A simple convenience store snack has become an unlikely food highlight for foreign tourists visiting Thailand, with a viral TikTok video showing a visitor raving about a hot ham and cheese sandwich from 7-Eleven.

The clip, shared on 27 January 2026 by TikTok user @kaicoaching, a foreign tourist travelling in Thailand, shows the creator heading straight to the hot sandwich section inside a 7-Eleven store and picking up several packs without hesitation.

Rather than showcasing food from a famous restaurant, the video focuses on an everyday item familiar to most Thais. The tourist is seen buying four ham and cheese sandwiches at once, suggesting a strong craving after having tried them on a previous visit to Thailand.

The video quickly gained attention online, prompting a wave of comments from Thai users. Many expressed surprise that such a basic snack, often overlooked by locals, could be considered a must eat item by foreign visitors. Some noted that while the sandwich originated from Western cuisine, the version sold in Thailand appears to suit international tastes particularly well.

Others commented that Thai consumers tend to be selective about food, suggesting that items popular with locals are likely to appeal to visitors too. Several users also pointed out that 7-Eleven stores have become a common stop for tourists seeking a uniquely Thai everyday experience.

The hot toasted sandwich from 7-Eleven has frequently gone viral among foreign tourists, with many sharing similar experiences on social media and recommending it as a must try item when visiting Thailand.

The post 7-Eleven sandwich goes viral among foreign tourists in Thailand appeared first on Khaosod English.

A survivor of the Cambodian genocide who fled to the United States more than four decades ago has been detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), despite having a pending visa application, US media reported.

LAist News identified the woman as Sithy Yi, who arrived in the United States as a refugee in 1981 after escaping the Khmer Rouge genocide. She was detained earlier this month during a routine immigration check-in at an ICE office in Santa Ana, California.

Yi’s lawyer, Kim Luu-Ng, said she is being held unlawfully at the Adelanto detention centre. Although an immigration court ordered her removal in 2016, the order was later withheld due to concerns that she could face harm if returned to Cambodia.

Yi’s sister, Sithea San, told LAist that the family arrived in California in 1981, sponsored by their uncle, with just US$10. While Yi’s mother and sisters became US citizens by 1990, Yi’s path to legal residency was complicated by a medical condition that prevented her from attending school.

San said Yi’s detention on 8 January came as a shock, noting that her sister had consistently complied with immigration requirements and attended monthly ICE check-ins.
“She complied with every single thing that the government asked her to do,” San said.

According to Luu-Ng, Yi was fitted with an ankle monitor during a check in November after concerns that ICE might detain her, but officials at the time told her she would not be taken into custody as long as she complied with monitoring conditions.

The American Community Media website reported that Yi held a green card until 2011, when she was arrested on a drug conviction for possession with intent to sell. After completing her sentence and serving additional time for a parole violation, her permanent residency was revoked, leaving her without legal status.

Luu-Ng said Yi has since lived peacefully in her community and has never been considered a threat. She added that Yi did not have a Khmer interpreter during her drug trial, which she said amounted to a denial of due process.

“ICE has had numerous opportunities over the past 20 years to detain or deport my client but chose not to,” Luu-Ng said. “They repeatedly determined that she was not a danger to the community.”

The post Cambodian genocide survivor detained by ICE after 40 years in the US appeared first on Khaosod English.

Minnesota resident Nicole Cleland had her Global Entry and TSA Precheck privileges revoked three days after an incident in which she observed activity by immigration agents, the woman said in a court declaration. An agent told Cleland that he used facial recognition technology to identify her, she wrote in a declaration filed in US District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Cleland, a 56-year-old resident of Richfield and a director at Target Corporation, volunteers with a group that tracks potential Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) vehicles in her neighborhood, according to her declaration. On the morning of January 10, she "observed a white Dodge Ram being driven by what I believed to be federal enforcement agents" and "maneuvered behind the vehicle with the intent of observing the agents’ actions."

