I was going to wince at a US publication not doing European geography, but no, it’s actually the British The Independent, of all places.

Over the summer, Mr. Rubio said in a video commemorating huge anti-Communist protests in 2021 that many Cubans had found it “easier” to “abandon” the island than stay and fight the regime.

That seems kind of ironic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio

Rubio asserted that his parents intended to return to Cuba in the 1960s.[5] He added that his mother took his two elder siblings back to Cuba in 1961 with the intention of living there permanently (his father remained behind in Miami “wrapping up the family’s matters”), but the nation’s move toward communism caused the family to change its plans.[5] Rubio said that the “essence of my family story is why they came to America in the first place and why they had to stay”.[14]

It sounds like the federal government can move cases involving federal law enforcement agents performing their duties to federal court.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442

28 U.S. Code § 1442 - Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted

(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

I think — and I may be wrong — that in a case in federal court, it’d be up to federal prosecutors to prosecute. I don’t know if the Trump administration actually has to prosecute them in that scenario.

Not something that I’ve read up on before, though. I imagine that there are probably articles out there with various lawyers chiming in.

searches more

https://poracldf.org/blog/supremacy-clause-immunity-for-federal-officers/

In short, subjecting federal officers to state criminal sanctions for carrying out their federally appointed duties could make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the federal government to function. Even the most dedicated federal servant would be reluctant to do his job conscientiously if he knew it could mean prison time in the state penitentiary. Seth P. Waxman, What Kind of Immunity? Federal Officers, State Criminal Law, and the Supremacy Clause, 112 Yale L.J. 2195, 2230-31 (2003).4

In carving out the contours to the federal immunity defense, the courts have established a two-part requirement, adopting in part the Neagle language: “a state court has no jurisdiction if (1) the federal agent was performing an act which he was authorized to do by the laws of the United States and in (2) performing that authorized act, the federal agency did no more than was necessary and proper for him to do.” Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Long, 837 F.2d 727 (6th Cir. 1988).

Significantly, in analyzing the second “necessary and proper” factor, particularly in the context of an agent acting under exigencies, the courts have applied a broad view of the reasonableness of the conduct, focusing “on the intent of the officer and not the actual legality of his action.” Colorado v. Nord, 377 F. Supp. 2d 945, 951 (D. Col. 2005) (emphasizing “a federal officer is still entitled to immunity when he acts in good faith within the general scope of his duties as he understands them;” id. at 950); Clifton v. Cox, 549 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1977) (federal officer seeking immunity need not show that his action “was, in fact, necessary or in retrospect justifiable, only that he reasonably thought it to be”). Just as Neagle involved a murder prosecution, the nature of the state prosecution is not the controlling factor; rather, the only consideration is the intent of the officer in enforcing his federal responsibilities. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes emphasized, “even the most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct of a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States.” Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51, 56-57 (1920).

As five Ninth Circuit judges agree, not only is the federal immunity provision construed broadly but great leeway is given to a federal agent, so long as the agent is not acting with an evil intent: “when the federal agent is acting reasonably within the broad contours of official duty, and without malice, the courts have employed the Supremacy Clause to protect the agent from prosecution.” Idaho v. Horiuchi, 253 F.3d 359 (9th Cir.) (en banc), vacated as moot, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (Hawkins, dissenting).

looks further

Okay, it sounds — and this is just from the phrasing in an article that’s arguing in favor of state charges for one of the ICE situations — like state prosecutors can prosecute even in the case that the prosecution is moved to federal court:

https://prospect.org/2026/01/07/ice-agents-can-be-charged-with-murder/

The history of state prosecutions of federal officials goes back to the War of 1812, when some New England states used state statutes to prosecute federal customs officers who seized goods that were under a trade embargo. Often, they are used to resist a federal law that states don’t like, such as the Fugitive Slave Act.

But numerous states have indicted, charged, and arrested federal law enforcement officers for conduct that exceeded their official duties. In 1898, Virginia charged a federal tax collector posse with shooting and killing horses and cattle during a shootout. The federal posse claimed they were ambushed while attempting to collect taxes.

