Cards Against Humanity buys land on Mexican border to stump Trump’s wall plan

(CNN)Cards Against Humanity, an irreverent card game company known for its attention-seeking pranks, says it bought land on the U.S.-Mexico border to block President Trump from building his wall.

On Wednesday morning, just a few hours after the launching the program on Tuesday, Cards Against Humanity said it was sold out.
“Donald Trump is a preposterous golem who is afraid of Mexicans,” said Cards Against Humanity on its web site. “He is so afraid that he wants to build a twenty-billion dollar wall that everyone knows will accomplish nothing. So we’ve purchased a plot of vacant land on the border and retained a law firm specializing in eminent domain to make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for the wall to get built.”
    Cards Against Humanity said that contributing to the land purchase and its legal defense was the first of six days of gifts that customers would be receiving in December.
    “On Day 1, all Cards Against Humanity Saves America recipients will get an illustrated map of the land, a certificate of our promise to fight the wall, some new cards, and a few other surprises.”
    Customers who wanted to join in had to complete a survey that included personal questions and the query: “Who did you vote for in the 2016 election?”
    The company did not say where the land is located. In a video describing the project, it says that it bought “acres” on the US-Mexico border, while displaying footage of wild horses galloping across desert scrubland.
    Cards Against Humanity did not immediately respond to an email from CNNMoney asking where the land is.
    The company, known for its popular “party game for horrible people,” engages in pranks like selling $50,000 worth of nothing on Black Friday, which they did in 2015, and raising $100,000 to dig a “Holiday Hole” to nowhere, which they did last year.
    Earlier this year, the company launched a new card game making fun of the tech sector, called Cards Against Silicon Valley, with cards labeled “understated sexism” and “Nintendo-based drinking games.”
    The company also applied to trademark the term “fake news,” Trump’s favorite moniker for CNN.

    Read more:

    40 People Share The Worst Moves They’ve Pulled In Relationships

    Reading through this fine batch of strikingly discouraging times people let the worst sides of themselves come out during relationships serves as a crash course manual in what NOT to do to the people you’re romantically invested in. If these people were trying to take shortcuts to ending their relationships quick as possible, then mission accomplished. 

    Then again, love makes folks do some damn crazy, nonsensical things. Whatever you do though, don’t break up with someone through text. That’s gotta be one of the worst symptoms, or results rather, from dating someone in a technology-addicted world. 

    Read more:

    The iPhone X is the most breakable iPhone ever

    Apple’s most beautiful (and expensive) iPhone yet is also its most fragile.

    Several reputable tech publications tested the iPhone X’s durability by subjecting it to a series of brutal scratch and drop tests. The verdict across the board is that the front and rear glass panels on the $1,000 flagship phone are extremely easy to shatter, despite Apple’s claim that it’s “the most durable glass ever in a smartphone.”

    The first test comes from CNET, which dropped the iPhone X onto a sidewalk from just three feet, or about pocket height. The phone suffered damage to three of its four corners on the very first drop. The cracks on the screen spread deeper and wider on the second drop from the same distance. Because of those poor results, CNET gave the device the dubious honor of “most breakable iPhone ever.”

    A few days later, electronics warranty provider SquareTrade uploaded a short drop test to YouTube. The iPhone X’s OLED display shattered and malfunctioned after being dropped onto its stainless steel side from six feet high.

    The face-down drop was even worse. Cracks spread across the lower half of the screen, and again, the display malfunctioned, making the phone unusable. SquareTrade gave the iPhone X a breakability score of 90, or “high risk.”

    To make matters worse, the iPhone X is extremely expensive to repair. SquareTrade estimates the screen replacement would cost $279, while any further damage could bring repair costs beyond the price of a new iPhone 7.

    Our advice? Save another $20 and get yourself a good case and screen protector.

    H/T the Guardian

    Read more:

    Why You Should Think Twice About Choosing Free 2-Day Shipping For Online Shopping

    We’ve all been there. Running low on batteries, diapers, socks ― whatever ― go online, order and click the free two-day delivery option. Because, why not? It’s free and it’s fast.

    What people may not realize is that the speedy delivery comes at an environmental cost.

    A new video released by the University of California and Vox as part of their Climate Lab series aims to draw attention to the unintended impacts of our need for instant gratification by highlighting the staggering scale of the digital shopping revolution.

