’t going to be to use the ATtiny85. With just 512 bytes of RAM and 8 kilobytes of flash memory, the 8-bit micro seems a little cramped to drive, say, a 10″ screen. Yet that’s exactly what [ToSStudio] is doing with TinyTFT_LT7683: 1024 x 600 pixels of TFT goodness, over I2C no less.
With the right TFT controller, this little micro-controller can do magic.
The name kind of gives away the secret: it won’t work on just any TFT display. It’s using properties of the LT7683 display driver, though if you don’t have one of those, the RA8875 is also compatible. Those drivers can take more than just a pixel stream– a good thing, since you’d be hard pressed to get that many pixels streaming from an ATtiny. These are character/graphic display drivers, which means you can get them to draw both characters and graphics on the screen if you speak the lingo.

It’s still not blazing fast; the documentation suggests “static or moderately dynamic UIs” as the suggested use case, and a clock is of the pre-programmed examples. From that, we can surmise that you can get 1 FPS or better with this code. You’re limited both by the simple micro-controller and the bandwidth of the I2C bus, but within those limits this seems like a very powerful technique.

This isn’t the first ATtiny graphics library to blow our minds, but if you really want an impressive graphics demo from the little micro that could, you really need to race the beam.

Thanks to [Thomas Scherer] for the tip!

hackaday.com/2026/01/08/drive-…

GAZA: DOCTORS UNDER ATTACK

Ospedale Santa Maria delle Croci - ingresso via Missiroli - 5, Viale Vincenzo Randi, Alberoni, Ravenna, Emilia-Romagna, 48121, Italia
(martedì, 13 gennaio 15:00)

Proiezione del documentario

GAZA: DOCTORS UNDER ATTACK

• prima proiezione 15:00 - 17:00
• seconda proiezione 18:00 - 20:00

Aula Pavoni Dea (settimo piano)

Saranno presenti rappresentanti di Emergency Ravenna e Carlo Biasioli, skipper di Morgana (Flotilla)

fuorinellanebbia.it/event/gaza…

ECHI DAL SUDAN IN LOTTA

Spazio libertario Sole e Baleno - 27, Sobborgo Valzania, Quartiere Fiorenzuola, Ponte Abbadesse, Cesena, Unione dei comuni Valle del Savio, Forlì-Cesena, Emilia-Romagna, 47521, Italia
(venerdì, 30 gennaio 19:30)

Ore 19:30 - Cena Vegan BENEFIT PER LA LOTTA IN SUDAN.
Ore 20:30 – ECHI DAL SUDAN IN LOTTA

Nel 2019 una rivolta popolare della durata di 4 mesi ha costretto il dittatore sudanese Al-Bashir, alla guida dello stato dal 1989 cedere il potere. L'insurrezione è continuata anche sotto il successivo governo di transizione civile-militare, e non è cessata nemmeno dopo il colpo di stato militare del 2021, che ha rimesso al potere i generali. Nonostante la brutale repressione, l'autorganizzazione nei quartieri è continuata, creando spiragli di libertà in cui potesse prendere forma un modo di vivere libero da stato, poteri religiosi ed etnici.
E' in questo contesto che è nata e ha agito la federazione anarchica del Sudan, incitando alla rivolta, organizzando distribuzioni di cibo, farmaci e beni di prima necessità. Il moto rivoluzionario è continuato fino al 2023, quando lo scoppio della guerra civile tra i due generali al potere, l'ha soffocata nel sangue, diffondendo, come ogni guerra, stupri, massacri e distruzione.
Da quasi 3 anni i signori della guerra, con il supporto finanziario e militare di vari attori esteri, cinicamente assetati di risorse, si combattono. Le stime, probabilmente al ribasso, parlano di 150 000 morti/e e 15 milioni di sfollati/e.
I compagni e le compagne sudanesi tentano di sopravvivere e resistere in questo contesto brutale, senza prendere parte per uno o l'altro signore della guerra, costrettx a imbracciare le armi, anche a costo della vita.
Lo stato italiano e l'unione europea hanno la loro parte, avendo finanziato e addestrato le milizie RSF in funzione anti migranti, e ampliando il commercio di armi con gli Emirati Arabi, uno dei principali sponsor della guerra in Sudan.