Cleland said that she and another observer in a different car followed the Dodge Ram because of "concern about a local apartment building being raided." She followed the car for a short time and from a safe distance until "the Dodge Ram stopped in front of the other commuter’s vehicle," she wrote. Cleland said two other vehicles apparently driven by federal agents stopped in front of the Dodge Ram, and her path forward was blocked.

"An agent exited the vehicle and approached my vehicle," Cleland wrote. "I remained in my vehicle. The agent addressed me by my name and informed me that they had 'facial recognition' and that his body cam was recording. The agent stated that he worked for border patrol. He wore full camouflage fatigues. The agent stated that I was impeding their work. He indicated he was giving me a verbal warning and if I was found to be impeding again, I would be arrested."

Cleland acknowledged that she heard what the agent said, and they drove off in opposite directions, according to her declaration. Cleland submitted the declaration on January 21 in a lawsuit filed by Minnesota residents against US government officials with the Department of Homeland Security and ICE. Cleland's court filing was mentioned yesterday in a Boston Globe column about tactics used by ICE agents to intimidate protesters.

Global Entry and Precheck revoked

Cleland said she could "discern no reason why the agents stopped me other than the fact that I was following them." But on January 13, she received an email notification that her Global Entry and TSA Precheck privileges for passing through airport security were revoked, she said. Cleland said the revocation appears to be a form of intimidation and retaliation:

I logged onto the Global Entry site and the notification letter indicated that indeed my status had been revoked and that they can’t always disclose the reason. The notification did provide some reasons that my status may have changed and the only one that makes sense was “The applicant has been found in violation of any customs, immigration, or agriculture regulations, procedures, or laws in any country.” I was not detained, I was not arrested so [it is] difficult to understand how I was “found in violation.”

I had been a member of the Global Entry program since 2014 without incident. I am not particularly concerned with the revocation of my privileges in isolation. However, given that only three days had passed from the time that I was stopped, I am concerned that the revocation was the result of me following and observing the agents. This is intimidation and retaliation. I was following Legal Observer laws. I [was] within my rights to be doing what I was doing.

Cleland said she and her husband travel frequently, and she is worried that they may encounter problems going forward.

"I am concerned that border patrol and other federal enforcement agencies now have my license plate and personal information, and that I may be detained or arrested again in the future," she wrote. "I am concerned about further actions that could be taken against me or my family. I have instructed my family to be cautious and return inside if they see unfamiliar vehicles outside of our home."

Cleland said she hasn't performed any observation of federal agents since January 10, but has "continued to engage in peaceful protests" and is "assessing when I will return to active observations."

We contacted the Department of Homeland Security about Cleland's declaration and will update this article if we get a response.

Extensive use of facial recognition

Federal agents have made extensive use of facial recognition during President Trump's immigration crackdown with technology from Clearview AI and a face-scanning app called Mobile Fortify. They use facial recognition technology both to verify citizenship and identify protesters.

"Ms. Cleland was one of at least seven American citizens told by ICE agents this month that they were being recorded with facial recognition technology in and around Minneapolis, according to local activists and videos posted to social media," The New York Times reported today, adding that none of the people had given consent to be recorded.

ICE also uses a variety of other technologies, including cell-site simulators (or Stingrays) to track phone locations, and Palantir software to help identify potential deportation targets.

Although Cleland vowed to continue protesting and eventually get back to observing ICE and CBP agents, her declaration said she felt intimidated after the recent incident.

"The interaction with the agents on January 10th made me feel angry and intimidated," she wrote. "I have been through Legal Observer Training and know my rights. I believe that I did not do anything that warranted being stopped in the way that I was on January 10th."

Read full article

Comments

Elon Musk claimed he “refused” invitations to visit Jeffrey Epstein’s private island after the financier was already convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor, but newly released Department of Justice documents prove that was a lie.