    Since 2009, U.S. Postal Service deliveries have increased by 65 percent, according to UC Davis.As the holiday shopping season approaches, it’s estimated that online sales for November and December alone will hit $107.4 billion.

    E-commerce has made people’s lives easier. Nearly 80 percent of Americans shop online, and they can do so any time, anywhere. One in five people even do it while using the bathroom.

    It can also be greener than going to physical stores, since people don’t need to jump in their cars to get to there. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study found that a traditional store-visiting shopper had a carbon footprint almost two times that of an online shopper.

    However, there’s an important caveat. This environmental advantage of online shopping disappears if the shopper selects speedy delivery. 

    These rush deliveries are the ones breaking those benefits because now there is no time to consolidate, so there will be more trips for less cargo,” said Miguel Jaller, an assistant professor at UC Davis.

    In extreme cases, items may have to be flown in from another state or from another country. But the bigger issue is that companies have less time to organize the most efficient transport, which means trucks are sent out half full, increasing the number of trips and vehicles on the road.

    Carbon emissions per customer and per product shoot up as a result. Why this matters? These emissions trap heat, contributing to climate change.

    University of California/Vox

    A multi-year study by the University of Delaware, focusing on Newark, Delaware, found that online shopping burdened the transportation system in terms of speed, travel times and emissions. Delivery trucks added to air pollution and wear and tear on the roads, the report noted. 

    “Generally speaking, slower ground shipping is the greener choice over air shipping,” Mingxin Li, co-author of the study and a scientist at the Delaware Center for Transportation, said. “The prevalence of expensive, inefficient, and environmentally unsustainable quick, free delivery options, air freight or partial-load deliveries are becoming increasingly common.”

    What are the solutions? Smart traffic lights are one idea in UC’s video. These are being tested in cities, including Los Angeles. The city’s system uses sensors, cameras and computers to adjust signals responsively to keep traffic moving smoothly. This can make journeys faster and reduce idling, which cuts down emissions.

    While such systems are helpful, traffic may only be a marginal influence on pollution in some cities, said Josué Velázquez, director of the MIT Sustainable Logistics Department. “There are many other factors that affect the transportation emissions during delivery,” he said, such as the hilliness of the route. 

    Then there is “platooning.” Wirelessly connected trucks communicate with each other, maintaining a constant speed in a close line at highway speeds. Supporters say this can reduce congestion, lowering emissions and improving air quality. A recent paper from research company TNO says platooning could reduce fuel use by around 10 percent.

    University of California/Vox
    Platooning trucks which talk wirelessly to each other to maintain the same speed can reduce drag, saving fuel and cutting emissions.

    But reducing the impact of shipping is also about changing shoppers’ behavior and some of the impulses of consumerism, said Jaller. “We need to control ourselves. I think there’s also a lot of impulsive buying and induced demand.”  

    Free speedy shipping for all these goods may seem a no-brainer, but “we need to know that it’s not free for the system and for the environment,” Jaller said. “So we are not paying that externality.” 

    Jaller said changing consumer behavior is the way to solve the problem, whether that’s through incentives, taxes, or simply transparency about the actual cost of online products and services.

    One idea gaining ground is a “green button” on shopping websites, which allows customers to make the eco-friendly choice of waiting a little longer for their delivery to ensure it is shipped in the most energy-efficient way.

    Green buttons are something Velázquez has been testing at MIT. Providing an option that says “same-day delivery is equivalent to killing 3,000 trees” compared with one that says “if you wait three to four days, then it’s equivalent to killing 10 trees, and by the way we are going to plant 15,″ can really drive behavior, he said.

    Of course, delivery is just part of the impact of the goods we consume, which a study in the Journal of Industrial Ecology estimates contributes to more than 60 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. But it might be a good place to start.

    For more content and to be part of the “This New World” community, join our Facebook Group.

    HuffPost’s “This New World” series is funded by Partners for a New Economy and the Kendeda Fund. All content is editorially independent, with no influence or input from the foundations. If you’d like to contribute a post to the editorial series, send an email to

    Read more:

    ‘Silicon Valley’ shows how ridiculous the new iPhone X truly is

    Sometimes, it takes the cast of Silicon Valley to poke fun at the real world Silicon Valley.