Ne parliamo in collegamento con un compagno dal Sudan.

fuorinellanebbia.it/event/echi…

Assemblea plenaria

Lab!Puzzle - Via Monte Meta, 21
(domenica, 11 gennaio 17:00)

𝐋’𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐌𝐁𝐋𝐄𝐀
L’assemblea di Lab!Puzzle è libera, pubblica, democratica, antifascista, antisessista e antirazzista, prerogative che riteniamo indispensabili per il vivere civile ed un confronto sano. Si tiene ogni prima domenica del mese alle ore 17:00, salvo quando diversamente specificato.

𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐋 𝐆𝐈𝐎𝐑𝐍𝐎:
L’odg si redige in mailing list ed è in continuo aggiornamento. Per iscriversi occorre partecipare ad almeno un’assemblea.

𝐄̀ 𝐋𝐀 𝐏𝐑𝐈𝐌𝐀 𝐕𝐎𝐋𝐓𝐀 𝐂𝐇𝐄 𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐈?
È riservato uno spazio all’interno di ogni assemblea per le presentazioni, per raccontarsi, per dire la propria.
𝐏𝐮𝐨𝐢 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐍𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄
Qui il link meet.jit.si/assemblea_labpuzzl…

roma.convoca.la/event/assemble…

Assemblee delle Donne e Libere Soggettività dei Consultori

Via Brugnato - Via Brugnato, 2, 00148 Roma RM
(lunedì, 12 gennaio 16:00)

Riprendono le assemblee delle donne e delle libere soggettività dei consultori di Roma e del Lazio

Una volta al mese (giorno e orario fisso e pubblicato da NUDM) nei consultori dove è presente L'ASSEMBLEA DELLE DONNE E DELLE LIBERE SOGGETTIVITÀ, viene fatto dal coordinamento un incontro aperto al territorio
PER ri-attivare e far conoscere, specialmente alle nuove generazioni, queste strutture socio-sanitarie di territorio gratuite, laiche e per la prevenzione di tutt coloro che le attraversano;
PER creare rapporto e confronto con le/gli operator e una costante verifica/controllo della qualità dell'offerta con i responsabili delle diverse Aziende socio sanitarie; PER metterci in gioco ed essere parte attiva del diritto alla nostra salute e benessere.

Partecipiamo e aumentiamole, non solo per difendere i consultori da costanti attacchi e chiusure, ma per farne aprire molti di più e rispondere ai nostri bisogni e desideri.

Per ulteriori informazioni puoi scrivere a
coordinamentoconsultorilazio@gmail.com

Coordinamento delle Assemblee delle donne e delle libere soggettività dei consultori di Roma e del Lazio

roma.convoca.la/event/assemble…

Assemblee delle Donne e Libere Soggettività dei Consultori

Ospedale Luigi Spolverini - Via delle Cerquette, 2, 00040 Ariccia RM
(martedì, 13 gennaio 14:00)

Riprendono le assemblee delle donne e delle libere soggettività dei consultori di Roma e del Lazio

Una volta al mese (giorno e orario fisso e pubblicato da NUDM) nei consultori dove è presente L'ASSEMBLEA DELLE DONNE E DELLE LIBERE SOGGETTIVITÀ, viene fatto dal coordinamento un incontro aperto al territorio
PER ri-attivare e far conoscere, specialmente alle nuove generazioni, queste strutture socio-sanitarie di territorio gratuite, laiche e per la prevenzione di tutt coloro che le attraversano;
PER creare rapporto e confronto con le/gli operator e una costante verifica/controllo della qualità dell'offerta con i responsabili delle diverse Aziende socio sanitarie; PER metterci in gioco ed essere parte attiva del diritto alla nostra salute e benessere.

Partecipiamo e aumentiamole, non solo per difendere i consultori da costanti attacchi e chiusure, ma per farne aprire molti di più e rispondere ai nostri bisogni e desideri.

Per ulteriori informazioni puoi scrivere a
coordinamentoconsultorilazio@gmail.com

Coordinamento delle Assemblee delle donne e delle libere soggettività dei consultori di Roma e del Lazio

roma.convoca.la/event/assemble…

Dagli Stati Uniti arriva un segnale di allarme che non può essere ignorato. L’Istituto Lemkin, ONG internazionale impegnata nella prevenzione dei genocidi, ha recentemente pubblicato uno studio che invita a leggere con estrema attenzione le politiche adottate dall’amministrazione Trump nei confronti delle persone trans*, non binarie e intersex. Secondo l’Istituto, e secondo autorevoli studiosi della materia, tra cui due ex presidenti dell’Associazione Internazionale degli Studiosi del Genocidio, tali politiche presentano caratteristiche riconducibili alle fasi iniziali dei processi di persecuzione sistematica che, in diversi contesti storici del Novecento, hanno preceduto crimini di massa e stermini di intere comunità.

