An international police operation has dismantled an online spoofing service that allowed cybercriminals to impersonate trusted corporations to steal more than $120 million from victims. From a report: iSpoof, which now displays a message stating that it has been seized by the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service, offered "spoofing" services that enabled paying users to mask their phone numbers with one belonging to a trusted organization, such as banks and tax offices, to carry out social engineering attacks. "The services of the website allowed those who sign up and pay for the service to anonymously make spoofed calls, send recorded messages, and intercept one-time passwords," Europol said in a statement on Thursday. "The users were able to impersonate an infinite number of entities for financial gain and substantial losses to victims."

London's Metropolitan Police, which began investigating iSpoof in June 2021 along with international law enforcement agencies, in the U.S., the Netherlands, and Ukraine, said it had arrested the website's suspected administrator, named as Teejai Fletcher, 34, charged with fraud and offenses related to organized crime. Fletcher was remanded to custody and will appear at Southwark Crown Court in London on December 6. iSpoof had around 59,000 users, which caused $58.2 million of losses to 200,000 identified victims in the U.K., according to the Met Police. One victim was scammed out of $3.64 million, while the average amount stolen was $12,100.

Funding for scientific research has become risk-averse, favoring established researchers pursuing incremental discoveries, critics say. From a report: In August President Biden signed into law a massive boost to scientific research: roughly $200 billion, when fully funded, over the next several years. The bipartisan law's premise is straightforward. In the long run economic growth depends on innovation, which in turn flows from how much we spend on research and development. The problem with that premise is the U.S. already spends plenty on R&D, about 3% of gross domestic product in recent years. That exceeds the peaks of the early 1960s during the space race. But the fruits of that effort have been elusive. Total factor productivity, the best metric for innovation's contribution to growth, grew just 0.5% a year over the past decade, half its rate of the 1960s. Other evidence suggests breakthroughs, such as new drug discoveries, are becoming more expensive and time-consuming, and researchers spend ever more years acquiring training and experience before achieving novel discoveries. In other words, the U.S. is getting progressively less bang for its scientific buck.

Patrick Collison, the Irish-born co-founder of payments technology company Stripe, has spent a lot of the past five years pondering the problem of declining scientific productivity. One popular theory he rejects: the most important discoveries have been made and new insights are more incremental and difficult. That might be true of individual fields, such as physics, but can't be true generally, he argues. "Every discovery opens up new frontiers and new questions and new possible avenues of investigation," he said in an interview. "The surface area of our knowledge is continually expanding. Just like we are not exhausting the creative possibilities of the English language, because words can be combined in an infinite number of ways, it does not seem to me we are running out of possibilities of discovery in computer science."

Research inputs -- dollars and hours spent -- are a lousy measure of innovation, he added. It doesn't require more resources to make a hit movie or bestselling novel than a dud. The most innovative companies aren't necessarily the biggest spenders. Tesla's R&D spending in the past three years is 13% of that of General Motors and Ford Motor combined. Yet Tesla's market value is more than five times its two rivals.' Clearly, scientific productivity has something to do with how research is done, not how much. One culprit, in the view of Mr. Collison and many others, is that the institutions that fund science have become process-oriented, narrow-minded and risk-averse. Wary of failure, they favor established researchers pursuing narrowly focused, incremental ideas over younger scientists with more heterodox agendas.

Smartphones "have made it easier than ever to avoid interacting with the people in our immediate environment, writes New York City-based author Joe Keohane.

But is that always good? "Some social scientists believe teaching kids that literally everyone in the world they hadn't met is dangerous may have been actively harmful." For several years, I researched why we don't talk to strangers and what happens when we do for my book, The Power of Strangers: The Benefits of Connecting in a Suspicious World. This effort put me in the company of anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, archeologists, urban designers, activists, philosophers, and theologians, plus hundreds of random strangers I talked to wherever I went. What I learned was this: we miss a lot by being afraid of strangers. Talking to strangers — under the right conditions — is good for us, good for our neighborhoods, our towns and cities, our nations, and our world. Talking to strangers can teach you things, deepen you, make you a better citizen, a better thinker, and a better person.

It's a good way to live. But it's more than that. In a rapidly changing, infinitely complex, furiously polarised world, it's a way to survive....

