"Japan's new HTV-X cargo spacecraft launched on its first-ever mission to the International Space Station on Saturday," reports Space.com: The robotic HTV-X lifted off atop an H3 rocket from Japan's Tanegashima Space Center at 8 p.m. EDT (0000 GMT and 9 a.m local Japan time on October 26). It is expected to arrive at the station for its capture and berthing on Wednesday (Oct. 29) at about 11:50 a.m. EDT (1550 GMT)...

The HTV-X's potential uses also extend beyond the ISS, according to JAXA. The agency envisions it aiding "post-ISS human space activities in low Earth orbit" as well as possibly flying cargo to Gateway, the space station NASA may build in lunar orbit as part of its Artemis program.

HTV-X's debut increases the stable of ISS cargo craft by one-third. The currently operational freighters are Russia's Progress vehicle and Cygnus and Dragon, spacecraft built by the American companies Northrop Grumman and SpaceX, respectively. Only Dragon is reusable; the others (including HTV-X) are designed to burn up in Earth's atmosphere when their missions are over.

Fujitsu has released a new laptop in Japan with a built-in Blu-ray drive. The FMV Note A A77-K3 includes a BDXL-compatible optical drive that can read and burn discs. Most laptop manufacturers globally stopped including optical drives in the second half of the 2010s. The Japanese market has refused to follow that trend.

Shops in Tokyo's Akihabara district recently experienced a spike in demand for optical drives and systems capable of reading Blu-ray discs, Tom's Hardware reports. Fujitsu sells two additional models in the FMV Note A line using Intel thirteenth-generation chips. Those systems include DVD drives instead of Blu-ray capability. Some other Japanese manufacturers also released optical-drive-equipped laptops earlier in 2025.

Long-time Slashdot reader theodp writes: Over at the Communications of the ACM, Bard College CS Prof Valerie Barr explains why she's Feeling Cranky About AI and CS Education. Having seen CS education go through a number of we-have-to-teach-this moments over the decades — introductory programming languages, the Web, Data Science, etc. — Barr turns her attention to the next hand-wringing "what will we do" CS education moment with AI.

"We're jumping through hoops without stopping first to question the run-away train," Barr writes...

Barr calls for stepping back from "the industry assertion that the ship has sailed, every student needs to use AI early and often, and there is no future application that isn't going to use AI in some way" and instead thoughtfully "articulate what sort of future problem solvers and software developers we want to graduate from our programs, and determine ways in which the incorporation of AI can help us get there."
From the article: In much discussion about CS education:

a.) There's little interest in interrogating the downsides of generative AI, such as the environmental impact, the data theft impact, the treatment and exploitation of data workers.

b.) There's little interest in considering the extent to which, by incorporating generative AI into our teaching, we end up supporting a handful of companies that are burning billions in a vain attempt to each achieve performance that is a scintilla better than everyone else's.

c.) There's little interest in thinking about what's going to happen when the LLM companies decide that they have plateaued, that there's no more money to burn/spend, and a bunch of them fold—but we've perturbed education to such an extent that our students can no longer function without their AI helpers.

The home appliance industry would like you to believe that gas-burning stoves are not a risk to your health -- and several companies that make the devices are scrambling to erase their prior acknowledgements that they are. From a report: That claim is at the heart of a lawsuit the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers has filed against the state of Colorado to stop it from requiring natural gas stoves, which burn methane, to carry health labels not unlike those on every pack of cigarettes. "Understand the air quality implications of having an indoor gas stove," the warning would read.

The law was to take effect August 5 but is now on hold, and state officials did not respond to a request for comment. In its federal lawsuit, the Association -- whose board includes representatives of LG Electronics, BSH Home Appliance Corp. (which makes Bosch appliances), Whirlpool, and Samsung Electronics -- asserts that the labeling requirement is "unconstitutional compelled speech" and illegal under the First Amendment. It calls the legislation a climate law disguised as a health law and, most strikingly, it claims there is "no association between gas stoves and adverse health outcomes."

"These are the last days of social media as we know it," argues a humanities lecturer from University College Cork exploring where technology and culture intersect, warning they could become lingering derelicts "haunted by bots and the echo of once-human chatter..."

