Hearts-on-a-chip can revolutionize heart health.

Chris Farley’s brother Tom shared some of his favorite memories of the late comedian, as well as his wish that the two could have...

Five years after Warren Buffett sold off all of Berkshire Hathaway's newspapers and predicted unending declines for most of the industry, Berkshire disclosed a new $350 million investment in the New York Times on Tuesday.

School identified $210,000 in donations Epstein associates Columbia University’s College of Dental Medicine has sanctioned two of its affiliates over ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Records recently made public by the Justice Department showed the officials had sidestepped standard procedures to secure admission for Epstein’s girlfriend, according to The New York Times. “Dr. Source

(OPINION) In tonight’s podcast, I am honored to be a guest on the Enfoque podcast with Marcia Castillo, where we discuss a strange prophecy in the Book of Daniel about a kingdom that would be cut down but emerge again in the last days from the roots and stumps left in the Earth. In this […]

The post Rest in Piss Jesse ReeEStream 02-17-26 appeared first on SALTY.

Wisconsin’s S.B. 130 / A.B. 105 is a spectacularly bad idea. It’s an age-verification bill that effectively bans VPN access to certain websites for Wisconsinites and censors lawful speech. We wrote about it last November in our blog “Lawmakers Want to Ban VPNs—And They Have No Idea What They're Doing,” but since then, the bill has passed the State Assembly and is scheduled for a vote in the State Senate tomorrow. In light of this, EFF sent a letter to the entire Wisconsin Legislature urging lawmakers to reject this dangerous bill. You can read the full letter here. The short version? This bill both requires invasive age verification for websites that host content lawmakers might deem “sexual” and requires that those sites block any user that connects via a Virtual Private Network (VPN). VPNs are a basic cybersecurity tool used by businesses, universities, journalists, veterans, abuse survivors, and ordinary people who simply don’t want to broadcast their location to every website they visit. As we lay out in the letter, Wisconsin’s mandate is technically unworkable. Websites cannot reliably determine whether a VPN user is in Wisconsin, a different state, or a different country. So, to avoid liability, websites are faced with an unfortunate choice: either resort to over-blocking IP addresses commonly associated with commercial VPNs, block all Wisconsin users’ access, or mandate nationwide restrictions just to avoid liability.  The bill also creates a privacy nightmare. It pushes websites to collect sensitive personal data (e.g. government IDs, financial information, biometric identifiers) just to access lawful speech. At the same time, it broadens the definition of material deemed “harmful to minors” far beyond the narrow categories courts have historically allowed states to regulate. The definition goes far beyond the narrow categories historically recognized by courts (namely, explicit adult sexual materials) and instead sweeps in material that merely describes sex or depicts human anatomy. This approach invites over-censorship, chills lawful speech, and exposes websites to vague and unpredictable enforcement. That combination—mass data collection plus vague, expansive speech restrictions—is a recipe for over-censorship, data breaches, and constitutional overreach. If you live in Wisconsin, now is the time for you to contact your State Senator and urge them to vote NO on S.B. 130 / A.B. 105. Tell them protecting young people online should not mean undermining cybersecurity, chilling lawful speech, and forcing residents to hand over their IDs just to browse the internet. As we said last time: Our privacy matters. VPNs matter. And politicians who can't tell the difference between a security tool and a "loophole" shouldn't be writing laws about the internet.