La letteratura comparata sul genocidio mostra con chiarezza come questi processi non abbiano inizio con l’eliminazione fisica, ma con la costruzione istituzionale dell’alterità: la definizione di un gruppo come deviante, pericoloso o incompatibile con l’ordine sociale; la progressiva erosione dei suoi diritti; la normalizzazione della discriminazione attraverso atti amministrativi, legislativi e retorici. Dinamiche analoghe sono state osservate nei regimi totalitari europei del secolo scorso, così come in altri contesti segnati da politiche di esclusione radicale e disumanizzazione collettiva.

In questo quadro si collocano le politiche di persecuzione delle persone transgender, non binarie e intersex, che l’Istituto Lemkin individua come un preambolo a forme più estreme di violenza. Emblematica è la normativa che obbliga le persone trans* a utilizzare i servizi igienici in base al sesso assegnato alla nascita: una misura che non può essere considerata simbolica o marginale, ma che contribuisce a legittimare socialmente il controllo dei corpi e l’esposizione forzata nello spazio pubblico.

La dottoressa Elisa von Joeden-Forgey sottolinea come la combinazione di paura, propaganda e retoriche d’odio promosse o tollerate da apparati politico-statali costituisca il terreno su cui attecchiscono le forme più estreme di violenza. È uno schema ricorrente nella storia dei genocidi: prima l’isolamento simbolico, poi l’esclusione giuridica, infine la violenza aperta. I dati che ci arrivano confermano la gravità di questo contesto, mostrando un aumento delle difficoltà nel fare coming out e un incremento dei tassi di suicidio all’interno della comunità, segnali inequivocabili di una pressione sistemica che colpisce direttamente la vita delle persone.

Trump sta utilizzando i corpi delle persone migranti e di quelle trans*, non binarie e intersex come strumenti politici, contribuendo ad anestetizzare l’opinione pubblica rispetto alla violenza strutturale tipica dei regimi autoritari. È una strategia già vista nella storia, in cui la normalizzazione dell’abuso e dell’esclusione prepara il terreno a forme sempre più radicali di disumanizzazione.

Per questo, ricordando le parole del pastore Martin Niemöller nel celebre sermone “Prima vennero…”, è nostro compito non voltarci mai dall’altra parte davanti alla violenza e alla sua normalizzazione. Non saremo mai in un mondo libero finché esisterà anche una sola persona oppressa per il suo credo, per il suo sesso, per la sua identità di genere, per la sua nazionalità o per il colore della sua pelle.

Gianmarco Capogna
Vanessa Capretto
Thomas Predieri

L'articolo Le politiche di Trump contro le persone trans sono estremamente preoccupanti proviene da Possibile.

Continuing his reverse-engineering of the Intel 8087, [Ken Shirriff] covers the conditional tests that are implemented in the microcode of this floating point processing unit (FPU). This microcode contains the details on how to perform the many types of specialized instructions, like cos and arctan, all of which decode into many microcode ops. These micro ops are executed by the microcode engine, which [Ken] will cover in more detail in an upcoming article, but which is effectively its own CPU.

Conditional instructions are implemented in hardware, integrating the states of various functional blocks across the die, ranging from the instruction decoder to a register. Here, the evaluation is performed as close as possible to the source of said parameter to save on wiring.

Implementing this circuitry are multiplexers, with an example shown in the top die shot image. Depending on the local conditions, any of four pass transistors is energized, passing through that input. Not shown in the die shot image are the inverters or buffers that are required with the use of pass transistors to amplify the signal, since pass transistors do not provide that feature.

Despite how firmly obsolete the 8087 is today, it still provides an amazing learning opportunity for anyone interested in ASIC design, which is why it’s so great that [Ken] and his fellow reverse-engineering enthusiasts keep plugging away at recovering all this knowledge.

hackaday.com/2026/01/11/the-in…

[Ronan] likes 35mm film photography, but the world, of course, has gone digital. He picked up an Epson FilmScan 200 for about €10. This wonder device from 1997 promised to convert 35mm film to digital at 1200 DPI resolution. But there was a catch: it connects via SCSI. Worse, the drivers were forever locked to Windows 95/98 and Mac System 7/8.

In a surprise twist, though, [Ronan] recently resurrected a Mac SE/30 with the requisite SCSI port and the System 7 OS. Problem solved? Not quite. The official software is a plugin for Photoshop. So the obvious answer is to write new software to interact with the device.