    While the show masterfully ribs its own version of tech industry, a new cut from Funny or Die mashed scenes from Silicon Valley with Apple’s iPhone keynote to reveal the ridiculousness that is the IRL iPhone X. 

    Sure, the iPhone X is an impressive phone (it better be with that price tag), but the way Apple fans praise anything the company does is something we should all call out and laugh at. While cool, Animoji is not the breakthrough technology we need (or want) right now. 

    Read more:

    China Is About To Bring This Chilling Episode Of ‘Black Mirror’ To Life

    “Black Mirror” is a science fiction television anthology series that explores the consequences of technology we enjoy in the modern age, often giving its viewers an uncomfortable look into what our future may become.

    One episode called “Nosedive” paints a picture of what it would be like to live in a world where people’s Yelp-like ratings of each other determine their trustworthiness in society. If their individual scores drop too low — like what happened to the protagonist, Lacie — they not only become the outcasts of society, but may even be locked up as well.

    Sounds like a nightmare, right? Well, it’s set to become the reality for citizens of China just a few years from now. By 2020, the country plans to roll out its “Social Credit System” nationwide — and it will be mandatory for every citizen and company.

    While most of us are used to having our data tracked by sites including Google, Facebook and Instagram, the new system will also monitor residents’ credit history, friends, social interactions, shopping habits and how they spend their time in general — for example, how long they play video games.

    These behaviors will be rated as either positive or negative, raising or lowering a person’s “citizen score” and overall trustworthiness, which ranges between 350 and 950 points. This can in turn affect job and mortgage eligibility, what schools children can get into, and even a person’s ability to make friends as well.

    The policy states that “it will forge a public opinion environment where keeping trust is glorious. It will strengthen sincerity in government affairs, commercial sincerity, social sincerity and the construction of judicial credibility.” But anyone who’s watched the previously mentioned “Black Mirror” episode could clearly see people living under this rating system were anything but sincere in their interactions.

    Ironically, the only time Lacie ever feels truly free and herself is after she’s been imprisoned and removed from the social ranking system.

    Read more:

    4 Reasons Sexual Assault Victims Don’t Step Forward

    If you’re anything like me, a person who rarely pays attention to the ins and outs of Hollywood (beyond the Air Bud franchise), the sexual assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein barely registered in your brain. He is only one of the many, many, many high-powered men who have been accused of sexual harassment and/or assault in the last year. It’s almost impossible for a girl to keep all of those names straight in her head — HW is just a blip on the rapey radar.

    To my discredit, it wasn’t until beautiful, powerful women with bigger names than Weinstein’s stepped forward and told their stories that I started clicking on the headlines. In other words, I literally didn’t pay attention until Angelina Jolie — the prettiest, richest, most Hollywoody lady I can think of — said she was a victim, and even then, I didn’t faint with the vapors in shock. No one did. In fact, thanks to a hashtag originally created by activist Tarana Burke and a tweet by Alyssa Milano, we all learned at once that just about every woman each of us knows has been harassed or assaulted at one point in her life.

    And by the way, #MeToo.

    So here’s the big question: Why now? Why did it take the public exposure (gross) of a high-powered movie man for ordinary women to step forward and announce to friends, family, colleagues, and Becky H. from the seventh grade that they’ve been victimized?

    For me, the answer is that announcing yourself as a sexual assault or harassment victim to the people you love, respect, and/or barely know in any capacity is awful. Not shameful; I’m more embarrassed that I didn’t click on some celebrities’ painful stories about Harvey Weinstein than I am about my own background. #MeToo asked women to just step forward and align themselves with fellow survivors, and even that simple act was tough. Here’s why …


    Justice Is Vague, While The Promise Of More Pain Is Concrete

    Imagine that a Bad Thing just happened to you. Not your mother, sister, daughter, friend, co-worker, or an actress you like, but you. (I’m making this distinction because I believe that most of us actually care more about our loved ones than we care about ourselves. More on that in a minute.)

    Now that you — an interesting, fun, smart, ambitious person who has a million things to accomplish — have been assaulted or harassed, you have a choice. You can tuck this Bad Thing away in your brain and keep living your life as normally as possible, or you can step into the second part of the nightmare of assault: the part where you describe the experience over and over again in front of people who may or may not believe you, who might actually be paid to tear you to shreds in public, and who can destroy every dream or ambition you’ve ever had for yourself. Oh, and if you choose to step forward, your name and your assailant’s name will be linked forever and ever, even after you die. When people think of you, they’ll also think of him. That’s what you’re signing up for when you come forward.

