We finally find out on Piers Morgan what red pilled MTG from the Trump cult last year. According to MTG, a claim substantiated by the lawyers, Trump paid off 'Jane Doe 4' i.e. the 13 year old child that he raped in 2025.
We finally find out on Piers Morgan what red pilled MTG from the Trump cult last year. According to MTG, a claim substantiated by the lawyers, Trump paid off 'Jane Doe 4' i.e. the 13 year old child that he raped in 2025.
@rootwyrm the year is 2026 and linux on the desktop is finally an actual thing my actual dad asked for by name instead of a tired meme
the linux ecosystem is of course using this moment to comply in advance with fascism and embrace slop, ensuring it’ll become the exact operating system that was so terrible not even my dad could stand it
Cantor Fitzgerald — the firm previously run by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, now controlled by his sons, and which also custodies the reserves for offshore stablecoin issuer Tether — put $10 million into a Republican-focused crypto super PAC led by a Tether executive.

Cantor Fitzgerald, the Lutnick-tied financial services firm that owns a stake in and custodies reserves for the stablecoin issuer, is bankrolling a super PAC led by a Tether executive.
@esm @mcc yeah, that'd be my guess. It'll be interesting to see if anyone takes responsibility for the attack, if it is an attack as suspected
Tangentially, Russia tried to block bluesky the other day: https://netcrook.com/russia-blocks-bluesky-social-media-crackdown/

Russia has blocked Bluesky, the decentralized social platform, as part of a sweeping campaign to restrict online speech and foreign tech. Learn why the Kremlin targets these platforms and what it means for digital freedom.
The new Fellowship crypto PAC has filed its first fundraising disclosure. It reports a $10 million contribution from Cantor Fitzgerald (previously headed by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, now controlled by his sons) and $1 million from Anchorage Digital.
In particular, because these schemes have voters take home a unique code associated with their votes, I worry they open the door to a malicious party claiming (falsely) that the ballot isn't secret. Refuting those claims requires explaining an enormous amount of fairly advanced math, and still rests on some potentially dubious assumptions.
It's an example where improving something may end up reducing trust in it.