"Whatever remains of genuine, human content is increasingly sidelined by algorithmic prioritization, receiving fewer interactions than the engineered content and AI slop optimized solely for clicks... " In recent years, Facebook and other platforms that facilitate billions of daily interactions have slowly morphed into the internet's largest repositories of AI-generated spam. Research has found what users plainly see: tens of thousands of machine-written posts now flood public groups — pushing scams, chasing clicks — with clickbait headlines, half-coherent listicles and hazy lifestyle images stitched together in AI tools like Midjourney... While content proliferates, engagement is evaporating. Average interaction rates across major platforms are declining fast: Facebook and X posts now scrape an average 0.15% engagement, while Instagram has dropped 24% year-on-year. Even TikTok has begun to plateau. People aren't connecting or conversing on social media like they used to; they're just wading through slop, that is, low-effort, low-quality content produced at scale, often with AI, for engagement.

And much of it is slop: Less than half of American adults now rate the information they see on social media as "mostly reliable" — down from roughly two-thirds in the mid-2010s... Platforms have little incentive to stem the tide. Synthetic accounts are cheap, tireless and lucrative because they never demand wages or unionize. Systems designed to surface peer-to-peer engagement are now systematically filtering out such activity, because what counts as engagement has changed. Engagement is now about raw user attention — time spent, impressions, scroll velocity — and the net effect is an online world in which you are constantly being addressed but never truly spoken to.
"These are the last days of social media, not because we lack content," the article suggests, "but because the attention economy has neared its outer limit — we have exhausted the capacity to care..." Social media giants have stopped growing exponentially, while a significant proportion of 18- to 34-year-olds even took deliberate mental health breaks from social media in 2024, according to an American Psychiatric Association poll.) And "Some creators are quitting, too. Competing with synthetic performers who never sleep, they find the visibility race not merely tiring but absurd."

Yet his 5,000-word essay predicts social media's death rattle "will not be a bang but a shrug," since "the model is splintering, and users are drifting toward smaller, slower, more private spaces, like group chats, Discord servers and federated microblogs — a billion little gardens." Intentional, opt-in micro-communities are rising in their place — like Patreon collectives and Substack newsletters — where creators chase depth over scale, retention over virality. A writer with 10,000 devoted subscribers can potentially earn more and burn out less than one with a million passive followers on Instagram... Even the big platforms sense the turning tide. Instagram has begun emphasizing DMs, X is pushing subscriber-only circles and TikTok is experimenting with private communities. Behind these developments is an implicit acknowledgement that the infinite scroll, stuffed with bots and synthetic sludge, is approaching the limit of what humans will tolerate....

The most radical redesign of social media might be the most familiar: What if we treated these platforms as public utilities rather than private casinos...? Imagine social media platforms with transparent algorithms subject to public audit, user representation on governance boards, revenue models based on public funding or member dues rather than surveillance advertising, mandates to serve democratic discourse rather than maximize engagement, and regular impact assessments that measure not just usage but societal effects... This could take multiple forms, like municipal platforms for local civic engagement, professionally focused networks run by trade associations, and educational spaces managed by public library systems... We need to "rewild the internet," as Maria Farrell and Robin Berjon mentioned in a Noema essay.

We need governance scaffolding, shared institutions that make decentralization viable at scale... [R]eal change will come when platforms are rewarded for serving the public interest. This could mean tying tax breaks or public procurement eligibility to the implementation of transparent, user-controllable algorithms. It could mean funding research into alternative recommender systems and making those tools open-source and interoperable. Most radically, it could involve certifying platforms based on civic impact, rewarding those that prioritize user autonomy and trust over sheer engagement.
"Social media as we know it is dying, but we're not condemned to its ruins. We are capable of building better — smaller, slower, more intentional, more accountable — spaces for digital interaction, spaces..."

"The last days of social media might be the first days of something more human: a web that remembers why we came online in the first place — not to be harvested but to be heard, not to go viral but to find our people, not to scroll but to connect. We built these systems, and we can certainly build better ones."

Last week Steam and other major storefronts crashed, reports the Guardian, including Nintendo's eShop, PlayStation Store and Microsoft Store. They were all "unable to cope with the demand for Hollow Knight: Silksong, the long-awaited sequel to the critically acclaimed 2017 indie hit Hollow Knight." (which had sold 15 million copies): SilkSong's release triggered widespread outages, with thousands of users reporting issues trying to buy the game in the first few hours of its release. Many were unable to complete purchases, with error messages persisting for almost three hours after the launch... Despite the technical hiccups, within 30 minutes of going live Steam reported more than 100,000 active players, suggesting many had managed to secure their copies.
Aftermath says the "bug-tastic" phenomenon displaced everything except Counter-Strike 2 and Dota 2 on Steam's list of most-played games. The Guardian notes that "At least seven other new games have delayed their launch in the past two weeks to avoid a clash..."