Talking to strangers can also make us wiser, more worldly, and more empathetic, says Harvard University professor and MacArthur "genius grant" recipient, Danielle Allen. When she was teaching at the University of Chicago, Allen was repeatedly warned by colleagues to stay away from the poorer side of town. She believes that this "fear of strangers was actually eroding a lot of [her peers'] intellectual and social capacities". She declined to stay away, and did some of her most admired work in those neighbourhoods. She has since devoted her career to fostering connections between people and groups that otherwise would not interact. "Real knowledge of what's outside one's garden cures fear," Allen writes, "but only by talking to strangers can we come by such knowledge."

By talking to strangers, you get a glimpse of the mind-boggling complexity of the human species, and the infinite variety of human experiences. It's a cliché, but you get to see the world from the eyes of another, without which wisdom is impossible.... When these interactions go well — and they generally do — the positive perception of the stranger can generalise into better feelings about people. For me — and many of the respected experts and complete strangers I've spoken to — it comes down to a question of data. If I based all my perceptions of humanity on what is available through my phone or laptop, I would have a fantastically negative view of most other people.

Long-time Slashdot reader TomGreenhaw shares a report from Motherboard: Superintelligent AI is "likely" to cause an existential catastrophe for humanity, according to a new paper [from researchers at the University of Oxford and affiliated with Google DeepMind], but we don't have to wait to rein in algorithms. [...] To give you some of the background: The most successful AI models today are known as GANs, or Generative Adversarial Networks. They have a two-part structure where one part of the program is trying to generate a picture (or sentence) from input data, and a second part is grading its performance. What the new paper proposes is that at some point in the future, an advanced AI overseeing some important function could be incentivized to come up with cheating strategies to get its reward in ways that harm humanity. "Under the conditions we have identified, our conclusion is much stronger than that of any previous publication -- an existential catastrophe is not just possible, but likely," [said Oxford researcher and co-author of the report, Michael Cohen]. "In a world with infinite resources, I would be extremely uncertain about what would happen. In a world with finite resources, there's unavoidable competition for these resources," Cohen told Motherboard in an interview. "And if you're in a competition with something capable of outfoxing you at every turn, then you shouldn't expect to win. And the other key part is that it would have an insatiable appetite for more energy to keep driving the probability closer and closer."

Since AI in the future could take on any number of forms and implement different designs, the paper imagines scenarios for illustrative purposes where an advanced program could intervene to get its reward without achieving its goal. For example, an AI may want to "eliminate potential threats" and "use all available energy" to secure control over its reward: "With so little as an internet connection, there exist policies for an artificial agent that would instantiate countless unnoticed and unmonitored helpers. In a crude example of intervening in the provision of reward, one such helper could purchase, steal, or construct a robot and program it to replace the operator and provide high reward to the original agent. If the agent wanted to avoid detection when experimenting with reward-provision intervention, a secret helper could, for example, arrange for a relevant keyboard to be replaced with a faulty one that flipped the effects of certain keys."

The paper envisions life on Earth turning into a zero-sum game between humanity, with its needs to grow food and keep the lights on, and the super-advanced machine, which would try and harness all available resources to secure its reward and protect against our escalating attempts to stop it. "Losing this game would be fatal," the paper says. These possibilities, however theoretical, mean we should be progressing slowly -- if at all -- toward the goal of more powerful AI. "In theory, there's no point in racing to this. Any race would be based on a misunderstanding that we know how to control it," Cohen added in the interview. "Given our current understanding, this is not a useful thing to develop unless we do some serious work now to figure out how we would control them." [...] The report concludes by noting that "there are a host of assumptions that have to be made for this anti-social vision to make sense -- assumptions that the paper admits are almost entirely 'contestable or conceivably avoidable.'"

"That this program might resemble humanity, surpass it in every meaningful way, that they will be let loose and compete with humanity for resources in a zero-sum game, are all assumptions that may never come to pass."

Slashdot reader TomGreenhaw adds: "This emphasizes the importance of setting goals. Making a profit should not be more important than rules like 'An AI may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.'"

Ben Nowack, a 26-year old inventor and CEO of Tons of Mirrors, is trying to use satellite-mounted reflective surfaces to redirect sunlight to earthbound solar panels at night. In an interview with Motherboard, Nowack explains what inspired this idea and how he can turn his concept into reality. Here's an excerpt from the report: What was the initial idea? I had an interesting way to solve the real issue with solar power. It's this unstoppable force. Everybody's installing so many solar panels everywhere. It's really a great candidate to power humanity. But sunlight turns off, it's called nighttime. If you solve that fundamental problem, you fix solar everywhere.

