An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: In a world of worsening climate extremes, a single red line has caught many people's attention. The line, which charts sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic Ocean, went viral over the weekend for its startling display of unprecedented warming -- nearly 2 degrees (1.09 Celsius) above the mean dating back to 1982, the earliest year with comparable data. Ocean temperatures are so anomalously high that Eliot Jacobson, a retired mathematics professor who created the graph using data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, had to "increase the upper bound on the y-axis," he said. "I've been doing this for a long time, but this one was like, 'Oh my God, look at this,'" Jacobson said of the graph. "What is going on here?" He and other researchers said there are several factors that may be contributing to the off-the-charts warming, which is occurring alongside other climate woes including record-shattering wildfires in Canada, rapidly declining sea ice in Antarctica and unusually warm temperatures in many parts of the world, not including Southern California.

Underlying everything is human-caused climate change, said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA. But atop that are a handful of other potential factors, including the early arrival of El Nino; the recent eruption of the Hunga Tonga volcano; new regulations around sulfur aerosol emissions or even a dearth of Saharan dust. "The North Atlantic is record-shatteringly warm right now," Swain said during a briefing Monday. "There has never been any day in observed history where the entire North Atlantic has been nearly as warm as it is right now, at any time of year." Nearly all of the Atlantic basin is experiencing anomalous warmth, including the Irminger Sea southeast of Greenland, the western Mediterranean Sea, and the tropics "all the way from Africa to at least the Caribbean," said Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. "We are definitely in record territory," Johnson said. And it's not just the Atlantic, as global sea surface temperatures are also climbing to new highs, NOAA data show. "The primary cause of the warming we are seeing right now is an El Nino event on top of overall human-caused warming," Mann said.

Though concerning, the conditions aren't "completely out of left field" based on global warming trends, Swain said. "The long-term trend is not going to stop, and we are stair-stepping up our way to much warmer oceans and a much warmer climate, and there still hasn't been a great deal of momentum away from that," he said. "We're still moving in a pretty alarming direction, overall, when it comes to to warming."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CryptoSlate: Traditional financial firms, including Standard Chartered, Nomura, and Charles Schwab, are busy building or funding new crypto exchange and custody platforms, FT reported on May 31. These well-known Wall Street firms are betting that fund managers are still interested in trading crypto even after last year's market downturn and the string of crypto scandals. The FTX bankruptcy and Terra ecosystem implosion, among others, highlighted the risk of investing through largely unregulated exchanges. But legacy firms believe asset managers prefer dealing with established players over crypto-native exchanges like Binance.

Gautam Chhugani, Senior Analyst of Global Digital Assets at Bernstein, told FT: "The large, pedigreed, traditional institutional investors definitely prefer dealing with counterparties who they know have been in existence for years and have been regulated in the traditional sense." In a survey of 250 asset managers published by EY-Parthenon earlier this month, half of the respondents said they would consider switching from a crypto-native group to a traditional-backed company if they offered the same services. Additionally, 90% of respondents trusted traditional financial groups to act as custodians for their crypto assets.

The collapse of crypto firms last year and the disclosures on alleged malpractices eroded the trust of crypto investors. Traditional financial firms are banking on their finance industry expertise, long-standing reputations, and lack of regulatory scrutiny to attract clients. The new wave of legacy-backed crypto platforms will compete with Coinbase and Binance, which also host institutional clients. But traditional finance firms will compete by building more transparent operations -- particularly in separating exchanges from asset custody to avoid conflict of interest and reduce risk. The report notes that BNY Mellon and Fidelity already operate separate crypto custody divisions. Meanwhile, the Nasdaq is waiting for regulators to greenlight its service.

When Red Hat laid off 4% of its global staff, Fedora Program Manager Ben Cotton was "a member of that 4%," according to a new post on Cotton's blog: I've received so much support from people since the news started spreading. It's like that end scene of "It's a Wonderful Life" and I'm George Bailey. I'm proud of the contributions I've made to the Fedora community over the last five years, and it feels good to have others recognize that.
Cotton joined Red Hat in 2018, but "I was a Fedora contributor long before" Cotton writes, adding later that "I fully intend to still be participating in the Fedora community when my account hits the 20-year mark in May 2029." (Cotton's first foray into Fedora was joining its Docs team in 2009, and then volunteering to be the Docs project leader in 2011...)

