Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

Group Chats About ICE Whereabouts Are Protected Speech. The FBI Is Investigating Anyway.

Group chats about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents aren’t illegal. But FBI Director Kash Patel doesn’t seem to care.

On Monday, Patel told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that the FBI was investigating a Signal group in which people had been chatting about ICE agents’ whereabouts.

The Trump administration has said that people are doxing federal agents, employing a term once reserved for the act of publishing private information about someone’s identity or address online. “Doxing” generally implies that this sharing is done with ill intent.

But there are all sorts of perfectly benign reasons why Americans—whether in the country legally or not—might want to keep tabs on where immigration authorities are going. Sharing this information allows people to protest, observe, or document ICE activity, or avoid run ins with ICE agents.

Chatting about ICE agent whereabouts is unambiguously speech that’s protected by the First Amendment. So the idea that the FBI would investigate on these grounds is worrying.

“There does not appear to be any lawful basis for this investigation,” said Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). “The First Amendment generally protects the publication of legally-obtained information, including much of what the Trump administration has labeled ‘doxxing.’ That protection extends to using an app to share information about ICE activity.”

In his interview with Johnson, Patel paid lip service to the First Amendment. Yet he also framed Signal chats pertaining to ICE whereabouts as inherently suspect and/or likely to lead to criminal actions. “You cannot create a scenario that illegally entraps and puts law enforcement in harm’s way,” he said, drawing a direct link between constitutionally protected activity and criminality.

Of course, trapping ICE agents and harming them would indeed be illegal. But the illegal part of that is the trapping, the plotting harm, and the harming, not merely the knowing where the agents are or chatting about where they are. And even if some individual ultimately uses the location information to inflict harm, it still would not make the mere sharing of that information illegal.

“The First Amendment has narrow exceptions for true threats and speech intended and likely to provoke imminent unlawful action, but the government cannot trigger those exceptions simply by claiming that speech puts officials in harm’s way,” notes Terr. “The First Amendment also does not protect criminal conspiracy, but that requires evidence of an agreement to commit a specific crime and a substantial step toward carrying it out. No such evidence appears in the Signal messages that have been made public.”

Keep reading

Beyond MREs: The U.S. Army Is Testing 3D-Printed Food for the Battlefield

The future of military rations may move beyond the iconic plastic-sealed MREs, replaced by meals printed layer by layer, tailored to each Soldier’s needs, and prepared on demand near the battlefield.

A new study conducted by researchers at the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) suggests that while many Soldiers initially recoil at the idea of eating 3D-printed food, hands-on exposure and tasting experiences can rapidly shift attitudes—potentially paving the way for a new era of personalized military nutrition.

Set to be published in the June 2026 edition of Future Foods, the research offers one of the first direct looks at how U.S. Army personnel actually perceive food made through additive manufacturing.

The findings are significant not only for military logistics but also for the broader future of food technology, where customized nutrition, reduced supply burdens, and decentralized production are becoming strategic priorities.

Beyond the novelty of 3D-printed food is the reality that modern warfare increasingly demands mobility, endurance, and sustained cognitive performance under extreme conditions. Feeding Soldiers efficiently—without weighing them down—remains a persistent logistical challenge. The Pentagon believes that 3D-printed food rations could help solve that problem.

“Initially, Soldiers showed skepticism and reluctance towards use of the technology,” the researchers behind the recent study note. “However, after 3DFP technology was explained and 3D-printed prototypes were provided, Soldiers’ acceptance increased considerably.”

The Army-led research team conducted focus groups and tasting sessions with 17 U.S. Army Combat Medics to examine their reactions before and after encountering 3D-printed food prototypes.

Initially, most participants were skeptical, associating printed food with artificial, overly processed products or bland “calorie blocks.” However, attitudes evolved as Soldiers learned more about the technology and sampled 3D-printed food themselves.

One Soldier summed up a key concern voiced early in discussions, saying 3D food printing “takes the identity out of food,” explaining that “When you’re eating chicken, you see that it’s chicken. But if it’s just a brick, it almost makes the feeding process monotonous.”

Essentially, soldiers echoed a broader public sentiment: when food no longer resembles its original ingredients, the experience becomes less satisfying and more tedious.

This reaction captures a central challenge to technologically engineered meals. Food is not just fuel. It is cultural, emotional, and psychological. This can be especially true in high-stress operational environments that warfighters face.