More to the point, in Findley v. Satterfield (1877), Castle v. Lewis (1918), Oregon v. Wood (1920), Smith v. Gilliam (1922), Maryland v. Soper (1926), and many more, states alleged that federal officers committed murder or attempted murder while engaged in law enforcement activity. Almost always, the federal response was that they were performing federal duties, that they acted in self-defense, or both. Often, these cases were removed to federal court, but the state prosecutors maintained the case. (Federal officers have the right to move cases to federal court, but not the unlimited right; they have to assert some plausible federal defense to the charges.)

EDIT: Well, or what they’re actually saying is that they’re trying to continue the case in state court. I’m not going to spend a lot of time trying to dig into this really deeply, because I suspect that there are going to be various legal commentators with a lot more expertise than me talking about this in short order if there are charges filed. But at least I wanted to highlight one issue likely to come up if there are attempts to prosecute in state court.

EDIT2: Yes, state prosecutors do retain control of the prosecution if the case is moved to a federal court. Here’s a better source (talking about the Good shooting, but same issue):

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/minnesota-can-prosecute-jonathan-ross-but-it-may-not-be-easy

Finally, whether Supremacy Clause immunity applies will almost certainly be decided by a federal court, even though any criminal charges would first be filed in Minnesota state court. That is because federal officials are able to remove both criminal and civil cases from state court to federal court if those cases involve actions taken “under color of” their federal office. If charged, Ross would almost certainly choose to remove the case. Even in federal court, however, state criminal prosecutors would remain in charge of the prosecution, and any conviction would be a conviction under state law. And the president cannot pardon a state law crime.

Plus, I mean, unless you’re using a Threadiverse host as your home instance, how often are you typing its name?

Having a hyphen is RFC-conformant:

RFC 952:

1. A "name" (Net, Host, Gateway, or Domain name) is a text string up
to 24 characters drawn from the alphabet (A-Z), digits (0-9), minus
sign (-), and period (.).  Note that periods are only allowed when
they serve to delimit components of "domain style names". (See
RFC-921, "Domain Name System Implementation Schedule", for
background).  No blank or space characters are permitted as part of a
name. No distinction is made between upper and lower case.  The first
character must be an alpha character.  The last character must not be
a minus sign or period.  A host which serves as a GATEWAY should have
"-GATEWAY" or "-GW" as part of its name.  Hosts which do not serve as
Internet gateways should not use "-GATEWAY" and "-GW" as part of
their names. A host which is a TAC should have "-TAC" as the last
part of its host name, if it is a DoD host.  Single character names
or nicknames are not allowed.

RFC 1123:

   The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952
   [DNS:4].  One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the
   restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a
   letter or a digit.  Host software MUST support this more liberal
   syntax.

   Host software MUST handle host names of up to 63 characters and
   SHOULD handle host names of up to 255 characters.

I imagine so. I don’t use Boost, but I posted about the behavior to the Boost community, so hopefully they’ll get it straightened out.

deleted by creator

I mean, there are a number of cases in mythologies where you can find common elements. I’d buy that in some cases, there might be common elements causing it, but I don’t think that it’d need to be a common hallucinogen.

Off-the-cuff, some examples:

• Dragons

• “Hybrid” animals that are a conglomeration of different animals.

• Ghosts

• Mermaids.

• House spirits

• Sun gods

It’s not just EVs that are connected.

Society can’t have females stripping for males — which I’m assuming from the official’s phrasing does not constitute a “direct and cynical violation of basic moral norms and traditional spiritual values” — if they’re not leaving the kitchen.

I actually wondered about Panasonic when I saw the parent comment and checked. Didn’t comment then, but probably should have, if others had the same thought.

https://www.slashgear.com/1846438/panasonic-tvs-who-makes-where-built/

Panasonic used to manufacture televisions in its own factories, initially in Japan, and then in other regions such as China, India, and the Czech Republic. However, between 2015 and 2022, it closed its Panasonic-owned factories and now outsources all TV manufacturing to other companies. Its mid- to high-end ranges are currently made by Chinese electronics manufacturer TCL. TCL’s primary manufacturing plants are in China, Vietnam, and Mexico. Most Panasonic TVs sold to U.S. customers are made in manufacturing plants in Tijuana or Ixtapaluca in Mexico. TCL also has manufacturing and assembly plants in Australia, Brazil, India, and Pakistan.

