Wikimedia Commons picture of the day for September 2 [Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed]
| Picture of the day |
|---|
,_mar_Rojo,_Egipto,_2023-04-15,_DD_36.jpg)
|
Red Sea bannerfish (Heniochus intermedius), Red Sea, Egypt. The Red Sea bannerfish attains as maximum total length of 18 centimetres (7.1 in) and is native to the western Indian Ocean where it is found in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. It's associated with coral reefs where it is most frequently recorded as a solitary fish or in pairs, although large schools have been recorded. The juveniles form large schools, particularly in areas of deep reef where there is a low density of corals. They feed on both zooplankton and benthic invertebrates but the extent to which they feed on live coral has still to be determined. It is an oviparous species which forms monogamous pairs for spawning. It's collected for the aquarium trade but its collection is of a limited scale and is not believed to be a threat to the species population.
|
Wikimedia Commons picture of the day for September 3 [Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed]
| Picture of the day |
|---|
|
Anna, with Max supporting his mother, decorates a sign for the Almabtrieb. Freiburger Alpe, Bavaria, Germany, September 2024.
|
Wikimedia Commons picture of the day for September 4 [Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed]
| Picture of the day |
|---|
|
Café and restaurant “Marienhöhe”, Norderney, Lower Saxony, Germany
|
Wikimedia Commons picture of the day for September 5 [Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed]
| Picture of the day |
|---|
|
Tallinn old town during sunrise. View from Patkul viewing platform.
|
Wikimedia Commons picture of the day for September 6 [Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed]
| Picture of the day |
|---|
_1.jpg)
|
Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) near Narayani River, Chitwan Community Forest buffer zone, Nepal
|
Wikimedia Commons picture of the day for September 7 [Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed]
Wikimedia Commons picture of the day for September 8 [Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed]
| Picture of the day |
|---|
|
Sunset over Trommekilen, a part of Brofjorden, as seen from Norrkila, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden
|
Reporting Indicates RFK Jr. Directly Intervened To Keep PA Deaths Off CDC Measles Report [Techdirt]
The measles outbreak, that began in America nearly two years ago, has only increased in velocity. We recently talked about the deaths of two children in Pennsylvania who both died while infected with measles. I’m altering my language slightly here from that original post in which I described those children as having died of measles purely to acknowledge that there are some, including RFK Jr., who are trying to dispute the cause of those deaths. I’m comfortable stating that they died of measles, as are state officials in Pennsylvania, and as are competent local health professionals like Paul Offit. As explained in a previous post, the ruptured spleen that one newborn died from is an expected symptom of measles in newborns. Kennedy is trying to claim that the cause of death is the spleen, as though the measles infection played no role. That’s dumb, and he’s dumb and a liar, but here we are.
Well, when it comes to CDC reporting on the measles outbreak, the dedicated public page for tracking the numbers was last updated the day of this writing, September 4th. The data generally demonstrates just how shit of a job Kennedy and his crackerjack group of assclowns in government are doing in combating the outbreak. Keep in mind that Kennedy has publicly claimed that he’s doing an awesome job in all of this.
Cases? Up with 4 months left in the year.
Total number of hospitalizations? Up with 4 months left in the year.
Deaths? Well…
The page didn’t always read that way. For a brief moment several days ago, the death count simply stood at 2. Why? Because the CDC questioning state reporting on any statistic surrounding a medical outbreak like this is pretty much unheard of. It’s not how this works. And there was no explanation for why that change was made, other than it was done so on orders from newly confirmed CDC Director Erica Schwartz. Schwartz, you should recall, raised many eyebrows during her confirmation hearings when she was asked if she would refuse the influence of RFK Jr. if he wanted her to deviate from science and factual information, as he did with Susan Monarez on the topic of vaccines previously. She avoided the question entirely by stating she didn’t believe Trump or Kennedy would ever try to exert that kind of influence upon her.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Schwartz’s testimony came when senators repeatedly asked her what she would do if (or when) she’s put in the same position as Monarez. Schwartz responded as if it hadn’t happened and would never happen. “I do not believe that the president or the secretary would ever do what you just mentioned,” she told Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at one point, prompting him to reply: “Really?”
We can be done with Schwartz entirely at this point. While she entered into her confirmation hearings with a good reputation and the cautious approval of all kinds of national medical groups, it’s clear that her failure to answer the above question is of consequence. That’s because new reporting indicates it was Kennedy himself who told her to keep those two Pennsylvania deaths off the CDC measles report.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is still secretly counting two measles deaths that were deleted from the agency’s public measles data—a deletion that occurred at the direct request of anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., according to two reports released today.
Early today, Reuters reported that Kennedy instructed new CDC director Erica Schwartz to delete the two deaths from the agency’s website. CDC staff had reportedly already reviewed information about the deaths and accepted the characterization that they were measles-related. Still, Schwartz deleted the deaths without objection, insiders told Reuters. According to previous reporting, the two deaths were added and then removed from the CDC’s website within hours on August 30.
Now, I will deign to note that Kennedy has disputed this report. But who really gives a shit, considering that Kennedy has demonstrated a willingness to both fudge the facts when it comes to medical data and that he’s been perfectly happy to lie directly to Congress. If he’ll lie to senators, there’s no doubt he’s willing to lie to you and the rest of the public. I personally have no doubt that this is yet another lie being told by someone with no conscience. And I’ll note that we typically call those people sociopaths.
As I mentioned above, this is not how CDC statistical reporting has traditionally worked. State health officials send the data in, having done their own due diligence, and the CDC reports on the data. In this case, CDC is suddenly disputing the data and claiming that the state hasn’t provided all the documentation needed to associate the deaths with measles. The state, unsurprisingly, is calling bullshit.
In an earlier statement to Ars Technica, HHS said that the two deaths in Pennsylvania “have not been confirmed based on the information currently available to CDC.” A spokesperson did not respond to a follow-up question about what information the CDC was lacking and/or awaiting from the state.
Pennsylvania’s state health department has said that it has provided the CDC with all the required information.