The Army’s interest in 3D printing food stems from long-standing logistical realities. Traditional Meals Ready-to-Eat (MREs) are durable and calorie-dense, but they are also heavy and standardized. A Soldier on a week-long mission without resupply might carry more than 30 pounds of food alone, often prompting troops to cut rations and risk undernutrition.

Additionally, standard rations cannot easily account for individual differences. Soldiers vary in metabolic demands, mission intensity, climate exposure, and dietary preferences. Many end up modifying or discarding parts of their meals, a practice known informally as “field stripping,” to get something closer to what they actually need.

However, 3D printed food offers an alternative. Meals can be produced near the point of need, customized nutritionally and structurally for each Soldier. Instead of shipping finished meals across the globe, raw ingredients or shelf-stable printing materials could be transported and transformed into tailored meals in the field.

That possibility makes understanding acceptance critical. Technology is useless if Soldiers refuse to eat what it produces.

Keep reading

Scientists Have Developed a Laser-Controlled Magnet With No Heating Required

Swiss researchers have developed a new technique that enables magnetic polarity changes using only a laser beam, an advancement with major potential for creating adaptable electronic circuits.

Using a special ferromagnet, researchers at the University of Basel and ETH Zurich were able to manipulate magnetic polarity using laser light, without any additional heating. The results were reported in a recent paper published in Nature, showcasing a major advancement that can produce different magnetic polarities at separate points within a single piece of material.

Ferromagnets Explained

Ferromagnets are the most common types of magnets used in our everyday world. They operate on the synchronized spin of electrons, all rotating in the same direction. That unanimous spin direction generates their magnetic power, allowing magnets to stick to metal and compasses to point toward the Earth’s magnetic poles.

However, this is only true below a certain temperature threshold. Inside magnets is also a chaotic thermal motion that remains ever-present. When the magnets are relatively cool, this motion is weak, allowing the electron interactions to overcome it and generate the synchronized spin. By contrast, above a certain temperature, the thermal motion becomes so powerful that it overrides the electrons’ synchronization, introducing larger-scale chaos that causes the material to lose its ferromagnetism.

That threshold is typically used to intentionally alter the polarity of a ferromagnetic material. Once the heated magnet begins to cool, its electrons again order themselves into a synchronized spin, typically in a different direction.

The new research by researchers at the University of Basel and ETH Zurich changes all of this, altering the polarity without applying any heat.

Constructing a Laser Switchable Magnet

“What’s exciting about our work is that we combine the three big topics in modern condensed matter physics in a single experiment: strong interactions between the electrons, topology and dynamical control,” said co-author Prof. Dr. Ataç Imamoğlu of ETH in Zurich.

The researchers built their laser switchable magnet from two thin, but slightly twisted layers of the organic semiconductor molybdenum ditelluride. Their two-layer material allowed topological states to form—that is, quantum states that are permanently defined and cannot be altered by small local disturbances.

Experiments revealed that the material’s electrons existed in tunable topological states that could be manipulated from insulating to conducting. More intriguingly, both states feature parallel aligned electron spins, turning the material into a ferromagnet.

“Our main result is that we can use a laser pulse to change the collective orientation of the spins,” says Olivier Huber, a PhD candidate at ETH.

Keep reading

Funding Disparities Rebrands American Gifted Children as Mentally Ill & Paris Hilton Doesn’t Help

America is starving for gifted education while financially rewarding psychiatric labeling. While bringing attention to the ADHD issue is appreciated, Paris Hilton’s recent Business Insider interview admitting “ADHD is my superpower” is a message wrongly pushing the alleged mental disorder as some kind of empowerment.

It is of interest that Hilton would raise the ADHD mental disorder to superpower status while, at the same time, the United States is significantly underfunding gifted education and financially incentivizing psychiatric labeling practices. High-profile figures, like Hilton, who frames ADHD as her “superpower,” contribute visibility to a growing trend in how behavioral conditions are marketed as sources of empowerment.

Hilton describes ADHD as fueling her “drive, curiosity, and creativity,” along with “a million ideas all the time.” She also mentions “rejection-sensitive dysphoria” (intense unbearable emotional pain caused by perceived rejection) as linked to ADHD, calling it “exhausting” and “painful.”