"People have been spamming the chat and the comments of every single game showcase or news event with the words 'Where's Silksong?' for years," writes the Guardian's video games editor: I've never seen another indie game achieve this level of notoriety before it was even released... As VGC points out, Atari released a similar game on the same day as Silksong (Adventure of Samsara) and it had only 12 concurrent players on Steam.
They add that "the hype is justified". Eurogame called Silksong "beautiful, thrilling and cruel." PC Game said Silksong "glows with a level of precision and imagination that's hard to find anywhere else" and "will beat you, burn you, rub your face in the dirt, and then dazzle you with another piece of a haunted clockwork world."

But at least some of the demand also came from the game's low price of $20 in the U.S., suggests Slashdot reader UnknowingFool (with variable regional pricing). "At 5.2M wishes, it was the most wish listed game on Steam. In Brazil, the local price was 74.95 Brazil Real or 13.94 USD." In the age of $70+ AAA games with additional costs, not everyone celebrated the consumer friendly price. Some independent game developers have expressed concern that their games may not sell as well compared to Silksong and cannot afford to charge less.
From ScreenRant: Hollow Knight: Silksong's unbelievably low price point of just $19.99 is exceptionally good value for the consumer. It is an incredibly lengthy game that is only marginally more expensive than its predecessor... it is proving to be a source of controversy for other indie developers who believe it will distort players' expectations.

"Freelance developers and entire companies are making a business out of fixing shoddy vibe coded software," writes 404 Media, interviewing one of the "dozens of people on Fiverr... now offering services specifically catering to people with shoddy vibe coded projects."

Hamid Siddiqi, who offers to "review, fix your vibe code" on Fiverr, told the 404 Media that "Currently, I work with around 15-20 clients regularly, with additional one-off projects throughout the year. ("Siddiqi said common issues he fixes in vibe coded projects include inconsistent UI/UX design in AI-generated frontends, poorly optimized code that impacts performance, misaligned branding elements, and features that function but feel clunky or unintuitive," as well as work o color schemes, animations, and layouts.)

And others coders are also pursuing the "vibe coded mess" market: Swatantra Sohni, who started VibeCodeFixers.com, a site for people with vibe coded projects who need help from experienced developers to fix or finish their projects, says that almost 300 experienced developers have posted their profiles to the site. He said so far VibeCodeFixers.com has only connected between 30-40 vibe code projects with fixers, but that he hasn't done anything to promote the service and at the moment is focused on adding as many software developers to the platform as possible...

"Most of these vibe coders, either they are product managers or they are sales guys, or they are small business owners, and they think that they can build something," Sohni told me. "So for them it's more for prototyping..." Another big issue Sohni identified is "credit burn," meaning the money vibe coders waste on AI usage fees in the final 10-20 percent stage of developing the app, when adding new features breaks existing features.

Sohni told me he thinks vibe coding is not going anywhere, but neither are human developers. "I feel like the role [of human developers] would be slightly limited, but we will still need humans to keep this AI on the leash," he said.
The article also notes that established software development companies like Ulam Labs, now say "we clean up after vibe coding. Literally."

"Built something fast? Now it's time to make it solid," Ulam Labs pitches on its site," suggesting that for their potential customers "the tech debt is holding you back: no tests, shaky architecture, CI/CD is a dream, and every change feels like defusing a bomb. That's where we come in."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Rainmaker Technology's bid to deploy cloud-seeding flares on small drones is being met by resistance from the airline pilots union, which has urged the Federal Aviation Administration to consider denying the startup's request unless it meets stricter safety guidelines. The FAA's decision will signal how the regulator views weather modification by unmanned aerial systems going forward. Rainmaker's bet on small drones hangs in the balance.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) told the FAA that Rainmaker's petition "fails to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety" and poses "an extreme safety risk." Rainmaker is seeking an exemption from rules that bar small drones from carrying hazardous materials. The startup filed in July, and the FAA has yet to rule. Instead, it issued a follow-up request for information, pressing for specifics on operations and safety. In its filing, Rainmaker proposed using two flare types, one "burn-in-place" and the other ejectable, on its Elijah quadcopter, to disperse particles that stimulate precipitation. Elijah has a maximum altitude of 15,000 feet MSL (measured from sea level), which sits inside controlled airspace where commercial airliners routinely fly. Drones need permission from Air Traffic Control to fly inside this bubble. Rainmaker's petition says it will operate in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace unless otherwise authorized. ALPA notes the filing doesn't clearly state where flights would occur or what altitudes would be used. Rainmaker and ALPA did not reply to TechCrunch's requests for comment.