I’m sure they have. Just as I’m sure that Kennedy is attempting to save face here by pulling this nonsense. Meanwhile, while Kennedy is primarily concerned with his own ego, I’ll remind our dear readers that there are two tiny fucking coffins in the ground from children who died as a result of Kennedy’s incompetence. He’s worried about him, not about you, your children, or your community.
Get his ass out of HHS. Get him out of government. The same goes for Schwartz and any other officials Kennedy has put in place in government. They all must go, as they are poisoned by Kennedy’s mere presence. Burn it all down and let’s start again.
Or else we’ll have more deaths, no matter how the government tries to hide them from view.
Kanji of the Day: 温 [Kanji of the Day]
温
✍12
小3
warm
オン
あたた.か あたた.かい あたた.まる あたた.める ぬく
気温 (きおん) — air temperature
温泉 (おんせん) — hot spring
温暖 (おんだん) — warm
温室効果ガス (おんしつこうかガス) — greenhouse effect gas
温かい (あたたかい) — warm
地球温暖化 (ちきゅうおんだんか) — global warming
温か (あたたか) — warm
温度 (おんど) — temperature
低温 (ていおん) — low temperature
体温 (たいおん) — temperature
Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.
Kanji of the Day: 幅 [Kanji of the Day]
幅
✍12
中学
hanging scroll, width
フク
はば
大幅 (おおはば) — big
幅広い (はばひろい) — extensive
小幅 (こはば) — small
肩幅 (かたはば) — shoulder width (breadth)
増幅 (ぞうふく) — amplification
幅広 (はばびろ) — wide (e.g., belt, shoes, ribbon)
全幅 (ぜんぷく) — full
値幅 (ねはば) — price range or fluctuation
走り幅跳び (はしりはばとび) — running long jump
川幅 (かわはば) — width of a river
Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.
New Release: Tor Browser 15.0.22 [Tor Project blog]
Tor Browser 15.0.22 is now available from the Tor Browser download page and also from our distribution directory. This version includes important security updates to Tor. If you find a bug or have a suggestion for how we could improve this release, please let us know. The full changelog since Tor Browser 15.0.21 is:
Send us your feedback
Full changelog
Some Tech Companies Have Privately Pushed Back On ICE Subpoenas. They Should All Do More. [Techdirt]
In a handful of known cases, large social media companies have privately pushed back against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) subpoenas when the agency tried to unmask anonymous users who tracked immigration activities or criticized the government.
As ICE engages in a pattern of illegal and chilling investigations, any resistance is welcome. But social media companies can do more. When companies receive these unlawful subpoenas, they should be clear with the public that they will not hand over the data unless a court compels them to do so. In addition, companies themselves can take the government to court to challenge these unlawful subpoenas on behalf of their users.
Publicly challenging these unlawful subpoenas in court has the dual purpose of protecting individual users who may lack the resources or know-how to challenge a subpoena on their own, while also discouraging ICE from issuing similarly unlawful subpoenas in the future.
Companies have a responsibility to protect the privacy of their users. That responsibility does not end simply because companies wish to avoid the ire of this administration—which has sought to chill other powerful institutions like news outlets, law firms, universities, and non-profits.
ICE has sent hundreds of subpoenas to large technology companies like Google, Meta, and Reddit seeking basic subscriber information like name, email address, IP address, and session times.
Some of these subpoenas have targeted people who engaged in protected activity—like tracking immigration actions, criticizing the government, or attending a protest. People have a First Amendment right to document law enforcement activities and criticize the government online, without retaliatory government investigations. This right has become more important as immigration agents have engaged in invasive, unconstitutional, and sometimes violent conduct.
In a handful of cases, users themselves have successfully pushed back. After receiving notice of these subpoenas, users have challenged them in court, relying on pro-bono lawyers from groups like the ACLU or Civil Liberties Defense Center. Companies have been largely absent from these court proceedings.
While not appearing in court, companies like Meta and Reddit have sometimes pushed back behind the scenes.
For example, on September 11, 2025, ICE sent administrative subpoenas to Meta seeking to unmask users who ran Instagram and Facebook accounts that tracked immigration activity in Pennsylvania. On September 19, 2025, Meta’s Law Enforcement Response Team told ICE that the agency did not have the “statutory authorization” to seek the records. It asked for more detail about the investigation and said “Meta will take no further action with respect to this summons until it receives this information.” Later, Meta informed ICE that it planned to notify the users about the subpoenas, since no gag order had been obtained. The government disclosed this information in one of EFF’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against ICE and other agencies.
On October 3, 2025, Meta notified the user about the subpoena. Despite its private pushback, Meta told the users it would comply with the subpoenas unless they mounted a court challenge within 10 days—which they did with the help of the ACLU. Ultimately, ICE withdrew the subpoenas when it became likely that ICE would lose the case in court.
In another example, Reddit documented its pushback in a transparency report released a few months ago. Reddit reported that in the second half of 2025, the company received three Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subpoenas seeking account information from 11 users who posted content critical of ICE. In the report, the company stated that “Reddit objected to these legal demands because the users appeared to be engaged in protected activity under the First Amendment, and law enforcement withdrew their requests.” The company reported that most other DHS subpoenas it received appeared to be routine.
EFF’s demand that technology companies do more to protect their users is not unprecedented. Twitter (now X) did so successfully in the first Trump administration.
On April 6 2017, Twitter went to court to challenge a DHS subpoena that sought to unmask a Twitter account named “@ALT_USCIS,” which frequently criticized the administration’s immigration policies. Twitter challenged the subpoena on both statutory and First Amendment grounds. A day later, DHS withdrew the subpoena and Twitter dismissed the case. The incident led to an inspector general investigation, which criticized a tactic that DHS is still engaged in.
In other circumstances, companies have also gone to court to protect their users and shield themselves from burdensome legal process. In 2013, Microsoft challenged a search warrant for the content of emails stored on servers outside the United States. In 2015, Apple challenged a court order to break the security of its iPhone during an investigation into the San Bernardino shootings. And in 2007, Yahoo challenged the constitutionality of government requests at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.