    The best-case scenario is that everyone believes you, no one blames you for what happened, and no one thinks your pain is too insignificant for discussion if you weren’t raped. The worst-case scenario is that you end up on national television telling old men how your boss used to describe porn to you and once asked you “Who has put a pubic hair on my Coke?” before he was placed on the Supreme Court.

    Whether we’re talking about persistent unwanted advances in the workplace or rape, it takes a Batman-level sense of justice and ovaries of steel to walk into the hellscape of naming names. A lot of women (and kids and men) coldly and carefully look at the path ahead of them, then say “Nope!” and just keep living their lives as best they can.

    Until they realize that someone else might get hurt.

    I’m not a therapist or an expert or a historian of sexual misconduct, but I suspect that the nebulous concept of “justice” is rarely what compels a victim to come forward. The harm is done and will never be repaired. I think victims come forward when the fear of this same assault or harassment happening to other people becomes so gripping that they can’t handle it anymore and they have to say something. It’s the love of other humans, future unknowable victims, which fuels a woman’s fight through rape kits and police interviews and HR hearings and the courtroom glares of their assailant’s loved ones. And only the bravest, most selfless heroes can do it.


    Most Victims Don’t Have The Money Or Power To Say Anything

    I’ve done the math. As of this writing, the average Weinstein accuser is 44 years old and is describing things that happened about 20 years ago. If it took a mini-army of famous, rich victims and the combined efforts of journalists working for The New York Times and The New Yorker to tease those stories out of them, how in the world can we expect women who are living paycheck-to-paycheck to do the same? We shouldn’t.

    There are waitresses, housekeepers, retail workers, teachers, and housewives out there who can’t afford to tell their stories. They don’t have another job lined up, and most people can’t bank on the justice system or HR department to make sure everything turns out OK in the end. Especially not when history tells us it won’t. And what really sucks is that their harassers know it too.

    Even kids can imagine the financial cost of confiding their abuse. A child who is in a dangerous situation at home may not worry about their career trajectory, but they know that telling grownups about molestation by a primary breadwinner might lead to a divorce, a separation, a move, a change in schools, or actual hunger and years of poverty. And that might be the best scenario — that’s if the child has someone whom they can trust will take action to protect them. Kids aren’t dumb. They know their teachers aren’t going to adopt them and make sure the lights stay on at home once the abuse is known. Some kids do the math and decide they’d rather just continue in pain than disrupt their world.

    In fact, and I’m sorry I have to tell you this story, the #MeToo campaign was inspired by a little girl named Heaven who told a counselor that she was being sexually abused at home. The counselor couldn’t handle the little girl’s pain and sent her away with instructions to find someone who could “help her better.” The counselor was Tarana Burke, and it was her shame that drove what happened next:

    “I watched her walk away from me as she tried to recapture her secrets and tuck them back into their hiding place. I watched her put her mask back on and go back into the world like she was all alone and I couldn’t even bring myself to whisper … me too.”

    #MeToo started with a woman not helping another victim because the pain was too hard to handle. Survivors of assault and abuse know you might not believe them, and that you probably won’t know what to say or how to act even if you do believe them. They get it. So they just don’t tell you.


    Victims Might Get A Powerful Person’s Reprimand

    For years, Corey Feldman has been screaming that Hollywood is full of child molesters who prey on young actors, that some of them targeted him and his friend Corey Haim, and that at least one of the predators is still working in Hollywood. Nobody has taken him seriously … ever. He even said he named names back in 1993. None of those names were Michael Jackson, so no one cared. Here’s a 2013 video of acclaimed journalist Barbara Walters looking at Feldman like he’s an idiot before cutting him off mid-sentence by exclaiming, “You’re damaging an entire industry!”

    Walters has not apologized yet. I predict she’ll say something in a few days. On a related note, here’s what acclaimed fashion designer Donna Karan said in the immediate aftermath of the Weinstein allegations:

    “… how do we display ourselves? How do we present ourselves as women? What are we asking? Are we asking for it by presenting all the sensuality and all the sexuality?