The financial disparities between ADHD funding and gifted programs are telling. The U.S. Department of Education’s appropriation for the Javits Gifted and Talented program is just $16.5 million, compared to estimates that ADHD services cost the U.S. education system $13.4 billion annually. The current system prioritizes mental health funding for diagnosis over the identification of superior educational ability.

Crucially, the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis lacks an objective biological marker… no blood test, brain scan, or X-ray. Put simply, there is no known abnormality that is the alleged ADHD. Instead, diagnoses rely on behavioral checklists and school-based screenings, broadening the label and creating pathways for the behavioral health industry and pharmaceutical market within educational settings.

This system warrants scrutiny beyond treatment facilities; it must also include how labeling pipelines shape outcomes. When behaviors are categorized as disorders, questionable mind-altering medication becomes the default intervention, steering children away from educational opportunities and toward clinical drug management.

Many gifted children, who often display heightened sensitivity and intensity, are instead mislabeled as having behavioral disorders. Characteristics such as defiance, oppositional behavior, hyperactivity, mood fluctuations, and attention difficulties—traits frequently seen in gifted individuals—are too often misinterpreted as pathology. Once labeled, these children are managed clinically rather than nurtured academically, a process perpetuated by the financial incentives inherent in current mental health policy, where the disparity between funding for education opportunities for the gifted receives a little more than $16 million, while ADHD-related programs enjoy nearly $14 billion in funding.

The widespread misdiagnosis of the nation’s gifted is consequential. When institutions classify gifted students as psychiatrically disordered, subject them to medication, and lower academic expectations, the result is lasting harm to individual lives and societal potential.

Historically, under President Eisenhower with the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the U.S. prioritized identifying high-ability students, supporting guidance and testing within schools. However, legislative priorities shifted under pressure from behavioral-health and pharmaceutical interests, moving schools away from talent identification toward managing behavior through diagnostic labeling and medication.

The funding imbalance suggests that gifted students are not overlooked by happenstance and, rather, are systematically converted into patients within a lucrative behavioral management industry.

Keep reading

You Can’t Have A Secure Border Without Deportations

In the wake of the Border Patrol shooting of anti-ICE agitator Alex Pretti, Democrats — and many Republicans — are utilizing his death to call for a “de-escalation” or a complete end of deportation operations while pushing, yet again, for so-called “comprehensive immigration reform.” But these politicians and pundits persistently ignore the reality that taking deportations at scale off the table undermines the entire immigration law enforcement framework President Donald Trump has so successfully implemented during his second term.

Prominent among the anti-deportation voices are, of course, Democrats Tim Walz and Jacob Frey (and their anti-ICE insurgency cells), but their numbers also include GOP Rep. Mike Lawler and editors at The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, along with Problem Solvers Caucus leaders Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Penn., and Rep. Tom Souzzi, D-N.Y., and a cacophony of the usual legacy media suspects. WSJ editors warned that Trump’s deportation campaign has become “a moral and political debacle.” The editorial board at the Post directed Trump to “de-escalate,” because “these enforcement tactics won’t turn the tide.” Lawler bemoaned federal agents “conducting forceful operations in American communities.” (Are they just supposed to ask nicely?)

Lawler and the Problem Solvers followed up their anti-deportation admonitions with the same types of ineffectual immigration reform suggestions that proved to be the kryptonite of the obsessively pro-immigration Republicans Trump bludgeoned on his way to the White House. (Byron York of Washington Examiner provided a thorough debunking of these sorts of measures in his daily newsletter.)

As is commonly the case with America’s political and pundit classes, these “experts” overlook or deliberately ignore a basic and obvious reality in their rush to advance their agendas on the backs of the fallout from Minnesota’s anti-ICE obstructionism and sanctuary policies: Deportation is the primary penalty for unlawfully entering the United States, and it’s also the most effective deterrent to would-be illegal border-crossers.

Yes, there are other consequences. Prosecutions for first-time illegal entrants are a somewhat rare possibility (with apparently little consequence). Repeat offenders can get away with something like a year in prison if caught, convicted, and sentenced, though repeated illegal crossings typically coincide with other criminal activity like drug smuggling and human trafficking, which leads to longer prison sentences. The vast majority of illegal aliens apprehended at the border — at least under the Trump administration — are simply denied entry or returned to their home country (or another country willing to take them) courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Fines and bans on reentry could come into play, and, of course, the person trying to enter America legally has wasted the money he scraped together to pay cartels to smuggle him in.