Cool Cool Cool: Hegseth’s DoD Is Running A Secret Network Of Online Influencers [Techdirt]
It would be nice to go a day or two (or three-day weekend!) without being apprised of some new awfulness from this administration. Since that’s not going to happen, let’s check in with the latest shitshow!
And here it is: the Pentagon has “enlisted” some X.com influencers to thrust and parry on behalf of the Defense Department because it apparently can’t (lol) defend itself from online haters, much less wage the sort of war its unofficial name would suggest it can.
Sad! as the POTUS himself might say. Extremely sad, and by “sad,” I mean “pathetic.” One of the most powerful government agencies in the entire world has been reduced to co-opting X users with (not all that great!) follower numbers to act on its behalf. (h/t Simple Justice, in which Scott Greenfield recounts his own experience with one of the DoD’s new stable of “influencers”)
The Pentagon has secretly installed several conservative military veterans with large online followings in government roles, declining to disclose their assignments as they amplify Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s viewpoints and attack those who scrutinize the Trump administration, according to people familiar with the matter and corroborating material.
Psy-op but on main. That’s the stuff! [slaps vein vigorously] Who has this extremely powerful and voraciously violent department roped into its online “might makes right” scheme? Well, it’s a blend of the somewhat-influential and the barely-influential. I mean, we’re talking rookie numbers… at least in the context of the Defense Department’s budget and reach.
Neither the Pentagon nor those involved have disclosed the government roles despite the Trump administration’s claims that they are running the most transparent Defense Department ever.
Those involved include Rob Maness, a retired Air Force colonel, and Kurt Schlichter, a retired Army colonel, people familiar with the matter said.
[…]
Both served for decades in uniform and, since retiring, have turned from the military to conservative commentary. Maness has more than 135,000 followers on X, while Schlichter has nearly 620,000.
Another retired Army colonel and influencer, Thomas Anderson, was listed in Pentagon records earlier this year with a “.civ” email address and assigned to Tata’s office, according to people familiar with the matter and records reviewed by The Post. An attorney, he writes online under the pen name Cynical Publius and has more than 323,000 followers on X.
Pentagon records seen by the Washington Post — which include email addresses linked to the Defense Department — close the loop. What’s unclear is how much any of these pro-Pentagon “influencers” are being paid (if anything), nor how long they’ve been acting as unofficial PR reps for the DoD.
What is clear is that the Defense Department would prefer to pretend this isn’t happening. Requests for comments have failed to generate even a perfunctory “no comment.” And even the brashest of Trump appointees have been unwilling to light up the socials with insults targeting WaPo journalists, journalists in general, or make wild-ass claims about national security.
The radio, as they say, is silent. There’s been no effort to sweep this under the rug, apparently because the DoD is going to pretend, for now at least, that there’s nothing worth grabbing the broom for, much less bending down and lifting up the nearest rug.
What makes this doubly disturbing is the Defense Department’s ongoing war on journalists. This effort has included kicking out 95% of journalists from the Pentagon and only allowing access to those who are willing to print propaganda, rather than facts. This perverse form of house-cleaning has now extended to even the DoD’s own in-house news outlet, which has seen editors and journalists resign or get fired for refusing to bend a knee to Hegseth and censorial demands.
The irony here isn’t even enjoyable. Ever since it took power, the Trump administration has claimed any opposition to it must be the result of “paid” protesters. Meanwhile, it has secretly created its own shadow network of proponents to push its agenda while pretending to just be regular social media users with no underlying agenda. Trump is the Soros he wants to see in the world. Hypocrisy is just another word for nothing left to lose, I guess.
The DOJ’s AI Fair Use Brief Is Correct, But From A DOJ That Has No Credibility [Techdirt]
I am never asking the monkey’s paw for a federal government that defends fair use again.
For decades on Techdirt, I’ve talked about the absolute necessity of strong fair use, and have been disappointed over and over again at how little the federal government has fought for fair use. For decades, the rare times when the federal government has weighed in on copyright cases, it’s often been in support of copyright maximalism. So, when the government finally makes a strong stand for fair use… it’s this White House? With this DOJ? And, in defense of a giant centralized AI provider?
Sigh.
So, look, you’re right to be skeptical about the DOJ weighing in regarding the big OpenAI copyright case filed by the NY Times. You’re right to be skeptical about the DOJ’s motives. You’re right to be skeptical about OpenAI’s motives.
But the DOJ is correct in its legal analysis. AI training absolutely is fair use, and a ruling the other way would blow a hole in fair use protections that have nothing to do with AI, including everything from search engines to book scanning to reverse engineering to (most importantly) text and data mining for research. Also, the NY Times’ case against OpenAI is incredibly weak, and (as I’ve discussed) involves bizarre theories of copyright that would put all sorts of companies (including the NY Times itself!) at real risk of liability for doing basic reporting. So, having the federal government weigh in and make good points could actually be helpful.
However, this is also why it’s so frustrating that the Trump DOJ and Todd Blanche (and Pam Bondi before him) completely burnt through the presumption of regularity by repeatedly filing bullshit briefs in bullshit cases. Because when they actually file a reasonable thing in an important case, judges are still going to be quite skeptical.
But, in this case, the DOJ is correct.
We’ve talked about some of this already, regarding the big case against Anthropic where Judge William Alsup found that AI training was easily fair use.
Much of the coverage of the DOJ’s filing focuses on the “national security” claims which the filing itself spends much of the opening on — the argument that if we don’t let American companies train on everything, China will eat our lunch in AI. That argument is pretty weak, and it’s also unnecessary. The fair use analysis stands on its own without any appeal to beating our adversaries. But much more interesting (and correct) to me is the argument that if training is not fair use, then only a few giant, wealthy companies can afford to create AI tools, and we’d just be recreating the broken “big tech” structures of the last decade, rather than enabling more decentralized, more widely competitive tools:
An erroneous fair use ruling would hamper competition in the market for LLMs, because only the largest technology companies might have the capital necessary to pay licensing fees. And such licensing fees would disproportionately benefit legacy media outlets due to the sheer volume of their written publications. By contrast, if not hindered by a strained understanding of copyright law, LLMs can and should help level the playing field between mainstream and independent publishers, for several reasons. Authors with limited resources can use LLMs to compete (by, for example, using an LLM to generate an image to accompany an article—which otherwise might require a photographer or license). And LLMs can direct users to dissenting sources that offer contrary information or perspectives. It is not in the public’s interest for the largest technology companies to have an oligopoly on LLM training due to licensing entry barriers that function primarily as large subsidies for old mainstream media companies.