The union also objects to the flares themselves, citing concerns about foreign object debris and fire safety. ALPA points out that the petition does not include trajectory modeling of the ejectable casings or analysis on the environmental impacts of chemical agents. However, Rainmaker says the flights will occur over rural areas and over properties owned by private landlords "with whom Rainmaker has developed close working relationships." [...] What happens next hinges on whether the FAA thinks those mitigations are sufficient. However it's decided, the agency's response will likely set the tone for novel cloud-seeding approaches.

An anonymous reader shares a report: OpenAI recently had both good news and bad news for shareholders. Revenue growth from ChatGPT is accelerating at a more rapid rate than the company projected half a year ago. The bad news? The computing costs to develop artificial intelligence that powers the chatbot, and other data center-related expenses, will rise even faster.

As a result, OpenAI projected its cash burn this year through 2029 will rise even higher than previously thought, to a total of $115 billion. That's about $80 billion higher than the company previously expected. The unprecedented projected cash burn, which would add to the roughly $2 billion it burned in the past two years, helps explain why the company is raising more capital than any private company in history.

An anonymous reader shares a report: It's broadly understood that electric vehicles are more environmentally friendly than their counterparts that burn only gasoline. And yes -- that includes the impact of manufacturing batteries and generating power to charge them. But even then, such generalizations gloss over specifics, like which EVs are especially eco-friendly, not to mention where. The efficiency of an electric car varies greatly depending on ambient temperature, which is less compromising for gas-burning vehicles.

We now have the data and math to answer these questions, courtesy of the University of Michigan. Last week, researchers there released a study along with a calculator that allows users to compare the lifetime difference in greenhouse gas emissions of various vehicle types and powertrains from "cradle to grave," as they say. That includes vehicle production and disposal, as well as use-phase emissions from "driving and upstream fuel production and/or electricity generation," per the university itself.

What's more, these calculations can be skewed by where you live. So, if I punch in my location of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, I can see that my generic, pure-ICE "compact sedan" emits 309 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (gCO2e) per mile. A compact hybrid would emit 20% less; a plug-in hybrid, 44% less; and an EV with a 200-mile range, a whopping 63% less. And, if I moved to Phoenix, the gains would be even larger by switching to pure electric, to the tune of a 79% reduced carbon impact.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: SpaceX has long marketed Starship as a fully and rapidly reusable rocket that's designed to deliver thousands of pounds of cargo to Mars and make life multiplanetary. But reusability at scale means a space vehicle that can tolerate mishaps and faults, so that a single failure doesn't spell a mission-ending catastrophe. The 10th test flight on Tuesday evening demonstrated SpaceX's focus on fault tolerance. In a post-flight update, SpaceX said the test stressed "the limits of vehicle capabilities." Understanding these edges will be critical for the company's plans to eventually use Starship to launch Starlink satellites, commercial payloads, and eventually astronauts.

When the massive Starship rocket lifted off on its 10th test flight Tuesday evening, SpaceX did more than achieve new milestones. It purposefully introduced several faults to test the heat shield, propulsion redundancy, and the relighting of its Raptor engine. The heat shield is among the toughest engineering challenges facing SpaceX. As Elon Musk acknowledged on X in May 2024, a reusable orbital return heat shield is the "biggest remaining problem" to 100% rocket reusability. The belly of the upper stage, also called Starship, is covered in thousands of hexagonal ceramic and metallic tiles, which make up the heat shield. Flight 10 was all about learning how much damage the ship can accept and survive when it goes through atmospheric heating. During the tenth test, engineers intentionally removed tiles from some sections of the ship, and experimented with a new type of actively cooled tile, to gather real-world data and refine designs. [...]

Propulsion redundancy was also put to the test. The Super Heavy booster's landing burn configuration appeared to be a rehearsal for engine failure. Engineers intentionally disabled one of the three center Raptor engines during the final phase of the burn and used a backup engine in its place. That was a successful rehearsal for an engine-out event. Finally, SpaceX reported the in-space relight of a Raptor engine, described on the launch broadcast as the second time SpaceX has pulled this off. Reliable engine restarts will be necessary for deep-space missions, propellant transfers, and possibly some payload deployment missions. [...] The next step is translating Flight 10 data into future hardware upgrades to move closer to routine operations and days when, as Musk envisioned, "Starship launches more than 24 times in 24 hours."

ChatGPT now has nearly 700 million weekly users, OpenAI says. But after launching GPT-5 last week, critics bashed its less-intuitive feel, reports CNBC, "ultimately leading the company to restore its legacy GPT-4 to paying chatbot customers."