    In other words, “Ladies and girls, are your yoga pants and bare midriffs inviting assault? Maaaaaybe?” (Update: She’s since apologized.)

    Meanwhile, acclaimed former child star and current working actress Mayim Bialik wrote a New York Times op-ed about how she probably hasn’t been harassed or assaulted because she dresses modestly, doesn’t flirt in public, and never got plastic surgery. I kid you not. In other words, “Ladies and girls, are your perfect bodies, tiny noses, and charismatic attitudes inviting assault? Maaaaaaybe?” (Update: She’s since apologized.) Neither Bialik or Karan are on my short list of people I’m turning to for opinions these days, but guess what? I’m on nobody’s list either, and here I am.

    Do you know who is on my list of people I’m looking to for opinions? Acclaimed politician Hillary Freaking Clinton, but I don’t think she gives a flying flip about women who are harassed by their bosses. Sidebar: Does everybody know that Clinton called Monica Lewinksy a “narcissistic loony toon” in the wake of Lewinksy’s affair with President Bill? (Update: There isn’t one! Clinton has supported her husband through one rape allegation, one groping accusation, one harassment allegation, and multiple affairs in the decades they’ve been together. I voted for the woman in spite of her Bill-shaped blind spot.)

    My point is that women aren’t always that great at caring about the suffering of other women. Sometimes we actively suck at it. Speaking of sucking …


    Victims Might Get A Powerful Person’s Weird Attempt At Empathy

    As the Weinstein scandal unfolded, nonvictim and documented molester Ben Affleck stepped forward with a statement denouncing Weinstein’s actions. He also said, “We need to do better at protecting our sisters, friends, co-workers, and daughters,” which caused the world to make a collective record scratch before answering, “Wait, what now?” Apparently, nobody told homeboy that Woody Allen, Bill Cosby, Donald Trump, and Bill Clinton also have daughters and have historically sucked in their relationships with women.

    Obviously, no one should have to bring a female human into the world to grasp the seriousness of sexual assault. And protection shouldn’t be a part of this conversation. Women don’t want their dads and co-workers to act like bodyguards when other people’s dads and co-workers walk into the room; they want to not be raped. So, bad job at reading the room, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon.

    That being said, I get it. The Blunder Twins were each putting their brains in the scariest spot in the world, imagining that someone out there could hurt your child. My list of all-time worst fears range from falling down a gentle hill to the general concept of fire, but number one is someone sexually assaulting one of my children. I’d rather fall down an elevator shaft and land on a pack of evil clowns (who are on fire) than imagine one of my kids being violated.

    I’ll put it this way: I don’t know Rose McGowan or Ashley Judd or the more than 40 (!) other women who have so far stepped forward with accusations against Weinstein. I’ve read their stories, and I imagine that if Weinstein had asked me to watch him shower or give him a massage, I would have responded with the same disgust they did. But if someone told me that it was an adult version of my daughter or son in the same scenario, my emotions go into overdrive. If the victim is me, I’m grossed out. If the victim is my daughter, I’m Liam Neesing. When Trayvon Martin was killed, President Obama said “this could have been my son,” and that was the most intimate, empathetic thing he could say in that moment.

    So yeah, men, if it takes picturing your child (or a friend or sister or mom or me, whatever) as a victim for you to get interested in the conversation, that’s fine. Just make it a mental exercise and don’t be weird about it.

    Read more from Kristi on Twitter.

    For more, check out 5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women and 7 Reasons So Many Guys Don’t Understand Sexual Consent.

    Subscribe to our YouTube channel and check out An Urgent Message to Guys Who Comment on Internet Videos, and watch other videos you won’t see on the site!

    Also follow our new Pictofacts Facebook page. Because you deserve the very best.

    Read more:

    These People Were Taken Seriously, But Then Everyone Found Out What They Believed In

    By Joseph Hayes, Contributor

    During the year 1927, Quentin Craufurd, the inventor of the wireless telephone and a 50-year-old ex navy officer, would keep a keen ear on his radio.

    Craufurd was not listening, however, to the BBC Radio service that had been founded that year. Instead, his aim was to make contact with fairies as part of an experiment. These experiments would continue until 1932 and Craufurd would claim success in detecting what he believed were “nine marsh fairies.”