The emails show Musk actively trying to plan a visit and asking Epstein about “the wildest party” on his island.

more…

Technology companies spent part of the 2010s trying to convince us that we would want an 8K display one day.

In 2012, Sharp brought the first 8K TV prototype to the CES trade show in Las Vegas. In 2015, the first 8K TVs started selling in Japan for 16 million yen (about $133,034 at the time), and in 2018, Samsung released the first 8K TVs in the US, starting at a more reasonable $3,500. By 2016, the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) had a specification for supporting 8K (Display Port1.4), and the HDMI Forum followed suit (with HDMI 2.1). By 2017, Dell had an 8K computer monitor. In 2019, LG released the first 8K OLED TV, further pushing the industry's claim that 8K TVs were "the future."

A marketing image for 8K TVs that's (still) on LG's US website. Credit: LG

However, 8K never proved its necessity or practicality.

TV companies are quitting 8K

LG Display is no longer making 8K LCD or OLED panels, FlatpanelsHD reported today. Earlier this month, an LG Display representative told FlatpanelsHD that the panel supplier is “taking a comprehensive view of current display market trends and the trends within the 8K content ecosystem.”

“As our technical readiness is already complete, LG Display is fully prepared to respond immediately whenever the market and customers determine that the timing is right,” LG Display's representative said.

LG Electronics was the first and only company to sell 8K OLED TVs, starting with the 88-inch Z9 in 2019. In 2022, it lowered the price-of-entry for an 8K OLED TV by $7,000 by charging $13,000 for a 76.7-inch TV.

FlatpanelsHD cited anonymous sources who said that LG Electronics would no longer restock the 2024 QNED99T, which is the last LCD 8K TV that it released.

LG's 8K abandonment follows other brands distancing themselves from 8K. TCL, which released its last 8K TV in 2021, said in 2023 that it wasn’t making more 8K TVs due to low demand. Sony discontinued its last 8K TVs in April and is unlikely to return to the market, as it plans to sell the majority ownership of its Bravia TVs to TCL.

The tech industry tried to convince people that the 8K living room was coming soon. But since the 2010s, people have mostly adopted 4K. In September 2024, research firm Omdia reported that there were “nearly 1 billion 4K TVs currently in use.” In comparison, 1.6 million 8K TVs had been sold since 2015, Paul Gray, Omdia’s TV and video technology analyst, said, noting that 8K TV sales peaked in 2022.

Omdia's 2024 data shows demand shifting toward 4K TVs. Credit: Omdia

That helps explain why membership at the 8K Association, launched by stakeholders Samsung, TCL, Hisense, and panel maker AU Optronics in 2019, is dwindling. As of this writing, the group’s membership page lists 16 companies, including just two TV manufacturers (Samsung and Panasonic). Membership no longer includes any major TV panel suppliers. At the end of 2022, the 8K Association had 33 members, per an archived version of the nonprofit’s online membership page via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. Upon its debut, the 8K Association said that its goals include “promoting 8K TVs and 8K content to consumers and professionals” and “helping secure 8K native content for members."

Where 8K failed

It wasn't hard to predict that 8K TVs wouldn't take off. In addition to being too expensive for many households, there's been virtually zero native 8K content available to make investing in an 8K display worthwhile. An ongoing lack of content was also easy to predict, given that there's still a dearth of 4K content, and many streaming, broadcasting, and gaming users still rely on 1920×1080 resolution.

Gaming was supposed to be one of the best drivers for 8K adoption. The PlayStation 5 (PS5) Pro was originally marketed as supporting 8K. Sony officially rescinded that promise in June 2024, though. Due to bandwidth limitations, the PS5 Pro could only deliver 8K via Display Stream Compression over HDMI 2.1, making the feature incompatible with some 8K TVs.

There’s also the crucial question of whether people would even notice the difference between 4K and 8K. Science suggests that you could, but in limited situations.