Yet GPT-5 was always about cracking the enterprise market "where rival Anthropic has enjoyed a head start," they write. And one week in, "startups like Cursor, Vercel, and Factory say they've already made GPT-5 the default model in certain key products and tools, touting its faster setup, better results on complex tasks, and a lower price." Some companies said GPT-5 now matches or beats Claude on code and interface design, a space Anthropic once dominated. Box, another enterprise customer, has been testing GPT-5 on long, logic-heavy documents. CEO Aaron Levie told CNBC the model is a "breakthrough," saying it performs with a level of reasoning that prior systems couldn't match...

Still, the economics are brutal. The models are expensive to run, and both OpenAI and Anthropic are spending big to lock in customers, with OpenAI on track to burn $8 billion this year. That's part of why both Anthropic and OpenAI are courting new capital... GPT-5 is significantly cheaper than Anthropic's top-end Claude Opus 4.1 — by a factor of seven and a half, in some cases — but OpenAI is spending huge amounts on infrastructure to sustain that edge. For OpenAI, it's a push to win customers now, get them locked in and build a real business on the back of that loyalty...

GPT-5 API usage has surged since launch, with the model now processing more than twice as much coding and agent-building work, and reasoning use cases jumping more than eightfold, said a person familiar with the matter who requested anonymity in order to discuss company data. Enterprise demand is rising sharply, particularly for planning and multi-step reasoning tasks.

GPT-5's traction over the past week shows how quickly loyalties can shift when performance and price tip in OpenAI's favor. AI-powered coding platform Qodo recently tested GPT-5 against top-tier models including Gemini 2.5, Claude Sonnet 4, and Grok 4, and said in a blog post that it led in catching coding mistakes. The model was often the only one to catch critical issues, such as security bugs or broken code, suggesting clean, focused fixes and skipping over code that didn't need changing, the company said. Weaknesses included occasional false positives and some redundancy.
JetBrains has also adopted GPT-5 as the default for its AI Assistant and for its new no-code tool Kineto, according to the article.

But Anthropic is still enjoying a great year too, with its annualized revenue growing 17x year-over-year (according to "a person familiar with the matter who requested anonymity")

Imagine this. Lightning sparks a wildfire, but "within seconds, a satellite dish swirling overhead picks up on the anomaly and triggers an alarm," writes the Los Angeles Times. "An autonomous helicopter takes flight and zooms toward the fire, using sensors to locate the blaze and AI to generate a plan of attack. It measures the wind speed and fire movement, communicating constantly with the unmanned helicopter behind it, and the one behind that. Once over the site, it drops a load of water and soon the flames are smoldering. Without deploying a single human, the fire never grows larger than 10 square feet.

"This is the future of firefighting." On a recent morning in San Bernardino, state and local fire experts gathered for a demonstration of the early iterations of this new reality. An autonomous Sikorski Black Hawk helicopter, powered by technology from Lockheed Martin and a California-based software company called Rain, is on display on the tarmac of a logistics airport in Victorville — the word "EXPERIMENTAL" painted on its military green-black door. It's one of many new tools on the front lines of firefighting technology, which experts say is evolving rapidly as private industry and government agencies come face-to-face with a worsening global climate crisis...

Scientific studies and climate research models have found that the number of extreme fires could increase by as much as 30% globally by 2050. By 2100, California alone could see a 50% increase in wildfire frequency and a 77% increase in average annual acres burned, according to the state's most recent climate report. That's largely because human-caused climate change is driving up temperatures and drying out the landscape, priming it to burn, according to Kate Dargan Marquis, a senior advisor with the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation who served as California's state fire marshal from 2007 to 2010.... "[T]he policies of today and the technologies of today are not going to serve us tomorrow."

Today, more than 1,100 mountaintop cameras positioned across California are already using artificial intelligence to scan the landscape for the first sign of flames and prompt crews to spring into action. NASA's Earth-observing satellites are studying landscape conditions to help better predict fires before they ignite, while a new global satellite constellation recently launched by Google is helping to detect fires faster than ever before.
One 35-year fire service veteran who consults on fire service technologies even predicts fire-fighting robots will also be used in high-risk situations like the Colossus robot that battled flames searing through Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris...

And a bill moving through California's legislation "would direct the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to establish a pilot program to assess the viability of incorporating autonomous firefighting helicopters in the state."

The Trump administration has reportedly directed NASA to draw up plans to shut down its Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite missions, which provide vital climate and agricultural data for scientists, oil and gas companies and farmers who need detailed information about carbon dioxide and crop health. As NPR reports, the satellites are "the only two federal satellite missions that were designed and built specifically to monitor planet-warming greenhouse gases." From the report: It is unclear why the Trump administration seeks to end the missions. The equipment in space is state of the art and is expected to function for many more years, according to scientists who worked on the missions. An official review by NASA in 2023 found that "the data are of exceptionally high quality" and recommended continuing the mission for at least three years.