But all of that amounts to law enforcement having one hand tied behind its back if an illegal alien sneaking his way into the States and taking up residency in a Democrat-led sanctuary city (or really anywhere, if amnesty advocates have their way) has essentially made himself invulnerable to the enforcement powers of the executive branch. Once you’re in, you’re in — and it’s obvious to all thinking people how that incentive structure will play out. Crises in places like Portland, Oregon, and in California following the defanging of the justice system serve as illustrations of how particular crimes rise when authorities remove deterrents.

Border security measures essentially function as crime prevention, catching the would-be entrant in the act. Deportations are the just punishment for the crime of illegal immigration. Eliminating deportations from the toolbelt of federal law enforcement would be as illogical as a legal system in which authorities stop would-be vandals, thieves, arsonists, and rapists if caught in the act but casually “let bygones be bygones” if they aren’t able to prevent it. (Unsurprisingly, this is actually a position some leftists hold.)

Eliminating deportations, or, as is more likely, stripping them down to a mere performative husk of efficacy, would mean the nullification of immigration law — regardless of the fervor with which federal authorities apply other methods. Deportations work. While canny consumers of legacy media content will rightly dismiss much of the “huddling at home for fear of ICE” messaging as propaganda, there are nuggets of truth to be inferred: Illegal immigrants desperately want to avoid deportations. Democrats desperately want to prevent them. In fact, deportations change the entire calculus of unlawfully entering the United States and helping oneself to the government-funded gravy train of “resources.” They make breaking U.S. law legitimately risky.

Keep reading

Open-Source AI Models Vulnerable to Criminal Misuse, Researchers Warn

Hackers and other criminals can easily commandeer computers operating open-source large language models outside the guardrails and constraints of the major artificial-intelligence platforms, creating security risks and vulnerabilities, researchers said on Thursday.

Hackers could target the computers running the LLMs and direct them to carry out spam operations, phishing content creation or disinformation campaigns, evading platform security protocols, the researchers said.

The research, carried out jointly by cybersecurity companies SentinelOne and Censys over the course of 293 days and shared exclusively with Reuters, offers a new window into the scale of potentially illicit use cases for thousands of open-source LLM deployments.

These include hacking, hate speech and harassment, violent or gore content, personal data theft, scams or fraud, and in some cases child sexual abuse material, the researchers said.

While thousands of open-source LLM variants exist, a significant portion of the LLMs on the internet-accessible hosts are variants of Meta’s Llama, Google DeepMind’s Gemma, and others, according to the researchers. While some of the open-source models include guardrails, the researchers identified hundreds of instances where guardrails were explicitly removed.

AI industry conversations about security controls are “ignoring this kind of surplus capacity that is clearly being utilized for all kinds of different stuff, some of it legitimate, some obviously criminal,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, executive director for intelligence and security research at SentinelOne.

Guerrero-Saade likened the situation to an “iceberg” that is not being properly accounted for across the industry and open-source community.

The research analyzed publicly accessible deployments of open-source LLMs deployed through Ollama, a tool that allows people and organizations to run their own versions of various large-language models.

The researchers were able to see system prompts, which are the instructions that dictate how the model behaves, in roughly a quarter of the LLMs they observed. Of those, they determined that 7.5% could potentially enable harmful activity.

Roughly 30% of the hosts observed by the researchers are operating out of China, and about 20% in the U.S.

Rachel Adams, the CEO and founder of the Global Center on AI Governance, said in an email that once open models are released, responsibility for what happens next becomes shared across the ecosystem, including the originating labs.

“Labs are not responsible for every downstream misuse (which are hard to anticipate), but they retain an important duty of care to anticipate foreseeable harms, document risks, and provide mitigation tooling and guidance, particularly given uneven global enforcement capacity,” Adams said.

A spokesperson for Meta declined to respond to questions about developers’ responsibilities for addressing concerns around downstream abuse of open-source models and how concerns might be reported, but noted the company’s Llama Protection tools for Llama developers, and the company’s Meta Llama Responsible Use Guide.

Microsoft AI Red Team Lead Ram Shankar Siva Kumar said in an email that Microsoft believes open-source models “play an important role” in a variety of areas, but, “at the same time, we are clear-eyed that open models, like all transformative technologies, can be misused by adversaries if released without appropriate safeguards.”