First, of course, you have to figure out how the device works. A service manual provided clues that, as far as the SCSI bus knew, the device wasn’t a scanner at all, but a processor. The processor, though, used SCSI as a simple pipe to handle Epson’s standard “ESC/I” protocol.

Armed with that information and a knowledge of the Mac’s SCSI Manager API, the rest is just coding. Well, that is until [Ronan] tried to scan the other five negatives in the six-negative film carrier. He was frustrated until he found an old patched SANE driver for the scanner from 2002. By looking at how it worked, he was able to figure out how to switch to the other negatives.

Color scanning also took a little coaxing. The scanner returns three monochrome images, one for each color channel. Some assembly, then, is required. In the end, though, the project was a complete success. Can’t find a FilmScan 200? Don’t have a SCSI port? There’s always the roll-your-own approach.

hackaday.com/2026/01/11/the-sc…

For journalists who work online, the most dangerous assumption is that press freedom is territorial. It is not. In the digital age, journalists publish globally by default, and states increasingly assert criminal jurisdiction globally as well.

The recent assertion of U.S. authority to seize (kidnapping is such an “ugly” word) Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro illustrates a broader and deeply unsettling truth: Once a state claims jurisdiction, the limiting factor is not law, but power. For journalists, that reality has been quietly unfolding for decades.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction and the press

Domestic law (and law enforcement) does not stop at the border. Most countries reserve the “right” to prosecute those outside the country whose actions are directed inside the country, or which impact that country’s laws, citizens, or property.

The concept of “extraterritorial” jurisdiction of domestic law was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1922 in United States v. Bowman, where the court noted that certain criminal statutes apply extraterritorially by their nature when they protect national interests. This is commonly called the “protective” principle of extraterritorial application of law. In the cyber era, courts have applied this doctrine aggressively to online conduct, including speech, publication, and data access.

Journalists are not exempt. While the First Amendment provides robust protection against U.S. prosecution for publishing truthful information of public concern, those protections are not portable. They do not bind foreign courts, nor do they prevent foreign states from asserting jurisdiction over content accessible within their borders.

Journalists prosecuted for online speech abroad

One of the earliest and most influential cases illustrating this problem is LICRA v. Yahoo! Inc., a 2000 French case where the court asserted jurisdiction over Yahoo, a U.S. company, for hosting Nazi memorabilia auctions accessible from France, where French law prohibited the display of Nazi materials.

Although Yahoo ultimately resisted enforcement in U.S. courts, the case established the principle that online publication can subject speakers and publishers to the criminal law of any country where the content is accessible. Countries routinely attempt to enforce their own laws — terrorism, defamation, etc., over the activities of journalists outside their borders.

For example, in Akçam v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights recognized the chilling effect of Turkey’s criminal laws on speech, including academic and journalistic commentary. But Turkish prosecutors continue to attempt to use Interpol red notices — which alert law enforcement agencies worldwide to locate and detain an individual — to have foreign journalists prosecuted.

In 2023, Russian authorities issued criminal charges against foreign reporters for coverage of the war in Ukraine, alleging dissemination of “false information” about the Russian military — conduct that would be core protected speech in the United States — in violation of the Russian criminal code.

If other countries adopt the Maduro precedent, a foreign country can enforce its laws against U.S. journalists simply by force or power.

China has attempted to use Article 12 of the Cybersecurity Law of the PRC to prosecute those who disseminate online content that “endangers national security” or “damages the public interest” of China. Foreign journalists have been detained, expelled, or prosecuted for online reporting hosted on servers outside China but accessible within it. The Maduro regime itself cracked down on journalists within its own borders, prosecuting them for crimes like terrorism, incitement, and conspiracy.

The United States recently proposed to require those entering the country to provide border agents with access to five years of their social media history, threatening to use this information to ban, arrest, detain, or punish those whose history indicates some vaguely defined “un-American” political persuasion. Moreover, the U.S. government spent years attempting to obtain jurisdiction over Australian WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for his publication from abroad of materials the U.S. government claimed could not be published under U.S. law.

There is no ‘there there’

Typically, if speech is permitted (or protected) in the jurisdiction in which it is uttered or published, but prohibited or regulated in another country, the “injured” country has few remedies to go after the speaker/publisher. While it can charge the person with a crime and request that they be extradited, extradition treaties typically require that the conduct be considered “criminal” in both countries. And many countries (including the U.S.) do not typically extradite their own citizens.