To me this is the whole ballgame, and part of what makes it so frustrating that many people insist training can’t be fair use. They often think the end result is somehow punishing the “big” AI companies, but the reverse is true. A finding against fair use locks in the biggest AI companies, and wipes out everyone else, especially decentralized open weight models that actually empower end-users without enabling tech giants.
The DOJ also cites all the right precedents (including some that previous administrations were not happy about) on a point that gets mangled constantly: fair use isn’t just a defense you raise after infringing. It means there was no infringement in the first place.
A copyright owner’s exclusive rights are thus subject to various exceptions and limitations. For example, “copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.” Feist, 499 U.S. at 349- 50. “This principle, known as the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy, applies to all works of authorship.” Id. at 350.
Relatedly, and as most relevant here, the “fair use” doctrine provides that certain secondary uses of a copyrighted work are “not an infringement.” 17 U.S.C. § 107. Although fair use originated as “judge-made,” Congress subsequently codified it. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 576. The statute continues a common-law tradition, which recognized that certain amounts and types of copying must occur to promote the purposes of the Intellectual Property Clause. See id. at 575 (citing U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl.8). Fair use is an “equitable rule of reason that permits courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster.” Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 593 U.S. 1, 18 (2021).
It also notes (correctly, though contrary to the belief of many non-copyright lawyers) that fair use was written to be broad and flexible, not just based on a specific set of categories, or if you meet specific rules:
The preamble of section 107 specifically recites six uses likely to result in a finding of fair use: “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . ., scholarship, or research.” But determining a “fair use” is “not to be simplified with bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 576-77. As such, the statutory list is not exhaustive. See 17 U.S.C. § 107 (identifying purposes “such as” the listed set). The statute’s legislative history confirms the same. See Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 562 (1985); Pac. & S. Co., Inc. v. Duncan, 744 F.2d 1490, 1496 (11th Cir. 1984); Cambridge Univ. Press v. Becker, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1225 (N.D. Ga. 2012). The House Report for section 107 indicates Congress’s intent for a flexible inquiry that can adapt to new technologies and scenarios:
[T]here is no disposition to freeze the doctrine in the statute, especially during a period of rapid technological change. Beyond a very broad statutory explanation of what fair use is and some of the criteria applicable to it, the courts must be free to adapt the doctrine to particular situations on a case-by-case basis.
H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 66 (1976); see also id. at 65 (“[S]ince the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts.”).
The DOJ agrees with Alsup’s analysis that training is quite clearly fair use as transformative.
The first statutory fair-use factor, the “purpose and character of the use,” requires consideration of “whether the new work merely ‘supersede[s] the objects’ of the original creation (‘supplanting’ the original), or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578-79 (quoting Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342, 348 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841) (No. 4,4901) (Story, J.) and Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 562). The Supreme Court has described the latter type of use as “transformative.” Id. “[T]ransformative uses tend to favor a fair use finding because a transformative use is one that communicates something new and different from the original or expands its utility, thus serving copyright’s overall objective of contributing to public knowledge.” Authors Guild, 804 F.3d at 214.
The copying of protected text articles as part of training an LLM is a use of a different kind or character that is “transformative—spectacularly so.” Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2025). The New York Times alleges that OpenAI’s training results in a model that “predict[s] words that are likely to follow a given string of text based on the potentially billions of examples used to train” OpenAI’s LLMs, such that the LLMs can subsequently generate original responses to a wide range of user inputs. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW, ECF 1677 ¶ 75 (Aug. 21, 2026). An OpenAI LLM thus uses the copyrighted work not to duplicate the work’s expressive content, but as part of a process to learn and act on statistical patterns in written text, including vocabulary, syntax, and knowledge. The purpose of the copying (to build an intelligent, interactive model) differs in kind from the purpose of the copied work (to use language to directly entertain or educate a reading audience). This use of text-based works to create an LLM engine for “innovative tools” that can “edit an email . . . , translate an excerpt from or into a foreign language, write a skit based on a hypothetical scenario, or do any number of other tasks” is undoubtedly “highly transformative.” Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2025).
Notably, the whole concept of “transformative use” being so central to fair use is generally traced back to Judge Pierre Leval’s wonderful 1990 Law Review article “Toward a Fair Use Standard.” At the time he wrote that, he was a federal judge in the Southern District of NY, where this case is being heard (side note: it’s ridiculous that Leval’s “Toward a Fair Use Standard” article seems to mainly only be available behind JSTOR’s paywall…. if ever there were an article that should be available freely…).
Beyond the transformativeness, the DOJ leans heavily (again, correctly) on the other big factor that shows up in fair use cases: the impact on the market. As we said when the NY Times first floated this lawsuit, no one is replacing the NY Times with ChatGPT. They serve very different purposes. And the DOJ filing emphasizes this:
Using a copyrighted work to train an LLM—without more—generally does not result in this sort of substitution because it does not “reveal[]” a significant amount of original “authorial expression.” Authors Guild, 804 F.3d at 224; see also, e.g., Bartz, 787 F. Supp. 3d at 1031 (“[T]raining LLMs did not result in any exact copies nor even infringing knockoffs of their works being provided to the public.”). In fact, training does not reveal anything to the public at all—it simply creates a copy of a protected work in order to teach an LLM to recognize relationships between data and adapt to new information. The potential for future outputs that might cause market harm is simply not relevant to evaluating an LLM training use under the required use-byuse analysis.