Speaking in an interview with News.ru, Ivanov declared: "The creators of GTA 6 deliberately go to include destructive and vulgar content in their product, completely unacceptable to the moral health of society.

“This includes the planned inclusion of scenes of male striptease in the game, which is a direct and cynical violation of basic moral norms and traditional spiritual values.”

So…is this because the state has an issue with homosexuality, or are, say, bachelorette parties off-limits too?

The issues run deeper, Kaas Elias explained, than just these most recent cuts. “Unfortunately, the federal government has taken a step backward when it comes to public transport,” he said. For example, the Deutschlandticket for regional public transport across the country has transformed from a €9 a month COVID-19 era mega-success to €63 a month as of January 2026.

If I remember correctly back when that was announced, and there was some discussion on Reddit about it, that was intended from the beginning to be a temporary program.

searches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschlandticket

The Deutschlandticket (Deutschlandticket, lit. ‘Germany ticket’), also known as the D-Ticket, is a monthly subscription for local and regional public transport valid throughout Germany. It was introduced in May 2023 by the Scholz cabinet as the successor to the temporary 9-Euro-Ticket offered in summer 2022.

WP says it was temporary too.

You mean just the brand, or the manufacturing?

I mean, branding something is trivial.

But if you want to manufacture it in Europe, then you have to compete against companies who are going to be manufacturing in China, and manufacturing wages are going to be lower in China, so it’s going to be at a price disadvantage.

I was just commenting yesterday where some guy wanted to buy a keyboard out of the EU or Canada instead of a Unicomp keyboard because he was pissed at the US. He was asking about buying a Cherry keyboard. Cherry just shut down their production in Germany after cheaper Chinese competition clobbered 'em.

If you want to have stuff manufactured in Europe, you’ve got kinda limited options.

1. Get some kind of patriotic “buy European” thing going, where people are intrinsically willing to pay a premium for things made in Europe.

2. Ban imports. My guess is that in general, Europe will not do this unless they have some negative externality, like national security, associated with the import (think, say, Russian natural gas), since it’s economically-inefficient.

3. Leverage some kind of other comparative advantage. Like, okay. Maybe one can’t have competitive unskilled assembly line workers. But maybe if there’s really amazing, world-leading industrial automation, so that there’s virtually no human labor marginal cost involved, and one scales production way up, it’s possible to eliminate enough of the assembly line labor costs to be competitive.

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

The Trump tariffs amount to an average tax increase per US household of $1,100 in 2025 and $1,500 in 2026.

Unless you have some really serious hardware, 24 billion parameters is probably the maximum that would be practical for self-hosting on a reasonable hobbyist set-up.

Eh…I don’t know if you’d call it “really serious hardware”, but when I picked up my 128GB Framework Desktop, it was $2k (without storage), and that box is often described as being aimed at the hobbyist AI market. That’s pricier than most video cards, but an AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX GPU was north of $1k, an NVidia RTX 4090 was about $2k, and it looks like the NVidia RTX 5090 is presently something over $3k (and rising) on EBay, well over MSRP. None of those GPUs are dedicated hardware aimed at doing AI compute, just high-end cards aimed at playing games that people have used to do AI stuff on.

I think that the largest LLM I’ve run on the Framework Desktop was a 106 billion parameter GLM model at Q4_K_M quantization. It was certainly usable, and I wasn’t trying to squeeze as large a model as possible on the thing. I’m sure that one could run substantially-larger models.

EDIT: Also, some of the newer LLMs are MoE-based, and for those, it’s not necessarily unreasonable to offload expert layers to main memory. If a particular expert isn’t being used, it doesn’t need to live in VRAM. That relaxes some of the hardware requirements, from needing a ton of VRAM to just needing a fair bit of VRAM plus a ton of main memory.