    And Craufurd was no lone tinkerer. He was part of a group known as “The Fairy Investigative Society,” which would count among its members Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding, known for leading Great Britain’s defense against Nazi Germany during the Battle of Britain.

    In twentieth-century Britain, discussions of fairies were hugely popular and frequently appeared in the newspaper. In fact, search on the British Newspaper Archive for fairies reveals 593,629 entries between 1900 and 1949.

    This popularity was reflected in the infamous Cottingley Fairies Incident of 1917. This began when a series of photographs of so-called fairies taken by Frances Griffin and Elsie Wright and promoted by Sherlock Holmes author Arthur Conan Doyle gained huge attention. Doyle unsurprisingly would keep in contact with many at the Fairy Investigation Society over the years.

    Although the Cottingley photographs were later revealed to be hoaxes, the existence of fairies remained a deep belief for many. It was on November 4,1927 that the Daily Express drew attention to the creation of a “Fairy Research Society.”

    Despite this publicity, many of those involved in the investigation clung to secrecy.

    As Craufurd states concerning one such clandestine meeting, “Mrs. Claire Cantlon, a fairy seer, was then the Hon. Secretary, and a few of us met at a house in London. These were the halcyon days. It was the policy of the Society to remain rather secret, for we heard accounts from members who wished to hide their identity since they held high official positions, and we heard enough to know how strongly fairy-vision was established.”

    The society did not merely sit about pontificating about the existence of fairies. Instead, they compiled a rich archive of reports from across the country of different fairy sightings.

    The compiler of these reports author Marjorie Johnson claimed to have sightings of “hundreds of different kinds of fairies.” One account of an experience from a Miss Bay Kirkaldy in 1924 reads, “The evening sun was shining into it and here again the place was alive with the little people. The men-fairies seemed to be wearing tight-fitting trousers with red, blue, or green jerkins, and a kind of fisherman’s cap.

    The ladies seemed to wear a kind of shining white garment and had the same luminous quality as the fairies Bay had seen on the Christmas tree. The wings of both males and females were iridescent, though smaller and not so obvious in the males, who did not seem to fly around so much. They appeared to move incessantly, sliding up and down the grotto rocks and the branches of the shrubs.”

    A group including Quentin Craufurd, scientists, and an unnamed woman went further and attempted to contact fairies using the psychic technique of automatic writing blended with the modern technology of the wireless radio and photographs.

    Using this homemade equipment on some flowers where he believed fairies dwelled, Craufurd claimed to have registered the sound of “fairy music” or the sound of harps and bells. From this, he then communicated back and forth with these fairies.

    During the Second World War the Fairy Investigation Society would take many hard knocks.

    The War meant that the group’s meetings were disbanded and records were destroyed or went missing during the bombings of the Blitz. Meanwhile, wider society was perhaps becoming less tolerant of belief in fairies, as Society member Sir Hugh Dowding would experience firsthand.

    Despite his important role in defending Britain’s skies against Nazi Germany, Dowding was regarded as strange within Royal Air Force because of his quite public views on fairies, which included the belief that fairies were “essential to the growth of plants and welfare of the animal kingdom.”

    If before the war newspapers had treated the likes of the Fairy Investigation Society with good-humored interest, now they were the subject of ridicule and press attacks.

    In one article entitled “The Sex Life of an Elf,” the mocking tone caused key Society member Marjorie Johnson to withdraw into seclusion and become less active in interacting with those outside the society. Meanwhile, the founder of the Society, Quentin Craufurd, died in 1957, leaving future leadership uncertain.

    Even in its twilight years, however, the Fairy Investigation Society reached its zenith in terms of influence. Walt Disney would journey to Ireland in 1947 to seek out fairies and he is listed a part of the Society in both 1956 and 1957. While the Society may have been through many struggles, it was able to reach far further than a person might expect for such a group.

    Overall, the Fairy Investigation Society wound down in the 1960s, but the rise of ’60s Counter Culture would see a revival of interest in folklore and New Age mysticism.

    Pictured above: Walt Disney

    As Professor Simon Young notes, “In the end, as in the beginning, fear of ridicule kept the Fairy Investigation Society in the shadows.” However, in the very recent past, the Society has reformed in the aim of once again cataloguing incidents of fairy encounters.