To be clear, even LLM outputs that compete with text articles—without reproducing or substantially resembling protected aspects of text articles—would not be substantially similar to, or substitutes for, copyrighted works in the relevant sense. When outputs “copy no protected elements of the original work, much less significant portions,” they cannot cause the relevant form of market harm just because they happen to be “in the same genre or category of works” as the original, given that “a genre is an uncopyrightable idea or method of expression.” Edward Lee, Copyright Dilution Under Constitutional Scrutiny, 25 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 1, 6 (2026) (citing Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629, 636 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[N]o poet can claim copyright protection in the form of a sonnet or a limerick.”)); accord Abdin v. CBS Broad. Inc., 971 F.3d 57, 70 (2d Cir. 2020) (no infringement where “an independent comparison of the works reveals that there is no substantial similarity between the protectible features of [the original]” and the secondary use). Whether a particular output or category of outputs is substantially similar to the copyrighted work, and whether any substantially similar reproduction might be a significantly competing substitute, are distinct questions involving distinct “challenged use[s]” (and potentially additional legal questions). Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 568. But outputs lacking in substantial similarity cannot cause the sort of market harm that is cognizable in the fair-use analysis.
I’m also happy to see the DOJ make a point that usually gets ignored in these cases: creative people learn by copying. It is natural. Creative people imitate others until they find their own voice. A ruling that training isn’t fair use would turn that whole creative learning trajectory into infringement:
This type of logic would have problematic implications for copyright law generally. To illustrate, when she was a teenager, Joan Didion “would type out” Ernest Hemingway’s “stories to learn how the sentences worked,” and as a result she considered him the greatest influence on her writing. See Linda Kuehl, Joan Didion, the Art of Fiction No. 71, The Paris Review (Issue 74, Fall-Winter 1978).18 By the Kadrey court’s logic, Didion should have incurred liability to Hemingway every time she published a piece, because the process by which she trained herself and the process by which she produced works was all one use, and her works competed with those of other authors in the market for literature. But “to make anyone pay specifically for the use of a book . . . each time they later draw upon it when writing new things in new ways would be unthinkable.” Bartz, 787 F. Supp. 3d at 1021.
I’m also glad to see the DOJ call out the simple fact that, for all of the NY Times’ whining about how awful it is that OpenAI trained on the NY Times (and basically every other published work out there), NY Times reporters regularly rely on LLM tools themselves. And… that it’s helping smaller media providers level up to compete with a media company as large and full of resources as the NY Times.
LLMs can inspire or help someone to write a story, compose a song, write a movie script, or produce any other kind of art. Indeed, authors at the New York Times itself are using LLMs to help them “conceptualize and edit” articles.19 Independent and start-up publications, as well as ordinary people, can too. For example, an independent writer used an LLM and his background as a physics teacher to offer a contrarian perspective about data center water usage and critique the New York Times.
This is a good filing, and it sucks that this DOJ is so untrustworthy that the court may discount it.
And while it’s easy to claim that this was just done because of how the tech oligarchs have lined up behind Donald Trump, there are some suggestions that this is not the case here. This filing looks like the work of a few lawyers at the DOJ who actually understand copyright law — which, these days, is its own kind of shocking. And the best sign of this is that Mike Davis, the MAGA whisperer who appears quite gleeful about how if you pay him, he’ll get your antitrust case to turn out the way you want, is absolutely freaking out about this filing, and went public with his demand that the DOJ withdraw the filing in a Fox News op-ed calling it “the art of the steal” — a phrase that reveals he has no idea what fair use is, since a use that isn’t infringement isn’t theft. (Also necessary: a reminder that Mike Davis became anti-tech only after big tech companies refused to hire him).
The court may decide to ignore it, but the DOJ’s filing is absolutely correct on the issue of fair use. It’s just too bad it’s coming from a DOJ that has spent every last bit of credibility it had on cases that deserved none of it.
Daily Deal: The 2026 Data Engineering Bundle featuring Databricks [Techdirt]
The 2026 Data Engineering Bundle has 7 online courses designed to help learners build skills that align directly with industry expectations. The focus is on practical tools and languages used by data professionals: Python for programming, Pandas and NumPy for data manipulation, foundational certification prep and specialized work with Databricks, an industry-standard platform for data engineering and analytics workflows. The content is on-demand, self-paced and designed to be revisited as learners build proficiency over time. It’s on sale for $35.
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
ICE’s Vetting Standards Are So Low It Can’t Even Be Bothered To Verify The Identities Of New Hires [Techdirt]
A whistleblower report delivered to the DHS Office of the Inspector General makes it clear ICE is willing to hire pretty much anyone who applies for the job. Keeping up appearances (and by “appearances,” I mean constantly pushing for 1,500-3,000 arrests per day) is tough when you don’t have the warm bodies to do all the kidnapping, so ICE has been on a hiring spree pretty much since day one of Trump’s second term in office.
Not only has ICE lowered its hiring standards, but it’s offering $50,000 signing bonuses to whoever can somehow survive its comfy chair of an on-boarding gauntlet. Consequently, ICE has not only been cannibalizing multiple local law enforcement agencies, but it’s handing out free money to exactly the sort of people you’d expect to respond to an ICE “Help Wanted” ad.
In other words, its people who think actor Dean Cain’s PSA for ICE jobs is just the sort of thing that puts lead in the pencils. Lots of other rejects have signed up as well: people who have already retired from law enforcement (because age no longer matters), as well as several others who definitely are attracted to the 99% power/1% accountability split of cop work, but probably aren’t capable of surviving even the minimal vetting that goes on at local cop shops.
Then there are the people who just want to hurt migrants, even if they’re way more likely to injure themselves while performing literally any physical effort. Finally, there are the disgraced cops who now have an employment option that fully embraces their bigotry.
And yet somehow some ICE applicants have failed to surpass the most minimal requirements any federal law enforcement agency offers (the FBI’s recent embrace of bestiality notwithstanding), which means ICE still needs more officers. And that means the standards that have been lowered several times already continue to drop.
In the wake of a hiring surge last summer, an official in charge of evaluating new recruits to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a dire warning.
[…]
Citing an “unprecedented lowering of standards,” the career ICE official said that “systemic breakdowns” had allowed applicants to receive job offers before they had passed basic fingerprint, identity or credit checks in a preliminary vetting process.
For an administration that clearly desires a “papers please” standard to be applied across the United States and directs the actions of the agency now expected to handle most of this “papers please” work, it’s almost hilarious to discover ICE applicants are getting job offers before their identities have been verified. That means it might be easier for an undocumented migrant to secure a job at ICE than one at the local food jobber.