And the blog post adds that professionally Cotton is "already pursuing a few opportunities... In the meantime, I have (at least) a few weeks to relax for a bit." I've told folks that if Fedora falls off the rails, then I have failed. I'm working with Matthew, Justin, and others to ensure coverage of the core job duties one way or another. I've worked hard over the years to automate tasks that can be automated. The documentation is far more comprehensive than what I inherited. No doubt there are gaps in what I've left for my successors. However, my goal is that in a few months, nobody will notice that I'm gone. That's my measure of success...

As to what the broader implication behind the loss of my position might be, I don't know. There's no indication that my role was targeted specifically. There are definitely people in Red Hat who continue to view Fedora as strategically important.

Roblox's new anti-cheat software puts a stop to in-game exploits, but at what cost? According to Liam Dawe from Gaming On Linux, it's blocking the Wine application, meaning "you won't be able to play it on Linux any more, at all, unless you find some sort of special workaround." He adds: "Previously the roll-out of this update was being tested only with some users. Now though it's here for everyone giving a 64 bit client and introducing their Hyperion anti-cheat software which they are intentionally blocking Wine with." Here's what one of their staff had to say about this: Hi - thanks for the question. I definitely get where you're coming from, and as you point out, you deserve a clear, good-faith answer. Unfortunately that answer is essentially "no."

From a personal perspective, a lot of people at Roblox would love to support Linux (including me). Practically speaking, there's just no way for us to justify it. If we release a client, we have to support it, which means QA, CS, documentation, etc., all of which is much more difficult on a fragmented platform. We release weekly on a half-dozen platforms. Adding in the time to test, debug, and release a Linux client would be expensive, which means time taken away from improving Roblox on our current platforms.

Even Wine support is difficult because of anti-cheat. As wonderful as it would be to allow Roblox under Wine, the number of users who would take advantage of that is minuscule compared with our other platforms, and it's not worthwhile if it makes it easy for exploiters to cheat.

I'm sorry to be such a downer about this, but it's the reality. We have to spend our time porting to and supporting the platforms that will grow our community.

Again, I'm personally sorry to have to say this. Way back in 2000 I had a few patches accepted into the kernel, and I led the port of Roblox game servers from Windows to Linux several years ago. From a technical and philosophical perspective, it would be a wonderful thing to do. But our first responsibility is to our overall community, and the opportunity cost of supporting a Linux client is far, far too high to justify.

Earlier today, more than 1,100 artificial intelligence experts, industry leaders and researchers signed a petition calling on AI developers to stop training models more powerful than OpenAI's ChatGPT-4 for at least six months. Among those who refrained from signing it was Eliezer Yudkowsky, a decision theorist from the U.S. and lead researcher at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. He's been working on aligning Artificial General Intelligence since 2001 and is widely regarded as a founder of the field.

"This 6-month moratorium would be better than no moratorium," writes Yudkowsky in an opinion piece for Time Magazine. "I refrained from signing because I think the letter is understating the seriousness of the situation and asking for too little to solve it." Yudkowsky cranks up the rhetoric to 100, writing: "If somebody builds a too-powerful AI, under present conditions, I expect that every single member of the human species and all biological life on Earth dies shortly thereafter." Here's an excerpt from his piece: The key issue is not "human-competitive" intelligence (as the open letter puts it); it's what happens after AI gets to smarter-than-human intelligence. Key thresholds there may not be obvious, we definitely can't calculate in advance what happens when, and it currently seems imaginable that a research lab would cross critical lines without noticing. [...] It's not that you can't, in principle, survive creating something much smarter than you; it's that it would require precision and preparation and new scientific insights, and probably not having AI systems composed of giant inscrutable arrays of fractional numbers. [...]