The University of Cambridge’s display resolution calculator, which is based on a study from researchers at the university’s Department of Computer Science and Technology and Meta, funded by Meta, and published in Nature in October, suggests that your eyes can only make use of 8K resolution on a 50-inch screen if you’re viewing it from a distance of 1 meter (3.3 feet) or less. Similarly, you would have to be sitting pretty close (2–3 meters/6.6–9.8 feet) to an 80-inch or 100-inch TV for 8K resolution to be beneficial. The findings are similar to those from RTINGs.com.

The University of Cambridge's resolution limit matrix. Credit: Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge

8K's future

Even those interested in spending a lot of money on new-age TV technologies are more likely to investigate features other than 8K, like OLED, HDR support, Micro LED, quantum dots, or even the newer Micro RGB panel tech. Any of those is likely to have a more dramatic impact on home theaters than moving from 4K to 8K.

With the above-mentioned obstacles, many technologists foresaw 8K failing to live up to tech companies' promises. That's not to say that 8K is dead. You can still buy an 8K TV from Samsung, which has 8K TVs with MSRPs starting at $2,500 (for 65 inches), and LG (until stock runs out). With manufacturers refraining from completely ruling out a return to 8K, it's possible that 8K TVs will become relevant for enthusiasts or niche use cases for many years. And there are uses for high-resolution displays outside of TVs, like in head-mounted displays.

However, 8K TV options are shrinking. We're far from the days when companies argued over which had the most "real 8K" TVs. If there is a future where 8K TVs reign, it's one far from today.

Read full article

Comments

According to new data from the US Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), streaming video subscription prices jumped a whopping 29 percent year over year. That’s compared to the 2.7 percent jump in consumer costs seen more generally across other goods and services.

Of course BLS doesn’t explain why streaming video prices are soaring at such a dramatic rate. It’s something we’ve touched on repeatedly: as giant media companies increasingly consolidate, they’re trying to find new, frequently obnoxious ways to continue to goose quarterly earnings and create the illusion of perpetual growth despite a major slowdown in new subscribers.

That means significantly more ads (even if you pay for no ads). It means higher overall prices despite a decline in quality. It means layoffs, worse customer service, and companies that refuse to even host popular content they paid for because they’re too cheap to pay for residuals. It means new annoying restrictions on what you’re paying for, and companies that harass you for sharing your password with your college kid or elderly relative. It means more lazy, clickbait content catering to the lowest common denominator and less quality, thoughtful art.

It means enshittification.

And it’s going to get worse. The corrupt Trump administration is demolishing whatever is left of U.S. media consolidation limits, ensuring another massive round of harmful “growth for growth’s sake” mergers that temporarily goose earnings, create tax breaks, and badly justify outsized executive compensation, but generally make all of the existing problems in the industry worse (especially for labor and consumers).

According to the BLS, streaming and gaming subscriptions and rentals saw higher “streamflation” (read: price gouging) in 2025 than any of the other industries or services measured. The closest comparison was coffee (28 percent), which is largely soaring due to Trump’s ignorant and pointless tariffs that consumers have to pay for.

If you’re old enough, you’ve already watched this play out with traditional cable (many of the executives screwing up streaming were the same ones that screwed up traditional cable). So you know the pattern: they’ll continue to push their luck on price hikes, driving many people to free alternatives (or piracy), at which point the executives who made out like bandits blame everyone and everything but themselves.

None of this is reflected honestly by any of the media companies that cover this sort of thing, because their tendency toward honest and courageous journalism is being undermined by the same forces. Like check out this Hollywood Reporter breakdown of the issue, which they dub “streamflation.” They amusing hint at the fact there might be causes for this massive surge in pricing, but can’t get around to listing any:

Again, because enshittification doesn’t discriminate, and the same forces making streaming video more expensive and shittier are taking a hatchet to U.S. journalism and truth in service to the almighty dollar. Corporate media is incapable of reporting honesty about corporate media: there’s no money in it.