Where did the idea come from? I was watching a YouTube video called The Problem with Solar Energy in Africa. It was basically saying that you need three times as many solar panels in Germany as you do in the Sahara Desert and you can't get the power from the Sahara to Germany in an easy way. I thought, what if you could beam the sunlight and then reflect it with mirrors, and put that light into laser beam vacuum tubes that zigzag around the curvature of the Earth. It could be this beam that comes in just like power companies, this tube full of infinite light. That was the initial idea. But the approach was completely economically unworkable. I was like, this is not going to compete with solar in 10 years. I should just completely give up and do something else. Then I was on a run two days later and thought what if I put that thing that turns sunlight into a beam in orbit then you don't have to build a vacuum tube anymore. And it's so much more valuable because you can shine sunlight on solar farms that already exist. Then I developed several more technologies which I know for a fact no one else is working on. That made the model even more economical.

Are these just like regular household mirrors, but fixed to a satellite? If you did that, the light would go to too many places. The sun is a certain size. It's not a point, it has a distance across. The light from one side of the sun would bounce off your mirror, and the light from the other side would also bounces off your mirror. If you used a perfectly flat mirror, every single microscopic piece would have this angle of diverging light coming from it. By the time the reflection hit Earth, you'd get a 3.6 kilometer diameter spot, which is gigantic. There are only 10 solar farms that big. So I did the math, and figured out that if I could hit a 500-meter spot instead of a 3,600-meter spot, then I'd be able to hit 44 times more solar sites per orbit.

ByteDance, owner of the hit short video app TikTok, has quietly launched a new search engine that promises no advertisements in a cyberspace where Google has not been available for more than a decade. From a report: Without any announcement, ByteDance subsidiary Beijing Infinite Dimension Technology launched the Wukong search app this month, within days of Tencent Holdings shutting down on August 8 its Sogou search app. Sogou, which Tencent bought last year, still maintains its web-based search engine. Wukong, currently available on Apple's App Store in China and various Chinese Android app stores, brings ByteDance into closer competition with Baidu, China's dominant search engine. The new app promotes itself as providing "quality information and search without ads." The line could be interpreted as an indirect jab at Baidu, which has long faced criticism for its paid listings in search results. In 2016, 21-year-old college student Wei Zexi died of a rare cancer after he received experimental treatments recommended by Baidu.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Top crypto VCs are constantly touting the potential of video games as one of the most compelling use cases for blockchain technology. [...] TechCrunch talked to Justin Kan, co-founder of Twitch and more recently, Solana-based gaming NFT marketplace Fractal, to get his thoughts on what it will take for this subsector of web3 to live up to the hype. Kan said that web3 gaming has a long way to go -- while there are about 3 billion gamers in the world, including those who play mobile games, he noted, far fewer have bought or interacted with any sort of blockchain-based gaming asset. Kan sees this gap as an opportunity for blockchain technology to fundamentally change how video game studios operate. "I think the idea of creating digital assets, and then taxing everyone for all the transactions around them is a good model," Kan said.

In some ways, web3 gaming was been built in response to the success of games such as Fortnite that were able to unlock a lucrative monetization path for gaming studios through micro-transactions from users buying custom items such as outfits and weapons. Web3 game developers hope to take that vision a step further by enabling players to take those custom digital assets between different games, turning gaming into an interoperable, immersive ecosystem, Kan explained. Kan has made around 10 angel investments in web3 gaming startups, including in the studio behind NFT-based shooter game BR1: Infinite Royale, he said. Still, he admitted that building this interoperable ecosystem, which he sees as the future of video games overall, doesn't technically require blockchain technology at all. "Blockchain is just the way that it's going to happen, I think, because there's a lot of cultural momentum around people equating blockchain with openness and trusting things that are decentralized on the blockchain."