It took more than 60 years between when the notion of Artificial Intelligence was first proposed and studied, and for us to reach today's capabilities. Solving safety of superhuman intelligence -- not perfect safety, safety in the sense of "not killing literally everyone" -- could very reasonably take at least half that long. And the thing about trying this with superhuman intelligence is that if you get that wrong on the first try, you do not get to learn from your mistakes, because you are dead. Humanity does not learn from the mistake and dust itself off and try again, as in other challenges we've overcome in our history, because we are all gone.

Trying to get anything right on the first really critical try is an extraordinary ask, in science and in engineering. We are not coming in with anything like the approach that would be required to do it successfully. If we held anything in the nascent field of Artificial General Intelligence to the lesser standards of engineering rigor that apply to a bridge meant to carry a couple of thousand cars, the entire field would be shut down tomorrow. We are not prepared. We are not on course to be prepared in any reasonable time window. There is no plan. Progress in AI capabilities is running vastly, vastly ahead of progress in AI alignment or even progress in understanding what the hell is going on inside those systems. If we actually do this, we are all going to die. You can read the full letter signed by AI leaders here.

Slashdot reader DevNull127 writes: Is there a dark side to online dating apps like Tinder? "According to the FTC, reports of fraud losses from romance scams topped $1.3 billion in 2022," reports the Verge. The head of the FBI's Portland field office tells them that "Technology gives you this false sense of trust." But the co-founder of the nonprofit Advocating Against Romance Scammers argues it's more than that — that technology "gives criminals a crucial tool to find new victims, and they are definitely getting more brazen overall."

And then the Verge tells the story of a 32-year-old technology entrepreneur and self-proclaimed multimillionaire who didn't see the red flags when a mysterious date on Tinder asked him what kind of car he owned — and told him that when he paid for their hotel room, bring cash...

Yes, he ends up being carjacked at gunpoint in a Tinder car-theft scheme by a largely transient con artist. But then he posts to his 245,000 followers on Instagram — hiring a marketing company to manage a car-recovery campaign. He hears from fences who offer to sell back his car for $30,000 — along with an alleged police informant. There's good luck and bad luck in this wild tale of car chases, police scanners, a neighborhood they call "Methville," and an attempt to bring accountability to a 21-year-old catfisher and her two 18-year-old acomplices.

But the story ends with the 32-year-old self-proclaimed multimillionaire back on Tinder, looking for another date.

Amazon.com plans to launch its first internet satellites to space in the first half of 2024 and offer initial commercial tests shortly after, the company said Tuesday, as it prepares to vie with Elon Musk's SpaceX and others to provide broadband internet globally. Reuters reports: Amazon's satellite internet unit, Project Kuiper, will begin mass-producing the satellites later this year, the company said. Those will be the first of over 3,000 satellites the technology giant plans to launch in low-Earth orbit in the next few years. "We'll definitely be beta testing with commercial customers in 2024," Dave Limp, senior vice president of Amazon devices, said at a conference in Washington.

The 2024 deployment target would keep Amazon on track to fulfill a regulatory mandate to launch half its entire Kuiper network of 3,236 satellites by 2026. Limp, who oversees Amazon's consumer devices powerhouse, said the company plans to make "three to five" satellites a day to reach that goal. With plans to pump more than $10 billion into the Kuiper network, Amazon sees its experience producing millions of devices from its consumer electronics powerhouse as an edge over rival SpaceX, the Musk-owned space company whose Starlink network already has roughly 4,000 satellites in space.

Amazon plans to launch a pair of prototype satellites early this year aboard a new rocket from the Boeing-Lockheed joint venture United Launch Alliance. The 2024 launch, carrying the initial production satellites, is expected to be the first of many more in a swift deployment campaign using rockets Amazon procured in 2021 and 2022. The company on Tuesday also revealed a slate of three different terminals, or antennas, that will connect customers with its Kuiper satellites in orbit. In a blog post on Tuesday, Amazon detailed its new terminals with photos and pricing.

Standard Customer Terminal: "Project Kuiper's standard customer terminal measures less than 11 inches square and 1 inch thick. It weighs less than five pounds without its mounting bracket. Despite this modest footprint, the device will be one of the most powerful commercially available customer terminals of its size, delivering speeds up to 400 megabits per second (Mbps). Amazon expects to produce these terminals for less than $400 each."