This is happening while Trump and his MAGA cohorts are demanding everyone produce proof of citizenship before being allowed to vote. Meanwhile, ICE doesn’t even know if the person it’s trying to hire is actually the person the applicant says they are.
This isn’t just some rando speaking off the record. The New York Times has secured a copy of the whistleblower report submitted to the DHS Inspector General and spoken to the whistleblower directly:
The whistle-blower, a 17-year ICE veteran who spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of his claims, said the agency had cut corners in its rush to fill the ranks.
“We chose as an agency to be more convenient rather than thorough,” he said, describing the agency’s decision to reduce scrutiny of recruits in order to expedite hires. “By doing so, there was a potential to put lives at risk and to jeopardize national security.”
When you lower your hiring standards and skip steps to expedite on-boarding, it always makes things worse. Sure, a lot of this happened all over as pretty much any place that employed anyone tried to bounce back from the COVID pandemic. But it’s one thing to throw money at under-qualified candidates when all you’re trying to do is fill fast food orders. It’s quite another to discard these standards when civil rights, national security, and actual human lives are on the line.
A process that fully verified an applicant’s identity was discarded because it apparently took too long. ICE officials decided waiting 7 to 10 days to perform a background check was no longer tenable. By stripping out all of the difficult bits, the vetting process apparently became almost instant, with those doing the vetting told to make “judgment calls” on applicants despite having almost no verifiable information on hand.
The preliminary vetting process, which took seven to 10 days, was upended last summer. The vetters were told to make determinations on recruits without having the full security form, fingerprints or any polygraph testing, according to the former unit chief and a former federal official familiar with the process who was granted anonymity to speak freely about it.
That meant new hires were heading to training without having their identities, criminal histories and other basic information checked and verified, the unit chief said.
Note the “last summer” mentioned in the first paragraph. This isn’t a recent development. While it’s been known for awhile that ICE was lowering its standards (and cutting an entire month out of its 10-week training program), the impression delivered by the administration and ICE officials was that standards were slowly lowered over several months beginning sometime last fall. The reality is far, far worse: the decision to bring ICE recruits on board before fully vetting them actually began almost immediately — only a few months into Trump’s second term.
These are the people who have been violating rights regularly, up to and including beatings and killings, for months now. And these are the people who will soon be randomly stun-gloving US citizens and residents at their discretion, thanks to ICE’s contract with Compliant Technologies. All the while, ICE officials will continue to claim these officers have been fully trained to use the weapons they’re armed with as well as advised on the general contours of the Constitution.
But none of that is true because it cannot possibly be true. ICE doesn’t even really know if some of the people working for it are actually the people they claimed to be. And since it can’t even be bothered to perform that essential task, there’s no reason to believe they’ve received the minimum training to do their jobs competently, much less handle all the weaponry they’ve been inordinately blessed with.
“I don’t know” [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]
The opposite of “I don’t know” isn’t “I’m certain.”
No, the opposite is, “I’m not sure, but…”
“I don’t know” is a conversation ender. It is almost never followed by a useful question. Instead, it’s a form of surrender. Teach me! Show me answer! Don’t make me figure it out. Most of all, let me off the hook.
Traditional education is built around the helplessness of “I don’t know.” It gives the teacher and the system all of the authority, and requires the student to memorize, obey and regurgitate.
But useful inquiry doesn’t work that way. Neither does effective conversation or even therapy.
Instead, we engage.
We engage with our hunches and our inkling, and we examine the safe spot our apparent ignorance has landed us.
Socrates had no students who sat in the back row, taking notes.
Front row, hands up, ask questions. Inquire.
We’re not asking for a guarantee or a certificate. We want your focus, your analysis and your investigation.
Paramount Caught Using ‘Astroturf’ Group To Drum Up Fake Support For Merger [Techdirt]
We’ve well established how the $111 billion Paramount and Warner Brothers merger is terrible for labor, creatives, consumers, and markets. But the kind of behaviors Paramount leadership have been engaged in to sell the deal also give a pretty clear indication what kind of company we’re dealing with, and why they shouldn’t be allowed to control an even bigger slice of U.S. media.
Recent desperate moves by the company include accusing all deal critics of being “antisemitic,” threatening to take Paramount out of California if states attempt to enforce U.S. antitrust laws, and running press leak and PR campaigns (in close collaboration with their Trump allies) making all sorts of patently false claims as to why more media consolidation is great for America.
Paramount’s also been caught using an “astroturf” — or fake grass roots organization — to try and make it appear that the giant merger has more public support than it does.
The Intercept notes that the company has been employing the use of a nonprofit named Neighbors for Strong Communities to bombard California residents with text messages urging them to pressure on California AG Rob Bonta to drop his antitrust lawsuit against the company, claiming that enforcing antitrust law will be bad for Californians:
“In text messages to Californians that went out earlier this week, Neighbors for Strong Communities asked recipients to send Bonta messages raising the concern that his opposition to the merger will cost the state thousands of jobs — because of Ellison’s reported threat to move Paramount to Texas.”
In reality, mergers like this — particularly when involving Warner Brothers — have a long history of resulting in mass layoffs, higher prices, and lower-quality product as the merged company tries to pay down debt from the deal. There’s also nothing stopping Ellison from offshoring film and TV production if the deal is approved, continuing an existing trend for Hollywood.
A coalition of consumer rights groups under the banner of the Committee For The First Amendment (which actually defends consumers and discloses its funding) say the astroturf group was only formed three months ago by industry lobbyists and refuses to disclose its donors:
“The sender organization’s website is less than three months old. It discloses no founders, board members, staff, or funders, and the organization does not appear in ProPublica’s nonprofit database. Its newly updated address (1902-A Lincoln Blvd, Suite 1314, Santa Monica, CA) is a private PO Box at a UPS store. These are classic hallmarks of a corporate-backed astroturf campaign designed to manufacture the appearance of grassroots opposition.”