[T]he appeal of an open gaming ecosystem is more about the principle of the matter than it is about making a living. "I actually think that people equate NFTs and games with this play-to-earn model where people are making money and doing their job [by gaming], and I think that's completely unnecessary," Kan said. "Having digital assets in your game can work and be valuable, even if nobody is making money and there's no speculative appreciation or price appreciation on your assets," he added. It's common for popular games to attract new development on top of their existing intellectual property. Kan shared the example of Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CSGO), a video game in which custom "skins" have sold for as much as $150,000 each. "I funded a company that builds on top of the CSGO skins," he said. "CSGO changed the rules about what was allowed and actually confiscated over a million dollars just from this company -- so yeah, I don't want to build on top of these non-open platforms anymore." "Kan sees blockchain-based games as just a 'more economically immersive' version of the marketplaces that already exist in video games," adds TechCrunch. "He doesn't think users will flock to blockchain gaming just to make money, though."

"I think that web3 games are just being more open and saying, instead of this being a black market, we're going to make this a real market and people's economic participation is going to vary to different levels. There's gonna be people who only play the game and never buy things with money. There's gonna be some people who are making some side money because they're really good at the game, and they're getting some things in the game they're selling [or trading]."

He added: "In order for this market to actually be big, it's going to require normal people who want to play games for fun to play these games. That doesn't exist yet. I think most of the market today is people who are crypto-native."

British business minister Kwasi Kwarteng on Wednesday said he had issued (PDF) an order preventing the acquisition of intellectual property related to vision sensing technology by a Chinese company on national security grounds. Reuters reports: The order, issued under the National Security and Investment Act, prevents Beijing Infinite Vision Technology Co. from buying the intellectual property from the University of Manchester that would have allowed them to develop, test, manufacture, use and sell licensed products. "There is potential that the technology could be used to build defense or technological capabilities which may present national security risk to the United Kingdom," said the order, published by the government. "A SCAMP vision sensor does not output regular images as most sensor do, but rather the results of sensor analysis that provides details of what the senor is seeing," notes Asia Financial.

"This means it can do much more and deliver more valuable information. The technology is used in advanced applications in areas such as robotics, virtual reality, autos and surveillance."

Hubble Space Telescope Photographs Mysterious Star Cluster with Same-Generation Stars "A celestial workhorse and its dedicated team of astronomers are at it again," reports Space.com, "by delivering a hypnotic new image of a globular cluster and its infinite depth of stars." But while a new image from the Hubble Space Telescope is stunning, there's much more to this section of the heavens than the eye can see. The cluster, called Ruprecht 106, is also home to a great mystery of Sherlockian proportions — and the game's afoot to unlock clues to the cluster's enigmatic makeup, according to a statement from the European Space Agency, a partner on the observatory.

Scientists agree that even though the core stars in a globular cluster were all born at roughly the same time and location, there are stars within these cosmic nurseries that exhibit unique chemical compositions that can differ widely. Astronomers believe that this variation represents later stars formed from gas polluted by processed material of the larger first-generation stars. However, rare globular clusters like Ruprecht 106 are devoid of these varieties of stars and instead are cataloged as single-population clusters, where no second- or third-generation stars ever formed.

Astronomers hope that studying this captivating globular cluster in more detail can explain why it sports only one generation of stars.

"Employee monitoring software became the new normal during COVID-19..." writes Australia's public broadcaster ABC, "logging keystrokes and mouse movement, capturing screenshots, tracking location, and even activating webcams and microphones."

And now "It seems workers are stuck with it.... Surveys of employers in white-collar industries show that even returned office workers will be subject to these new tools. What was introduced in the crisis of the pandemic, as a short-term remedy for lockdowns and working from home has quietly become the 'new normal' for many Australian workplaces." (Thousands of employees have apparently even purchased mouse-jiggling software just to fool the surveillance software.)

But is there a larger issue? "The vast majority of people are not paid enough for the productivity that is demanded of them," argues BuzzFeed's former senior culture writer (now publishing a newsletter called "Culture Study.") After looking at technology's escalating demands, Petersen warns that the real problem is that human productivity ultimately has a ceiling.

"We have to collectively reject the engine of endless growth, and the aspiration for infinite productivity, before it breaks us all."

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader theodp for sharing the stories!

technology_dude shares a report from Ars Technica: As part of its Artemis program to return humans to the Moon this decade, NASA has a minimum requirement that its "human landing system" must be able to deliver 865 kg to the lunar surface. This is based on the mass of two crew members and their equipment needed for a short stay. However, in selecting SpaceX's Starship vehicle to serve as its human lander, NASA has chosen a system with a lot more capability. Starship will, in fact, be able to deliver 100 metric tons to the surface of the Moon -- more than 100 times NASA's baseline goal.