"Most Affordable" Terminal: "A 7-inch square design will be Project Kuiper's smallest and most affordable customer terminal. Weighing just 1 pound and offering speeds up to 100 Mbps, its portability and affordability will create opportunities to serve even more customers around the world. This design will connect residential customers who need an even lower-cost model, as well as government and enterprise customers pursuing applications like ground mobility and internet of things (IoT)."

"Most Capable" Antenna Model: "Project Kuiper's largest, most capable model is designed for enterprise, government, and telecommunications applications that require even more bandwidth. The device measures 19 inches by 30 inches, and will deliver speeds up to 1 gigabit per second (Gbps)."

Tech privacy advocates frustrated by failures on Capitol Hill are looking to mine state capitals for legislative victories. From a report: A broad bipartisan federal privacy bill that died in Congress last year has quickly become the template for a statehouse-by-statehouse campaign to enact tough new restrictions on how Americans' personal data can be mined and shared. Lawmakers in Massachusetts and Illinois are already proposing privacy measures modeled on the federal bill, and Democrats in Indiana are using it as inspiration to strengthen legislation that's already been proposed. Four other states have already passed their own data-privacy laws in the past two years -- raising anxiety levels among tech companies about a national "patchwork" of hard-to-navigate data rules -- but encouraging advocates who see an appetite for broader consumer protections.

"We were wondering if there would be something passed federally. It would definitely guide what we would be doing for the state," Democratic Indiana state Sen. Shelli Yoder said in an interview. "Because that failed, it put us in a position of needing to do something." The new statehouse focus by privacy advocates isn't necessarily designed to sweep across all 50 states but rather tighten regulations just enough in just enough places to force the industry into a de facto national standard. They're hoping to enact state-level privacy proposals that align closely with what Congress attempted to pass with the American Data and Privacy Protection Act: regulations that would limit what data companies can collect and share, create a data broker registry and establish new rights for Americans to delete data about themselves. But they're playing catch-up to an industry-led campaign that's made significant headway in several states, including Virginia and Utah, where weaker laws were enacted over the past two years.

A monthslong leak investigation by Meta has uncovered the source behind renders of the company's unannounced VR headsets that were published last year by a YouTuber named Brad Lynch. From a report: Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth shared the news earlier this week with employees in an internal post seen by The Verge. He said Meta has cut ties with the leaker, who I'm told was a third-party contractor and asked Lynch for revenue share from the YouTube ads running against his videos. In his post to Meta employees, Bosworth confirmed that the unnamed leaker was paid a small sum for sharing the materials with Lynch.

Creators like Lynch aren't beholden to the rules of newsrooms like The Verge, which doesn't allow its reporters to send or receive payment in exchange for information. When I asked Lynch for comment, he didn't deny that he shared money from the ads on his YouTube channel with his source. "They might have asked because I wasn't willing to give much money up front," he said. "I'm just one guy who loves VR and just enjoys talking with industry friends and reporting what I hear. And I'm definitely not getting rich from it."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Over the past few days, dozens of tech companies have filed briefs in support of Google in a Supreme Court case that tests online platforms' liability for recommending content. Obvious stakeholders like Meta and Twitter, alongside popular platforms like Craigslist, Etsy, Wikipedia, Roblox, and Tripadvisor, urged the court to uphold Section 230 immunity in the case or risk muddying the paths users rely on to connect with each other and discover information online. Out of all these briefs, however, Reddit's was perhaps the most persuasive (PDF). The platform argued on behalf of everyday Internet users, whom it claims could be buried in "frivolous" lawsuits for frequenting Reddit, if Section 230 is weakened by the court. Unlike other companies that hire content moderators, the content that Reddit displays is "primarily driven by humans -- not by centralized algorithms." Because of this, Reddit's brief paints a picture of trolls suing not major social media companies, but individuals who get no compensation for their work recommending content in communities. That legal threat extends to both volunteer content moderators, Reddit argued, as well as more casual users who collect Reddit "karma" by upvoting and downvoting posts to help surface the most engaging content in their communities.

"Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act famously protects Internet platforms from liability, yet what's missing from the discussion is that it crucially protects Internet users -- everyday people -- when they participate in moderation like removing unwanted content from their communities, or users upvoting and downvoting posts," a Reddit spokesperson told Ars. Reddit argues in the brief that such frivolous lawsuits have been lobbed against Reddit users and the company in the past, and Section 230 protections historically have consistently allowed Reddit users to "quickly and inexpensively" avoid litigation. [...]

The Supreme Court will have to weigh whether Reddit's arguments are valid. To help make its case defending Section 230 immunity protections for recommending content, Reddit received special permission from the Supreme Court to include anonymous comments from Reddit mods in its brief. This, Reddit's spokesperson notes, is "a significant departure from normal Supreme Court procedure." The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit defending online privacy, championed the court's decision to allow moderators to contribute comments anonymously. "We're happy the Supreme Court recognized the First Amendment rights of Reddit moderators to speak to the court about their concerns," EFF's senior staff attorney, Sophia Cope, told Ars. "It is quite understandable why those individuals may be hesitant to identify themselves should they be subject to liability in the future for moderating others' speech on Reddit."

"Reddit users that interact with third-party content -- including 'hosting' content on a sub-Reddit that they manage, or moderating that content -- could definitely be open to legal exposure if the Court carves out "recommending' from Section 230's protections, or otherwise narrows Section 230's reach," Cope told Ars.

Solana, the blockchain network once championed by Sam Bankman-Fried, is drawing intense scrutiny as industry watchers wonder whether its former close ties to the disgraced crypto mogul and his now-defunct FTX empire will jeopardize its future. From a report: Its founders are doing everything they can to break that connection. The price of Solana's crypto token, SOL, has plummeted 96% from its all-time high of $260 in November 2021 to about $10, hurt first by a year-long crypto rout that engulfed the whole market and then again by FTX's fall. SOL dropped as much as 12% on Wednesday alone on concern large holders are offloading the token, which is used as the base cryptocurrency for financial transactions on the blockchain.

Anatoly Yakovenko, co-founder of Solana Labs, the startup that developed the blockchain, said in an interview earlier this month that he doesn't usually comment on price, and that the focus instead should be on "the technology and having people build something awesome that's decentralized." But the collapse of FTX is having an impact -- both personal and professional -- on Solana and its founders. And the token's drop can be seen as an expression of waning confidence in the whole platform, which at its peak sported a market value of almost $80 billion and is now a tiny fraction of that.

Yakovenko said roughly 4% of teams building projects on Solana now were acutely affected by FTX's collapse. Some platforms had funds custodied on the crypto exchange. About 80% of teams on Solana's blockchain had no exposure at all to FTX, Yakovenko said, referring to survey data, adding that he was connecting severely impacted founders with investors who could potentially provide emergency capital. "There's definitely more to Solana than FTX," Yakovenko said. Still, the network's longstanding ties to FTX and Alameda Research, the crypto trading firm co-founded by Bankman-Fried, may make it hard for some to move past the association. The two firms helped support Solana by purchasing SOL tokens in bulk from the Solana Foundation, the nonprofit that helps support the blockchain. Alameda also bought large quantities of SOL from Solana Labs. [...] Alameda and FTX's venture arm also invested in multiple projects that operated on Solana, while FTX built its own projects on the network, including the decentralized finance platform Serum. These types of efforts, from an industry leader with substantial influence in the market, helped introduce Solana to many crypto users, Gokal said.

America's Transportation Security Administration "has been quietly testing controversial facial recognition technology for passenger screening at 16 major domestic airports — from Washington to Los Angeles," reports the Washington Post.

Their article adds that the agency "hopes to expand it across the United States as soon as next year." Kiosks with cameras are doing a job that used to be completed by humans: checking the photos on travelers' IDs to make sure they're not impostors.... You step up to the travel document checker kiosk and stick your ID into a machine. Then you look into a camera for up to five seconds and the machine compares your live photo to the one it sees on your ID. They call this a "one to one" verification system, comparing one face to one ID. Even though the software is judging if you're an impostor, there's still a human agent there to make the final call (at least for now).