That’s why they have the “Copilot PC” hardware requirement, because they’re using an NPU on the local machine.

searches

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/ai/npu-devices/

Copilot+ PCs are a new class of Windows 11 hardware powered by a high-performance Neural Processing Unit (NPU) — a specialized computer chip for AI-intensive processes like real-time translations and image generation—that can perform more than 40 trillion operations per second (TOPS).

It’s not…terribly beefy. Like, I have a Framework Desktop with an APU and 128GB of memory that schlorps down 120W or something, substantially outdoes what you’re going to do on a laptop. And that in turn is weaker computationally than something like the big Nvidia hardware going into datacenters.

But it is doing local computation.

I’m kind of more-sympathetic to Microsoft than to some of the other companies involved.

Microsoft is trying to leverage the Windows platform that they control to do local LLM use. I’m not at all sure that there’s actually enough memory out there to do that, or that it’s cost-effective to put a ton of memory and compute capacity in everyone’s home rather than time-sharing hardware in datacenters. Nor am I sold that laptops — which many “Copilot PCs” are — are a fantastic place to be doing a lot of heavyweight parallel compute.

But…from a privacy standpoint, I kind of would like local LLMs to be at least available, even if they aren’t as affordable as cloud-based stuff. And at least Microsoft is at least supporting that route. A lot of companies are going to be oriented towards just doing AI stuff in the cloud.

You only need one piece of (timeless) advice regarding what to look for, really: if it looks too good to be true, it almost certainly is. Caveat emptor.

I mean…normally, yes, but because the situation has been changing so radically in such a short period of time, it probably is possible to get some bonkers deals in various niches, because the market hasn’t stabilized yet.

Like, a month and a half back, in early December, when prices had only been going up like crazy for a little while, I was posting some tiny retailers that still had RAM in stock at pre-price-increase rates that I could find on Google Shopping. IIRC the University of Virginia bookstore was one, as they didn’t check that purchasers were actually students. I warned that they’d probably be cleaned out as soon as scalpers got to them, and that if someone wanted memory, they should probably get it ASAP. Some days prior to that, there was a small PC parts store in Hawaii that had some (though that was out of stock by the next time I was looking and mentioned the bookstore).

That’s not to disagree with the point that @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world is making, that this was awfully sketchy as a source, or your point that scavenging components off even a non-scam piece of secondhand non-functional hardware is risky. But in times of rapid change, it’s not impossible to find deals. In fact, it’s various parties doing so that cause prices to stabilize — anyone selling memory for way below market price is going to have scalpers grab it.

I mean, it’s not like some other random retailer is exempt from tariffs.

They’re not talking to Amazon about it because Amazon is some special place where tariffs uniquely show up. They’re talking to Amazon because they’re a major retailer, can talk about a wide range of products.

I’m not really a hardware person, but purely in terms of logic gates, making a memory circuit isn’t going to be hard. I mean, a lot of chips contain internal memory. I’m sure that anyone that can fabricate a chip can fabricate someone’s memory design that contains some amount of memory.

For PC use, there’s also going to be some interface hardware. Dunno how much sophistication is present there.

I’m assuming that the catch is that it’s not trivial to go out and make something competitive with what the PC memory manufacturers are making in price, density, and speed. Like, I don’t think that if you want to get a microcontroller with 32 kB of onboard memory, that it’s going to be a problem. But that doesn’t really replace the kind of stuff that these guys are making.

EDIT: The other big thing to keep in mind is that this is a short-term problem, even if it’s a big problem. I mean, the problem isn’t the supply of memory over the long term. The problem is the supply of memory over the next couple of years. You can’t just build a factory and hire a workforce and get production going the moment that someone decides that they want several times more memory than the world has been producing to date.

So what’s interesting is really going to be solutions that can produce memory in the near term. Like, I have no doubt that given years of time, someone could set up a new memory manufacturer and facilities. But to get (scaled-up) production in a year, say? Fewer options there.