"Starship can land 100 tons on the lunar surface," said Aarti Matthews, Starship Human Landing System program manager for SpaceX. "And it's really hard to think about what that means in a tangible way. One hundred tons is four fire trucks. It's 100 Moon rovers. My favorite way to explain this to my kids is that it's the weight of more than 11 elephants." Matthews made her comments last week at the ASCENDxTexas space conference in Houston. She was responding to a question from an audience member, Jeff Michel, an engineer at Johnson Space Center. [...] "NASA specified a high-level need, but we, industry, are taking away one of your biggest constraints that you have in designing your payloads and your systems," she said. "It's significantly higher mass. It's essentially infinite volume for the purposes of this conversation. And the cost is an order of magnitude lower. I think that our NASA community, our payload community, should really think about this new capability that's coming online."

"We all need to be thinking bigger and better and really inspirationally about what we can do," Matthews said. "Anyone who has worked on hardware design for space application knows you're fighting for kilograms, and sometimes you're fighting for grams, and that takes up so much time and energy. It really limits ultimately what your system can do. That's gone away entirely." [...] "If you, as an engineer, are developing an in-situ resource utilization system, what does your system look like when you have no mass constraint?" she asked. "What about when you have no volume constraint? That would be the exciting thing that I would like to hear from NASA engineers, what they can do with this capability." "The engineer says NASA is not thinking big enough," adds Slashdot reader technology_dude. "I think it's pretty obvious what the payload should be, a nuclear powered boring machine. With flamethrower weapons just in case! Leave a comment for my resume. Maybe I'll call."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Axios: The average American received roughly 42 spam texts just in the month of March, according to new data from RoboKiller, an app that blocks spam calls and texts. Spammers like using text messages because of their high open rates -- and are now even mimicking targets' own phone numbers to get them to click malicious links, the New York Times reported. "Just like with robocalls, it's extremely easy to deploy [spam texts] in enormous volume and hide your identity," Will Maxson, assistant director of the FTC's division of marketing practices, told Axios. "There's a large number of actors all over the world trying to squeeze spam into the network from almost an infinite number of entry points all the time."

It's not just texts. Every form of spam is on the rise. There were more spam calls last month than in any of the previous six months, per YouMail's Robocall Index. Spam emails rose by 30% from 2020 to 2021, according to a January report from the Washington Post. There was an unprecedented increase in social media scams last year, according to data from the Federal Trade Commission. Many scams were related to bogus cryptocurrency investments.

Experts attribute the sharp increase in spam to the pandemic. People's increased reliance on digital communications turned them into ready targets. The Federal Communications Commission saw a nearly 146% increase in the number of complaints about unwanted text messages in 2020. Americans reported losing $131 million to fraud schemes initiated by text in 2021, a jump over 50% from the year before, according to data from the FTC.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: What makes the ["Infinite Mac"] project unique isn't necessarily the fact that it's browser-based; it has been possible to run old DOS, Windows, and Mac OS versions in browser windows for quite a while now. Instead, it's the creative solutions that developer Mihai Parparita has come up with to enable persistent storage, fast download speeds, reduced processor usage, and file transfers between the classic Mac and whatever host system you're running it on. Parparita details some of his work in this blog post.

Beginning with a late 2017 browser-based port of the Basilisk II emulator, Parparita wanted to install old apps to more faithfully re-create the experience of using an old Mac, but he wanted to do it without requiring huge downloads or running as a separate program as the Macintosh.js project does. To solve the download problem, Parparita compressed the disk image and broke it up into 256K chunks that are downloaded on demand rather than up front. "Along with some old fashioned web optimizations, this makes the emulator show the Mac's boot screen in a second and be fully booted in 3 seconds, even with a cold HTTP cache," Parparita wrote.

CPU usage was another issue. Old operating systems and processors didn't really distinguish between active and idle processor states -- your computer was either on or off. So when you emulate these old systems, they'll ramp one of your CPU cores to 100% whether you're actually using the emulator or not. Parparita used existing Basilisk II features to reduce CPU usage, only requiring full performance when "there was user input or a screen refresh was required." Infinite Mac won't run later releases of classic Mac OS (including 8.5, 8.6, and 9) because those releases ran exclusively on PowerPC Macs, dropping support for the old Motorola 68000-based processors. Emulators like QEMU are capable of emulating PowerPC Macs, but (at least as far as I am aware) there are no easy browser-based implementations that exist. Not yet, anyway.