Both missions, known as the Orbiting Carbon Observatories, measure carbon dioxide and plant growth around the globe. They use identical measurement devices, but one device is attached to a stand-alone satellite while the other is attached to the International Space Station. The standalone satellite would burn up in the atmosphere if NASA pursued plans to terminate the mission.

NASA employees who work on the two missions are making what the agency calls Phase F plans for both carbon-monitoring missions, according to David Crisp, a longtime NASA scientist who designed the instruments and managed the missions until he retired in 2022. Phase F plans lay out options for terminating NASA missions. The OCO missions would lose funding under the Trump Administration's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2026, which begins Oct. 1 but has yet to pass. "Presidential budget proposals are wish lists that often bear little resemblance to final congressional budgets," notes NPR. "The Orbiting Carbon Observatory missions have already received funding from Congress through the end of the 2025 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30."

"Draft budgets that Congress is currently considering for next year keep NASA funding basically flat. But it's not clear whether these specific missions will receive funding again, or if Congress will pass a budget before current funding expires on Sept. 30."

There's now an "influx" of startups fightging wildfires, reports the Washington Post.

"More than 100 new wildfire-related technologies have launched in the U.S. and around the world since 2023, according to Lori Moore-Merrell, who served as U.S. fire administrator during the Biden administration... Unmanned lookout poles that use AI to sense smoke have been erected in the West. Swarms of military-grade drones are increasingly used for wildfire detection and management. AI technology also tracks lightning strikes, which can ignite wildfires..." As America contends with what is already a punishing year of wildfires across massive swaths of the country, new, extremely precise satellite images beamed from space from the initiative FireSat. In March, a satellite outfitted with infrared sensors was launched more than 370 miles into space with the sole task of detecting and monitoring fires. With the ability to loop millions of miles around the planet each day, it found active fires and burn scars using bands of infrared light, demonstrating technology that the project's leaders and its early adopters said could be integral to filling technological gaps in the way they fight burns.

The satellite initiative was launched by a nonprofit coalition called Earth Fire Alliance (EFA). Its partners include Muon Space, which is developing the satellites; Google, which is using AI to help filter through the images; the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation; and the Environmental Defense Fund. The goal is to have 50 satellites in orbit by 2030 to capture the entire world. At full capacity, the constellation is aiming to sweep the entire Earth every 20 minutes to detect small fires. By spring or summer of next year, it plans to launch three more satellites into space that will coordinate with agencies in states including California and Colorado to help them detect and fight fire.

Australia's first domestically built rocket to attempt orbital launch crashed just 14 seconds after liftoff, though the company still declared the mission a success for igniting all engines and leaving the launch pad. The Associated Press reports: The rocket Eris, launched by Gilmour Space Technologies, was the first Australian-designed and manufactured orbital launch vehicle to lift off from the country and was designed to carry small satellites to orbit. It launched Wednesday morning local time in a test flight from a spaceport near the small town of Bowen in the north of Queensland state. In videos published by Australian news outlets, the 23-meter (75-foot) rocket appeared to clear the launch tower and hovered in the air before falling out of sight. Plumes of smoke were seen rising above the site. No injuries were reported. The company hailed the launch as a success in a statement posted to Facebook. A spokesperson said all four hybrid-propelled engines ignited and the maiden flight included 23 seconds of engine burn time and 14 seconds of flight. "Of course I would have liked more flight time but happy with this," wrote CEO Adam Gilmour on LinkedIn. Gilmour said in February that it was "almost unheard of" for a private rocket company to successfully launch to orbit on its first attempt.

"This is an important first step towards the giant leap of a future commercial space industry right here in our region," added Mayor Ry Collins of the local Whitsunday Regional Council.

Liquefied CO2 will be transported by ship to "the world's first carbon shipping port," reports the Washington Post — an island in the North Sea where it will be "buried in a layer of spongy rock a mile and a half beneath the seabed."

Norway's government is covering 80% of the $1 billion first phase, with another $714 million from three fossil fuel companies toward an ongoing expansion (with an additional $150 million E.U. subsidy). As Europe's top oil and gas producer, Norway is using its fossil fuel income to see if they can make "carbon dumping" work. The world's first carbon shipment arrived this summer, carrying 7,500 metric tons of liquefied CO2 from a Norwegian cement factory that otherwise would have gone into the atmosphere... If all goes as planned, the project's backers — Shell, Equinor and TotalEnergies, along with Norway — say their facility could pump 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide underground each year, or about a tenth of Norway's annual emissions...