As is always the case with these groups, there’s usually no discernable paper trail, allowing both Paramount and Neighbors for Strong Communities to confidently insist the entire effort is authentic. And when you have to covertly pay organizations to support your giant merger, you just know the giant merger is great for everyone involved.
The Midterms Are a Looming GOP Disaster, Thanks to Trump [The Status Kuo]
I’m writing today for The Big Picture about the choices Trump is making that are turning a bad midterm environment for Republicans into what could be a historically terrible one.
The math already isn’t in the GOP’s favor. Trump’s approval has been sitting in the low-to-mid 30s in recent polls, and that kind of number tends to cost a party dozens of House seats. But instead of doing the normal thing — funding vulnerable candidates, letting them run on local issues, making the affirmative case for staying in power — Trump has spent the run-up to November doing the opposite.
Ready to relish in their misery? I lay out each of his errors and what they add up to for the GOP. Look for my piece this afternoon if you’re a subscriber to The Big Picture. If you’re not, you can sign up for free or become a valued paid supporter of our work here:
https://thinkbigpicture.substack.com/subscribe
I’ll be back tomorrow with my regular edition of The Status Kuo.
Jay
Stray Kids Label Hits Music Distributor With DMCA Subpoena Over Bootleg Track [TorrentFreak]
With nine Billboard 200 number one albums and stadium tours across three continents, Stray Kids ranks among the most successful K-pop groups.
This popularity also has its downsides. When the group or one of its members releases a new track, unofficial copies typically circulate within hours, and not only on the usual pirate sites.
Independent music distributors have made it surprisingly easy to get a song into legitimate stores. For a modest yearly fee, people can get access to services such as DistroKid, TuneCore, or Symphonic.
Uploading a file through these distributors gets it listed on official music platforms such as Apple Music, where it appears among the music industry’s biggest stars, complete with an ISRC code, a UPC barcode, and an auto-generated YouTube “art track.”
This system has democratized music distribution, but it also opens the door to potential abuse, as it can be used to distribute bootlegs or pirated tracks. Earlier this year, that is what happened to Stray Kids member Han.
On May 9, label JYP Entertainment published Han’s track “back to life” as a video on Stray Kids’ YouTube channel, as part of the group’s SKZ-PLAYER series. The song wasn’t available on streaming platforms at the time, which is typical for the series.
Despite the limited availability, the new track quickly gained traction. That was also the case for unofficial ripped releases, which started to spread on social media and various pirate sites. And it didn’t stop there.
JYP also noticed that the track appeared through official channels on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and Apple Music. The track appeared under the artist name “New Vibs,” published through distributor Symphonic.
Back in May, Stray Kids’ label already sent a DMCA takedown notice to the Tampa-based independent distributor Symphonic Distribution, urging it to take down the content. Similar notices were likely sent to the platforms as well.
The notice identified a release titled “Back to life” under the artist name “New Vibs,” delivered through Symphonic to YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and Apple Music.
“If the infringing content is not taken down promptly, we will have no choice but to pursue legal action to protect our copyrighted material,” the label wrote.
Symphonic’s legal team acknowledged the notice and said that it would investigate the matter. Meanwhile, with demand for the track still growing, JYP eventually released “back to life” on streaming platforms itself, weeks after the bootleg.
While that official release could have ended the matter, the label is not willing to let “New Vibs” off the hook just yet.
Last week, JYP’s lawyers at Arnold & Porter filed a DMCA subpoena application at a federal court in California, asking Symphonic to identify whoever is behind the “New Vibs” account.
These types of DMCA subpoenas are typically targeted at online intermediaries. They allow copyright holders to request information on alleged infringers from online platforms, without filing a lawsuit. A signature from the court clerk is sufficient.
JYP’s proposed subpoena seeks any and all information that can help to identify the New Vibs bootlegger.
Specifically, the label wants “the identities, including names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, payment information, account updates and account histories” of the Symphonic user or users involved.
This includes detailed payment records for the alleged copyright infringer, including bank routing and account numbers, and any associated addresses. The label hopes that this money trail will help to lead it to the culprit.
Whether Symphonic will simply comply, or whether the “New Vibs” account holder will appear in court to object, has yet to be seen. According to the information available to us, the clerk has yet to issue the subpoena.
—
Update: Symphonic Distribution responded to the article through a representative. The company says it acted on JYP’s notice immediately and has heard nothing from the label since.
“As soon as we received the claim in May, the content was taken down from all DSPs, and the account that distributed the link was terminated. We have not received any further correspondence on this issue from JYP Entertainment since the initial notice,” Symphonic says.
—
A copy of JYP Entertainment’s DMCA subpoena application is available here (pdf) and the proposed subpoena and additional details can be found here (pdf).
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
Kanji of the Day: 郡 [Kanji of the Day]
郡
✍10
小4
county, district
グン
こおり
郡部 (ぐんぶ) — rural districts
郡役所 (ぐんやくしょ) — county offices
郡長 (ぐんちょう) — district headman
郡県制度 (ぐんけんせいど) — county and prefecture system
郡県 (ぐんけん) — counties and prefectures
郡制 (ぐんせい) — county system
共産国家郡 (きょうさんこっかぐん) — Communist bloc
Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.
Kanji of the Day: 祈 [Kanji of the Day]
祈
✍8
中学
pray, wish
キ
いの.る
祈願 (きがん) — prayer (for something)
祈り (いのり) — prayer
祈る (いのる) — to pray
お祈り (おいのり) — prayer
合格祈願 (ごうかくきがん) — prayer for success in an entrance exam
祈念 (きねん) — prayer
祈祷 (きとう) — prayer
祈とう (きとう) — prayer
加持祈祷 (かじきとう) — incantation and prayer
祈祷師 (きとうし) — medicine man
Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.