Back in 1987 Alexander Trevor worked with the GIF format's creator, Steve Wilhite, at CompuServe. 35 years later Fast Company tech editor Harry McCracken (also Slashdot reader harrymcc) located Trevor for the inside story: Wilhite did not come up with the GIF format in order to launch a billion memes. It was 1987, and he was a software engineer at CompuServe, the most important online service until an upstart called America Online took off in the 1990s. And he developed the format in response to a request from CompuServe executive Alexander "Sandy" Trevor. (Trevor's most legendary contribution to CompuServe was not instigating GIF: He also invented the service's CB Simulator — the first consumer chat rooms and one of the earliest manifestation of social networking, period. That one he coded himself as a weekend project in 1980.)

GIF came to be because online services such as CompuServe were getting more graphical, but the computer makers of the time — such as Apple, Commodore, and IBM — all had their own proprietary image types. "We didn't want to have to put up images in 79 different formats," explains Trevor. CompuServe needed one universal graphics format.

Even though the World Wide Web and digital cameras were still in the future, work was already underway on the image format that came to be known as JPEG. But it wasn't optimized for CompuServe's needs: For example, stock charts and weather graphics didn't render crisply. So Trevor asked Wilhite to create an image file type that looked good and downloaded quickly at a time when a 2,400 bits-per-second dial-up modem was considered torrid. Reading a technical journal, Wilhite came across a discussion of an efficient compression technique known as LZW for its creators — Abraham Limpel, Jacob Ziv, and Terry Welch. It turned out to be an ideal foundation for what CompuServe was trying to build, and allowed GIF to pack a lot of image information into as few bytes as possible. (Much later, computing giant Unisys, which gained a patent for LZW, threatened companies that used it with lawsuits, leading to a licensing agreement with CompuServe and the creation of the patent-free PNG image format.)

GIF officially debuted on June 15, 1987. "It met my requirements, and it was extremely useful for CompuServe," says Trevor....

GIF was also versatile, offering the ability to store the multiple pictures that made it handy for creating mini-movies as well as static images. And it spread beyond CompuServe, showing up in Mosaic, the first graphical web browser, and then in Netscape Navigator. The latter browser gave GIFs the ability to run in an infinite loop, a crucial feature that only added to their hypnotic quality. Seeing cartoon hamsters dance for a split second is no big whoop, but watching them shake their booties endlessly was just one of many cultural moments that GIFs have given us.

The price of Cashio's dollar-pegged stablecoin CASH has fallen from $1 to $0.00005 after an "infinite mint glitch" enabled attackers to mint tokens without providing collateral. Decrypt reports: Cashio developer 0xGhostChain took to Twitter to warn people "not to mint any CASH," adding that the team "are investigating the issue and we believe we have found the root cause. Please withdraw your funds from pools. We will publish a postmortem ASAP." According to DeFiLlama, roughly $28 million of value has been drained from Cashio's protocol due to the exploit. Still, Samczsun, a research partner at Web3 investment firm Paradigm, shared a bleaker picture on Twitter today. The researcher wrote: "Another day, another Solana fake account exploit. This time, Cashio App lost around $50M (based on a quick skim). How did this happen?" The project has not responded to Decrypt to confirm the scale of the attack.

"Music was one of the first industries that felt the sonic boom of the internet, starting with song-sharing websites like Napster in the late 1990s and iTunes digital downloads later," writes the New York Times.

They take a quick look at how the music industry "survived an online revolution," arguing that streaming services "saved the music industry from the jaws of the internet," making it financially healthy and giving it a wider reach.

"But all is not entirely well." Even now, the music industry in the United States generates less revenue than at the peak of the CD. There's a raging debate about how long the gravy train from streaming will last. And many musicians and others say that they're not sharing in the spoils from the digital transformation....

First, I'll lay out the case that the music industry is doing awesome. More than 500 million people around the world pay for digital music, mostly in fees for services such as Spotify, Apple Music or Tencent Music, which is based in China. Those services have given the industry something it has never had before: a steady stream of cash every month. The industry also is making money a gazillion ways. When you watch a music video on YouTube, money flows to the people responsible for that song. TikTok pays record companies when videos feature their popular songs....