Add to that the fact that most extradition treaties also permit the host country to resist extradition for “political speech” or “political activity,” and that an extradition request is subject to both a legal and political process. In addition, the likelihood that a U.S. journalist would be extradited to China, Turkey, or another country for First Amendment-protected activity is small — not nonexistent, but small.

Countries may, however, consider the activities of journalists to constitute violations of surveillance, theft, intellectual property, threat, defamation, or espionage laws, increasing the chance that they will be treated as nonpolitical offenses. Put simply, we extradite whom we want to countries we want for purposes we want. And that’s what other countries do as well.

Kidnapping, rendition, and the Ker–Frisbie Doctrine

What the Maduro case shows is that governments (including the U.S. government) reserve either the right or the pure ability to invade the territorial sovereignty of other nations to obtain jurisdiction over those (including heads of state) we believe have violated U.S. law. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the authority of the U.S. to “kidnap” persons overseas and bring them to U.S. courts — and presumably the opposite applies as well.

Under what is called the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine, the domestic courts do not look at the way the court obtained jurisdiction over the defendant (unless this “shocks the conscience”), but simply look at whether the defendant is physically present.

In the 1886 case Ker v. Illinois, the Supreme Court held that a defendant abducted from Peru could still be tried in U.S. court. It affirmed the principle in 1952 in Frisbie v. Collins. In the 1992 case United States v. Alvarez-Machain, after U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents abducted a doctor in Mexico and brought him to trial in the U.S., the court noted that the U.S./Mexico extradition treaty was just “one way” to obtain jurisdiction over a person. Apparently, kidnapping is another. As a federal appellate court made clear five years later in United States v. Noriega, this principle applies to foreign heads of state as well.

What this means for journalists

For journalists, the implication is sobering. Publishing an article, hosting leaked documents, or reporting on state misconduct online can expose a reporter to criminal liability in jurisdictions with radically different views of press freedom.

The fact that the work is lawful — and even celebrated — in the United States offers no protection abroad. We saw that when Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi was abducted and dismembered by the Saudi government at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.

What typically “saves” journalists is that foreign countries may fear invading the territorial sovereignty of the host nation. This is why most prosecutions of journalists occur in the country in which they are operating. Russia’s prosecutions of Alsu Kurmasheva, a Russian-American journalist working for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Wall Street Journal correspondent Evan Gershkovich follow this pattern, as does the Turkish government’s detention of freelance journalist Lindsey Snell in Turkey in 2016.

In a networked world, journalism is inherently transnational, but press freedom is not.

However, if a journalist can be lured into a compliant country, or if other countries adopt the Maduro precedent, a foreign country can enforce its laws on people in the U.S. simply by force or power. Instructive is the case of Henry Liu, a Chinese American critic of the Taiwanese government, which hired Taiwanese gang members to kill him in California, or the attempted murder in Brooklyn, New York, of Iranian-American journalist Masih Alinejad.

While journalists and others may be protected by the First Amendment, that protection typically applies only if they are physically in the United States, and assumes that the U.S. has no interest in extraditing the journalist to another country. With the Maduro precedent extending the authority to kidnap those who we perceive to have violated the law of one nation, other nations can be expected to follow suit. It’s no longer about what White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called “international niceties” but is about “a world, … the real world, … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.”

Law as narrative, power as reality

The lesson for journalists is not that the law is meaningless, but that it is secondary. Power determines who is charged, who is seized, and who is left alone. Law supplies justification after the fact.

In a networked world, journalism is inherently transnational, but press freedom is not. For journalists who work online, the question is no longer merely, “Is this lawful where I am?” It is, “Who might claim jurisdiction, and what can they do to enforce it?”

The answer, increasingly, depends less on courts than on geopolitics.

In cyberspace, publication is global. So is exposure.

freedom.press/issues/what-the-…

A volte non serve lo specchio per capire chi siamo. Basta uno sguardo. Quello di chi ci incrocia distrattamente in metropolitana, o quello più intenso di chi ci conosce davvero. È buffo, ma finiamo sempre per misurarci con il riflesso che gli altri ci restituiscono, come se la nostra identità fosse una foto sfocata che solo gli occhi altrui riescono a mettere a fuoco. Ci si abitua presto a vivere sotto osservazione, anche quando nessuno ci guarda. In fondo, siamo animali sociali: abbiamo bisogno di sentirci visti per credere di esistere.

noblogo.org/lalchimistadigital…