[At the Heidelberg Materials cement factory in Brevik, Norway], when hot CO2-laden air comes rushing out of the cement kilns, the plant uses seawater from the neighboring fjord to cool it down. The cool air goes into a chamber where it gets sprayed with amine, a chemical that latches onto CO2 at low temperatures. The amine mist settles to the bottom, dragging carbon dioxide down with it. The rest of the air floats out of the smokestack with about 85 percent less CO2 in it, according to project manager Anders Pettersen. Later, Heidelberg Materials uses waste heat from the kilns to break the chemical bonds, so that the amine releases the carbon dioxide. The pure CO2 then goes into a compressor that resembles a giant steel heart, where it gets denser and colder until it finally becomes liquid. That liquid CO2 remains in storage tanks until a ship comes to carry it away. At best, operators expect this system to capture half the plant's CO2 emissions: 400,000 metric tons per year, or the equivalent of about 93,000 cars on the road...

[T]hree other companies are lined up to follow: Ørsted, which will send CO2 from two bioenergy plants in Denmark; Yara, which will send carbon from a Dutch fertilizer factory; and Stockholm Exergi, which will capture carbon from a Swedish bioenergy plant that burns wood waste. All of these projects have gotten significant subsidies from national governments and the European Union — essentially de-risking the experiment for the companies. Experts say the costs and headaches of installing and running carbon-capture equipment may start to make more financial sense as European carbon rules get stricter and the cost of emitting a ton of carbon dioxide goes up. Still, they say, it's hard to imagine many companies deciding to invest in carbon capture without serious subsidies...

The first shipments are being transported by Northern Pioneer, the world's biggest carbon dioxide tanker ship, built specifically for this project. The 430-foot ship can hold 7,500 metric tons of CO2 in tanks below deck. Those tanks keep it in a liquid state by cooling it to minus-15 degrees Fahrenheit and squeezing it with the same pressure the outside of a submarine would feel 500 feet below the waves. While that may sound extreme, consider that the liquid natural gas the ship uses for fuel has to be stored at minus-260 degrees. "CO2 isn't difficult to make it into a liquid," said Sally Benson, professor of energy science and engineering at Stanford University. Northern Pioneer is designed to emit about a third less carbon dioxide than a regular ship — key for a project that aims to eliminate carbon emissions. The ship burns natural gas, which emits less CO2 than marine diesel produces (though gas extraction is associated with methane leaks). The vessel uses a rotor sail to capture wind power. And it blows a constant stream of air bubbles to reduce friction as the hull cuts through the water, allowing it to burn less fuel. For every 100 tons of CO2 that Northern Lights pumps underground, it expects to emit three tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, mainly by burning fuel for shipping.
Eventually the carbon flows into a pipeline "that plunges through the North Sea and into the rocky layers below it — an engineering feat that's a bit like drilling for oil in reverse..." according to the article.

"Over the centuries, it should chemically react with the rock, eventually being locked away in minerals."

A massive review of over 160,000 people's step counts has revealed that meaningful health benefits begin far below the popular 10,000-step myth. The new study found that health benefits start at as low as 2,500 daily steps, with the biggest gains capping around 7,000. "People hitting 7,000 daily steps had a 47% lower risk of dying prematurely than those managing just 2,000 steps, plus extra protection against heart disease, cancer and dementia," reports The Conversation. From the report: The findings come from the biggest review of step counts and health ever done. Researchers gathered data from 57 separate studies tracking more than 160,000 people for up to two decades, then combined all the results to spot patterns that individual studies might miss. This approach, called a systematic review, gives scientists much more confidence in their conclusions than any single study could.

So where did that magic 10,000 number come from? A pedometer company called Yamasa wanted to cash in on 1964 Tokyo Olympics fever. It launched a device called Manpo-kei -- literally "10,000 steps meter." The Japanese character for 10,000 resembles a walking person, while 10,000 itself is a memorable round number. It was a clever marketing choice that stuck. At that time, there was no robust evidence for whether a target of 10,000 steps made sense. Early research suggested that jumping from a typical 3,000 to 5,000 daily steps to 10,000 would burn roughly 300 to 400 extra calories a day. So the target wasn't completely random -- just accidentally reasonable.

This latest research paper looked across a broad spectrum -- not just whether people died, but heart disease, cancer, diabetes, dementia, depression and even falls. The results tell a fascinating story. Even tiny increases matter. Jump from 2,000 to 4,000 steps daily and your death risk drops by 36%. That's a substantial improvement. But here's where it gets interesting. The biggest health benefits happen between zero and 7,000 steps. Beyond that, benefits keep coming, but they level off considerably. Studies have found meaningful benefits starting at just 2,517 steps per day. For some people, that could be as little as a 20-minute stroll around the block. Age changes everything, too. If you're over 60, you hit maximum benefits at 6,000 to 8,000 daily steps. Under 60? You need 8,000 to 10,000 steps for the same protection. Your 70-year-old neighbor gets 77% lower heart disease risk at just 4,500 steps daily.