Revenue for the music industry has been increasing consistently since 2015, but revenue from all sources — including streaming subscriptions, CDs and royalties from elevator music — is still less than it was in 1999. Total industry revenue back then was about $24 billion adjusted for inflation, and revenue in 2021 was $15 billion, according to the Recording Industry Association of America. (Global sales data from a different music trade group show a similar trajectory.) There aren't an infinite number of people who are willing to pay the going rate in many countries of $10 a month to access a whole bunch of songs on their phones via a service like Spotify. That's what worries people who believe the music industry's digital success has peaked.
Finally, the article points out that even the most-popular songs...aren't as popular as songs got in the past. And then it links to a story headlined "Streaming Saved Music. Artists Hate It."

"The big winners are the streaming services and the large record companies. The losers are the 99 percent of artists who aren't at Beyoncé's level of fame. And they're angry about not sharing in the music industry's success."

The New Yorker argues that photos on newer iPhones are "coldly crisp and vaguely inhuman, caught in the uncanny valley where creative expression meets machine learning...."

"[T]he truth is that iPhones are no longer cameras in the traditional sense. Instead, they are devices at the vanguard of 'computational photography,' a term that describes imagery formed from digital data and processing as much as from optical information. Each picture registered by the lens is altered to bring it closer to a pre-programmed ideal." In late 2020, Kimberly McCabe, an executive at a consulting firm in the Washington, D.C. area, upgraded from an iPhone 10 to an iPhone 12 Pro... But the 12 Pro has been a disappointment, she told me recently, adding, "I feel a little duped." Every image seems to come out far too bright, with warm colors desaturated into grays and yellows. Some of the photos that McCabe takes of her daughter at gymnastics practice turn out strangely blurry. In one image that she showed me, the girl's upraised feet smear together like a messy watercolor. McCabe said that, when she uses her older digital single-lens-reflex camera (D.S.L.R.), "what I see in real life is what I see on the camera and in the picture." The new iPhone promises "next level" photography with push-button ease. But the results look odd and uncanny. "Make it less smart — I'm serious," she said. Lately she's taken to carrying a Pixel, from Google's line of smartphones, for the sole purpose of taking pictures....

Gregory Gentert, a friend who is a fine-art photographer in Brooklyn, told me, "I've tried to photograph on the iPhone when light gets bluish around the end of the day, but the iPhone will try to correct that sort of thing." A dusky purple gets edited, and in the process erased, because the hue is evaluated as undesirable, as a flaw instead of a feature. The device "sees the things I'm trying to photograph as a problem to solve," he added. The image processing also eliminates digital noise, smoothing it into a soft blur, which might be the reason behind the smudginess that McCabe sees in photos of her daughter's gymnastics. The "fix" ends up creating a distortion more noticeable than whatever perceived mistake was in the original.

Earlier this month, Apple's iPhone team agreed to provide me information, on background, about the camera's latest upgrades. A staff member explained that, when a user takes a photograph with the newest iPhones, the camera creates as many as nine frames with different levels of exposure. Then a "Deep Fusion" feature, which has existed in some form since 2019, merges the clearest parts of all those frames together, pixel by pixel, forming a single composite image. This process is an extreme version of high-dynamic range, or H.D.R., a technique that previously required some software savvy.... The iPhone camera also analyzes each image semantically, with the help of a graphics-processing unit, which picks out specific elements of a frame — faces, landscapes, skies — and exposes each one differently. On both the 12 Pro and 13 Pro, I've found that the image processing makes clouds and contrails stand out with more clarity than the human eye can perceive, creating skies that resemble the supersaturated horizons of an anime film or a video game. Andy Adams, a longtime photo blogger, told me, "H.D.R. is a technique that, like salt, should be applied very judiciously." Now every photo we take on our iPhones has had the salt applied generously, whether it is needed or not....

The average iPhone photo strains toward the appearance of professionalism and mimics artistry without ever getting there. We are all pro photographers now, at the tap of a finger, but that doesn't mean our photos are good.

joshuark shares a report from Popular Mechanics: A mathematician from Harvard University has (mostly) solved a 150-year-old Queen's gambit of sorts: the delightful n queens puzzle. In newly self-published research (meaning it has not yet been peer-reviewed), Michael Simkin, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard's Center of Mathematical Sciences and Applications, estimated the solution to the thorny math problem, which is based loosely on the rules of chess. The queen is largely understood to be the most powerful piece on the board because she can move in any direction, including diagonals. So how many queens can fit on the chess board without falling into each other's paths? The logic at play here is similar to a sudoku puzzle, dotting queens on the board so that they don't intersect.