    Read more:

    AT&T’s DirecTV Is Giving Refunds on NFL Packages Due to Protests

    Subscribers to AT&T Inc.’s DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket who want to cancel the service because of football players’ national anthem protests can get refunds, according to customer service representatives.

    The protests, which started with some players kneeling during the anthem to protest racial inequality, has expanded to teams and even owners linking arms in a show of unity. The issue has been magnified by tweets from President Donald Trump, who called the protests “disgraceful” and encouraged fans to boycott the NFL.

    AT&T is the exclusive home of the Sunday Ticket, which offers the full slate of Sunday afternoon NFL games. The telecommunications company declined to comment.

    The TV football package costs almost $300 a season, though AT&T offers various promotions and monthly pricing options.

    DirecTV normally has a no-cancellation policy for Sunday Ticket. The Wall Street Journal reported the refunds earlier Tuesday.

      Read more:

      The Guardian view on Catalonias referendum: the Spanish state has lost | Editorial

      Editorial: Police brutality has ignited the political crisis. Can Madrid and the pro-independence movement find a way forward?

      Spain is in crisis, and its prime minister appears to be in denial. The run-up to Sundays referendum on independence for Catalonia made it clear that the country was in trouble. But neither those arranging it nor those rejecting it can fully have anticipated the scenes at polling stations: police in riot gear beating peaceful protesters with batons, dragging voters out by the hair or throwing them down stairs, firing rubber bullets to disperse crowds even striking at Catalan firefighters and jostling with Catalan police.

      The immediate result of the violence was hundreds of casualties by mid-afternoon, according to Catalan authorities, and at least 11 wounded officers, according to the central government. The wider effect is the shock expressed well beyond Catalonia, and Spain. The outcome is almost certain to be that some of the Catalans indifferent or opposed tosecession until now, at least, the majority are pushed into the arms of the cause. Whowants to be ruled by a state like this, many are asking.

      Yet Mariano Rajoys response, in his address to the nation, was simple: there was no referendum and no problem police acted with firmness and serenity. Theresponsibility for all that had happened lay with the Catalonian government. Spain is paying for his determination to stop the illegal vote by the bluntest means and at all costs. His latest remarks are only likely to inflame matters.

      Catalan nationalists owe him much of their success in recent years. The Spanish financial crisis fuelled a surge in the independence movement, leaving many in the wealthy region feeling they were paying more than their fair share. But the shift in the public mood was spurred on when the constitutional court trimmed back a charter increasing the regions powers and already approved by the Spanish parliament after achallenge by Mr Rajoys Peoples party.

      Even so, support for independence peaked in 2013, at an estimated 49%. Catalan nationalists, who hold only a wafer-thin majority in the regional parliament, pushed the legislation for Sundays vote through it against considerable opposition; Catalans who wanted to remain in Spain were unlikely to vote. The Spanish constitutional court ruled it illegal and called for it to be halted. But Mr Rajoys heavy-handed response furthered the cause of secessionists again.

      The central government seized 10m ballotpapers; arrested key officials; dismantled the technology to connect voting stations, tally votes and vote online; blocked and removed voters from polling stations; and confiscated ballot boxes. Catalan officials told voters to print off ballot papers at home and said they could vote wherever they wanted. Whatever they may claim, the results are neither legally nor morally binding: whatever votes are tallied cannot truly represent Catalonias wishes. Betweenthem,the two sides have produced both a vote that is hugely contentious and aresult that is meaningless.

      The prime ministers address, made as condemnations of violence arrived from Jeremy Corbyn, theBelgian prime minister and the EUs Guy Verhofstadt though most member states sought to stay out of the affair is likely to fuel nationalists accusations of authoritarianism and complaints about the suppression of the Catalan will.

      But if Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont was right to say that the Spanish state had lost much more than what it had already lost, his assertion that Catalonia had won is at best half true. MostCatalans wished both for a referendum and to remain in a united country. They havebeen ill-served by both the state and theindependence movement. MrVerhofstadturged de-escalation, a negotiated solution bringing in all parties including the opposition in Catalonia andrespect for Spains constitutional and legal order. Heisright. Finding a way out of this mess willrequire a willingness to listen, to Catalans most of all.

      Read more:

      Technology Posts on IBP