The real secret of why fitness targets often fail? People give up on them. Research comparing different step goals found a clear pattern. Eighty-five per cent of people stuck with 10,000 daily steps. Bump it to 12,500 steps and only 77% kept going. Push for 15,000 steps and you lose nearly a third of people.

"The potential threat of bosses attempting to replace human workers with AI agents is just one of many compounding reasons people are critical of generative AI..." writes Wired, arguing that there's an AI backlash that "keeps growing strong."

"The pushback from the creative community ramped up during the 2023 Hollywood writer's strike, and continued to accelerate through the current wave of copyright lawsuits brought by publishers, creatives, and Hollywood studios." And "Right now, the general vibe aligns even more with the side of impacted workers." "I think there is a new sort of ambient animosity towards the AI systems," says Brian Merchant, former WIRED contributor and author of Blood in the Machine, a book about the Luddites rebelling against worker-replacing technology. "AI companies have speedrun the Silicon Valley trajectory." Before ChatGPT's release, around 38 percent of US adults were more concerned than excited about increased AI usage in daily life, according to the Pew Research Center. The number shot up to 52 percent by late 2023, as the public reacted to the speedy spread of generative AI. The level of concern has hovered around that same threshold ever since...

[F]rustration over AI's steady creep has breached the container of social media and started manifesting more in the real world. Parents I talk to are concerned about AI use impacting their child's mental health. Couples are worried about chatbot addictions driving a wedge in their relationships. Rural communities are incensed that the newly built data centers required to power these AI tools are kept humming by generators that burn fossil fuels, polluting their air, water, and soil. As a whole, the benefits of AI seem esoteric and underwhelming while the harms feel transformative and immediate.

Unlike the dawn of the internet where democratized access to information empowered everyday people in unique, surprising ways, the generative AI era has been defined by half-baked software releases and threats of AI replacing human workers, especially for recent college graduates looking to find entry-level work. "Our innovation ecosystem in the 20th century was about making opportunities for human flourishing more accessible," says Shannon Vallor, a technology philosopher at the Edinburgh Futures Institute and author of The AI Mirror, a book about reclaiming human agency from algorithms. "Now, we have an era of innovation where the greatest opportunities the technology creates are for those already enjoying a disproportionate share of strengths and resources."

The impacts of generative AI on the workforce are another core issue that critics are organizing around. "Workers are more intuitive than a lot of the pundit class gives them credit for," says Merchant. "They know this has been a naked attempt to get rid of people."
The article suggests "the next major shift in public opinion" is likely "when broad swaths of workers feel further threatened," and organize in response...

In April Anthorpic introduced a new AI trick: multiple Claude agents combine for a "Research" feature that can "search across both your internal work context and the web" (as well as Google Workspace "and any integrations...")

But a recent Anthropic blog post notes this feature "involves an agent that plans a research process based on user queries, and then uses tools to create parallel agents that search for information simultaneously," which brings challenges "in agent coordination, evaluation, and reliability.... The model must operate autonomously for many turns, making decisions about which directions to pursue based on intermediate findings." Multi-agent systems work mainly because they help spend enough tokens to solve the problem.... This finding validates our architecture that distributes work across agents with separate context windows to add more capacity for parallel reasoning. The latest Claude models act as large efficiency multipliers on token use, as upgrading to Claude Sonnet 4 is a larger performance gain than doubling the token budget on Claude Sonnet 3.7. Multi-agent architectures effectively scale token usage for tasks that exceed the limits of single agents.

There is a downside: in practice, these architectures burn through tokens fast. In our data, agents typically use about 4Ã-- more tokens than chat interactions, and multi-agent systems use about 15Ã-- more tokens than chats. For economic viability, multi-agent systems require tasks where the value of the task is high enough to pay for the increased performance. Further, some domains that require all agents to share the same context or involve many dependencies between agents are not a good fit for multi-agent systems today.

For instance, most coding tasks involve fewer truly parallelizable tasks than research, and LLM agents are not yet great at coordinating and delegating to other agents in real time. We've found that multi-agent systems excel at valuable tasks that involve heavy parallelization, information that exceeds single context windows, and interfacing with numerous complex tools.
Thanks to Slashdot reader ZipNada for sharing the news.