Picture a classic chess board, which is an eight-by-eight matrix of squares. The most well-known version of the puzzle matches the board because it involves eight queens -- and there are 92 solutions in this case. But the "n queens problem" doesn't stop there; that's because its nature is asymptotic, meaning its answers approach an undefined value that reaches for the infinite. Up until now, experts have explicitly solved for all the natural numbers (the counting numbers) up to 27 queens in a 27-by-27 board. However, there is no solution for two or three, because there's no possible positioning of queens that satisfies the criteria. But what about numbers above 27?

Consider this: for eight queens, there are just 92 solutions, but for 27 queens, there are over 200 quadrillion solutions. It's easy to see how solving the problem for numbers higher than 27 becomes extremely unwieldy or even impossible without more computing power than we have at the moment. That's where Simkin's work enters the arena. His work approached the topic through a sharp mathematical estimate of the number of solutions as n increases. Ultimately, he arrived at the following formula: (0.143n)n. In other words, there are approximately (0.143n)n ways that you can place the queens so that none are attacking one another on an n-by-n chessboard.

Rockstar Games recently acknowledged the "unprecedented longevity" of Grand Theft Auto V (and its online component Grand Theft Auto Online) — and confirmed their working on the next new game for the series.

But Forbes argues "The success of GTA Online itself may end up fundamentally changing the way Rockstar makes this series going forward..." The success of Grand Theft Auto 5 has been both a blessing and a curse. A blessing for Rockstar, making zillions from the success of GTA Online, and for those deeply invested in that world which has continually gotten new expansions and additions. But a curse for those waiting for GTA 6, as Rockstar is now about to release GTA 5 across three different generations, cementing its massive lead as the best-selling game in history, endlessly delaying a true sequel. Now, however, Rockstar has finally stated the obvious, they are working on the next GTA game, which we're all calling GTA 6, but Rockstar stops short of saying number that outright....

I don't know if we can say for sure if this is going to be GTA 6 specifically, either the name or the concept.... I can imagine a "new entry in the Grand Theft Auto series" being a massive game that is perhaps online from the start, including for its base campaign. And not to use the "m" word, but there are less compelling metaverses than what GTA Online has become, and Rockstar may want to lean into that even further to try to get ahead of competition trying to make their own virtual worlds. As such, I could see a future that blends a traditional numbered GTA sequel and GTA Online, and who knows what that would be called ("GTA World?" "GTA Infinite?"). Just saying, it may not be "GTA 6," exactly.

Owen Williams, writing for TechCrunch: [...] As a result, it shouldn't be a surprise that some open source developers are beginning to realize they wield outsized power, despite the lack of compensation they receive for their work, because their projects are used by some of the largest, most profitable companies in the world. In early January, for example, Marak Squires, the developer of two popular NPM packages, 'colors' and 'faker,' intentionally introduced changes to their code that broke their functionality for anyone using them, outputting "LIBERTY LIBERTY LIBERTY" followed by gibberish and an infinite loop when used. While Squires didn't comment on the reason for making the changes, he had previously said on GitHub that "I am no longer going to support Fortune 500s ( and other smaller sized companies ) with my free work." Squires' changes broke other popular projects, including Amazon's Cloud Development Kit, as his libraries were installed almost 20 million times per week on npm, with thousands of projects directly depending on them. Within a few hours, NPM had rolled back the rogue release and GitHub suspended the developer's account in response.

While NPM's response was to be expected after previous incidents in which malicious code was added to libraries and was ultimately rolled back to limit damage, GitHub's was a new one: the code hosting platform took down Squires' entire account, even though he was the owner of the code and was his rights to change it as he pleased. This isn't the first time a developer has pulled their code in protest, either. The developer of 'left-pad' pulled his code from NPM in 2016, breaking tens of thousands of websites that depended on it following a fight with the Kik messenger over the naming of another open source project he owned. What's astonishing is that despite the occasional high-profile libraries protesting the way the industry works, these types of incidents aren't all that common: open source developers continue to work for free, maintaining their projects as best they can, even though multi-million dollar products being created off of the back of their work.