Open Source Conference 2026 Tokyo/Fall に出展します [OpenStreetMap Japan]
OpenStreetMap Japan は、2026年10月17日（土）に東京都立産業貿易センター台東館で開催される「Open Source Conference 2026 Tokyo/Fall（OSC2026 Tokyo/Fall）」に出展します。 OpenStreetMap（OSM）は、誰でも自由に編集し、誰でも自由に利用できるオープンな地理情報データベースです。 今回のブースでは、OpenStreetMapそのものの紹介に加えて、コミュニティメンバーによるさまざまな活用事例を紹介します。 Web地図やアプリケーション、地域活動で作成した地図、マッピング成果の可視化などを通して、OpenStreetMapのデータが実際にどのように活用されているのかをご覧いただけます。 当日は、持ち込みPCによるデモや印刷した地図などを通して、次のような内容を紹介する予定です。 - OpenSt
Open Source Conference 2026 Hiroshima に出展します [OpenStreetMap Japan]
OpenStreetMap Japan は、2026年9月12日（土）にサテライトキャンパスひろしま（広島県民文化センター 5F）で開催される「Open Source Conference 2026 Hiroshima（OSC2026 Hiroshima）」に出展します。 OpenStreetMap（OSM）は、誰でも自由に編集し、誰でも自由に利用できるオープンな地理情報データベースです。 今回のブースでは、OpenStreetMapそのものの紹介に加えて、コミュニティメンバーによるさまざまな活用事例を紹介します。 Web地図やアプリケーション、地域活動で作成した地図、マッピング成果の可視化などを通して、OpenStreetMapのデータが実際にどのように活用されているのかをご覧いただけます。 展示は10:00〜16:00の予定です。OpenStreetMapをまだ使ったことがない方
The Why of My Labor [The Status Kuo]
It’s hard to process, but my little angel Riley turned two last weekend! She had a birthday party with her classmates at the Little Gym…
And then a celebration at home with her family! She wanted a princess butterfly theme. ❤️
Ronan particularly loved the cake!
This is how that happened…
Over this Labor Day holiday I took the kids on the local Catskill Mountain Train—Ice Cream Express!
Kids certainly love riding trains, but both of them love to fly, too!
This has been a magical summer for us in Kingston, NY, our new home. And Windsor has been really enjoying her time outside playing with the toddlers!
Ronan has not yet figured out that ears can serve as better handles than faces.
And Riley will sing at all occasions, even in French like her second cousins!
The innocence and joy of my children gives me so much hope for our future, and so many reasons to work hard to preserve it. Thanks to all who help me secure their future by supporting my work, and who help preserve our democracy by sharing my pieces with others.
Have a great Labor Day!
Jay
Missing Pension Contributions Can Cost You for Life [General Union]
When people think about social insurance (shakai hoken, or 社会保険), they usually think about health insurance or the deductions from their monthly paycheck. But one of the most valuable parts of the system is often overlooked: your future pension.
If your employer does not enroll you in Employees’ Pension Insurance when they are required to do so, you aren’t just losing benefits today—you may be losing retirement income for the rest of your life.
Employees’ Pension Insurance is designed to build your retirement income throughout your working life. Every month that you are properly enrolled contributes to your future pension. When an employer illegally keeps an eligible employee out of the system, gaps are created in that record. Those missing months can mean a lower pension after retirement.
Unlike unpaid wages, pension losses often go unnoticed for years. Many workers only discover the problem when they check their pension record or begin preparing for retirement. By then, the financial consequences may last a lifetime.
Japanese law requires employers to enroll eligible employees in social insurance. Yet some businesses still avoid their legal obligations by:
These practices can save employers hundreds of thousands of yen per worker each year by avoiding their share of health insurance and pension contributions, while leaving workers to bear the long-term cost through reduced retirement security.
One of the most frustrating aspects of illegal non-enrolment is that the true financial impact often isn’t known until retirement. A worker may know they were denied social insurance years earlier, but the full effect on their pension may not become clear until they begin receiving pension payments. By then, the employer has already benefited from years of unpaid contributions, while the worker faces a reduced pension for the rest of their retirement.
This is what makes these cases so serious. The damage isn’t limited to the years you were employed – it can continue for decades after you stop working.
For more than twenty years, General Union has helped workers obtain the social insurance coverage they were legally entitled to receive. We negotiate with employers, assist members in filing complaints, and work to ensure that workers are properly enrolled before years of pension contributions are lost.
But when employers refuse to take responsibility, the union is prepared to go further. We are currently pursuing legal action against employers that illegally failed to enroll eligible workers in social insurance. These cases seek not only to hold employers accountable for breaking the law, but also to establish that workers should not bear the lifelong financial consequences of an employer’s illegal actions. We expect these cases to have important implications for workers across Japan.
Many workers assume they have been correctly enrolled in Employees’ Pension Insurance simply because they have been working for years. Don’t assume – check!
Review your pension record and make sure your enrolment history is complete. If you believe you should be enrolled in social insurance but are not, seek advice as soon as possible. The earlier a problem is identified, the greater the opportunity to protect your future retirement.
An employer who illegally fails to enroll an eligible worker isn’t simply breaking an administrative rule. They may be reducing that worker’s retirement income for years—or even decades—to come. General Union believes every worker deserves the pension they have earned.
Your pension is built one month at a time. If those months are stolen, your retirement security can be stolen with them.
| RSS | Site | Updated |
|---|---|---|
| XML | About Tagaini Jisho on Tagaini Jisho | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
| XML | Arch Linux: Releases | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Carlson Calamities | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Debian News | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
| XML | Debian Security | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
| XML | debito.org | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
| XML | dperkins | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | General Union | 2026-09-09 10:00 AM |
| XML | GIMP | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Japan Bash | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
| XML | Japan English Teacher Feed | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
| XML | Kanji of the Day | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Kanji of the Day | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Let's Encrypt | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Marc Jones | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Marjorie's Blog | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | OpenStreetMap Japan | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | OsmAnd Blog | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
| XML | Popehat | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Ramen Adventures | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Release notes from server | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | SNA Japan | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Tatoeba Project Blog | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
| XML | Techdirt | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
| XML | The Business of Printing Books | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | The Luddite | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | The Popehat Report | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | The Status Kuo | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | The Stranger | 2026-09-09 01:00 PM |
| XML | Tor Project blog | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
| XML | TorrentFreak | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
| XML | what if? | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
| XML | Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed | 2026-09-09 02:00 PM |
| XML | xkcd.com | 2026-09-09 06:00 PM |