Keep reading

How China supercharged ‘birth tourism’ and scammed American citizenship for up to 1.5 million babies

“Birth tourism” — where pregnant women have their child on America soil to become citizens — has been happening for decades. But Chinese elites have “weaponized” the practice, says author Peter Schweizer, raising a generation of legal citizens who have no loyalty to the US. In this excerpt from his new book, “The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon,” he explains how.

As we sang “Auld Lang Syne” in the early morning of Jan. 1, 2025, the first American newborn of the year arrived to much fanfare and celebration.

But this time, the baby was the progeny of Chinese citizens, and the mother had intentionally traveled to give birth on American soil, so that the child would automatically be granted US citizenship, a practice known as birth tourism. When such children turn 21, they can also apply for resident status for both of their parents.

This baby was born in the US territory of Saipan in the Pacific. More than 70% of the newborns in Saipan are Chinese birth tourist parents who utilize the territory’s 45-day visa-free visitation rules and the “Covenant of the Northern Mariana Islands” to guarantee that their children will have American citizenship.

That little child’s parents are two of many who are taking advantage of America’s birthright citizenship policies, based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. How many is anyone’s guess.

Since the US government does not directly track birth tourism, we must rely on estimates. In 2012, one nonprofit calculated that about 36,000 foreign-born women gave birth in the United States and then left the country.

Keep reading

Ed Department: California Violated Family Rights Law By Secretly ‘Transitioning’ Students

The U.S. Department of Education found the California Department of Education (CDE) in violation of federal family rights law on Wednesday for facilitating the gender “transition” of children and hiding it from their parents.

California pressured school districts across the state to violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a student privacy and parental rights law, by forcing them to conceal student records from parents about their child’s so-called “gender transition,” according to a senior department official detailing the results of an investigation Wednesday.

“FERPA requires that schools provide access to all education records upon a parent’s request. Schools do not get to choose which records they feel like providing to parents and which ones they don’t,” the official said. “As Secretary McMahon stated last year, this is not only patently unlawful, but morally reprehensible. Children do not belong to the state. They belong to their parents. Parents must know about the most sensitive information pertaining to their child’s health and well-being.”

A Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO) investigation found that at least 300 students in California were put on “‘gender support plans,’ many without parental consent or knowledge.” At CDE’s direction, school officials placed the “support plans” in “separate filing systems” to keep parents in the dark about the plans.

As The Federalist reported, school personnel are often some of the first and most influential people a student interacts with regarding confusion about sex and “gender,” and many push children toward “social transition” like name and pronoun changes, which often leads to destructive medical interventions.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom shoots down claim $236M program for California’s mentally ill has helped just 22 people in four years

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s $236 million program to help those with severe mental illness who bounce between homelessness and jail has helped a measly 22 people since the its launch in 2022, a new report reveals.

Newsom’s CARE Court was billed as a “completely new paradigm” to get the mentally ill off the streets and into treatment, with up to 12,000 people expected to benefit, the Daily Mail reported.

But only 22 people have been sent to treatment over the past four years, after a state analysis found that up to 50,000 could be eligible for the program.

The 22 court-ordered cases were among roughly 3,000 petitions filed statewide as of October. Of those, only 706 were approved, including 684 voluntary agreements that never intended the meet program’s goal, according to the Daily Mail.

Newsom has denied the report.

“CARE Court has helped THOUSANDS of Californians into care to recover — not 22. Even under the most NARROW definition (court-ordered treatment plans, which is one of many treatment outcomes), the number is 600+ and growing,” his press team tweeted.

Keep reading

Not Organic: Progressive Protest Industrial Complex Fueled by Professional Activist Class

Jason Rantz said activist groups operating in Seattle remain organized and strategically coordinated but are no longer attracting the same level of public participation seen during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, arguing that public rejection of radical anti-enforcement positions has limited their growth.

During an exchange with Andrew Kolvet, Rantz was asked to explain the current state of activism in Seattle and how organized and militarized those groups have become.

“So explain to us what is going on in Seattle. Then, related to Minnesota, you have been around these communist front groups longer than just about anybody in the country. You see it up close and personal in the Pacific Northwest. How big is this movement? How militarized are they? How organized are they? Explain it for our audience, please. Jason Rantz,” Kolvet said.

Keep reading