So how accurate is it? The TSA says it's been better at verifying IDs than the manual process. "This technology is definitely a security enhancement," said [TSA program manager Jason] Lim. "We are so far very satisfied with the performance of the machine's ability to conduct facial recognition accurately...." But the TSA hasn't actually released hard data about how often its system falsely identifies people, through incorrect positive or negative matches. Some of that might come to light next year when the TSA has to make its case to the Department of Homeland Security to convert airports all over the United States into facial recognition systems....

The TSA says it doesn't use facial recognition for law-enforcement purposes. It also says it minimizes holding on to our face data, so it isn't using the scans to build out a new national database of face IDs. "The scanning and match is made and immediately overwritten at the Travel Document Checker podium. We keep neither the live photo nor the photo of the ID," said Lim. But the TSA did acknowledge there are cases in which it holds on to the data for up to 24 months so its science and technology office can evaluate the system's effectiveness....

"None of this facial recognition technology is mandated," said Lim. "Those who do not feel comfortable will still have to present their ID — but they can tell the officer that they do not want their photo taken, and the officer will turn off the live camera." There are also supposed to be signs around informing you of your rights.
Here's the TSA's web page about the program. Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike for sharing the article.

The social media platform Discord recently published its quarterly safety report which notes that some 55,573,411 accounts and 68,379 servers were "disabled" between January and June, 2022. From a report: According to the company, the vast majority of these were taken offline for "spam or spam-related offenses." The number of accounts that were disabled for reasons other than spam definitely pales in comparison, amounting to a mere 1,821,721. The bans in this category were mostly handed out for issues relating to "child safety" or "exploitative and unsolicited content." Discord seems to be justified in disabling these accounts and closing the affected servers, at least broadly speaking. Successful appeals came to only two percent in the first quarter and less than one percent in the second quarter of this year, meaning that of the 235,945 users who called for a second opinion about their ban, only 3,098 of them were reinstated on the platform.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: Modified off-the-shelf drones have been found carrying wireless network-intrusion kit in a very unlikely place. Greg Linares, a security researcher, recently recounted an incident that he said occurred over the summer at a US East Coast financial firm focused on private investment. He told The Register that he was not involved directly with the investigation but interacted with those involved as part of his work in the finance sector. In a Twitter thread, Linares said the hacking incident was discovered when the financial firm spotted unusual activity on its internal Atlassian Confluence page that originated from within the company's network.

The company's security team responded and found that the user whose MAC address was used to gain partial access to the company Wi-Fi network was also logged in at home several miles away. That is to say, the user was active off-site but someone within Wi-Fi range of the building was trying to wirelessly use that user's MAC address, which is a red flag. The team then took steps to trace the Wi-Fi signal and used a Fluke system to identify the Wi-Fi device. "This led the team to the roof, where a 'modified DJI Matrice 600' and a 'modified DJI Phantom' series were discovered," Linares explained. The Phantom drone was in fine condition and had a modified Wi-Fi Pineapple device, used for network penetration testing, according to Linares. The Matrice drone was carrying a case that contained a Raspberry Pi, several batteries, a GPD mini laptop, a 4G modem, and another Wi-Fi device. It had landed near the building's heating and ventilation system and appeared to be damaged but still operable. "During their investigation, they determined that the DJI Phantom drone had originally been used a few days prior to intercept a worker's credentials and Wi-Fi," Linares said. "This data was later hard coded into the tools that were deployed with the Matrice."

According to Linares, the tools on the drones were used to target the company's internal Confluence page in order to reach other internal devices using the credentials stored there. The attack, he said, had limited success and is the third cyberattack involving a drone he's seen over the past two years. "The attackers specifically targeted a limited access network, used by both a third-party and internally, that was not secure due to recent changes at the company (e.g. restructuring/rebranding, new building, new building lease, new network setup or a combination of any of these scenarios)," Linares told The Register. "This is the reason why this temporary network unfortunately had limited access in order to login (credentials + MAC security). The attackers were using the attack in order to access an internal IT confluence server that contained other credentials for accessing other resources and storing IT procedures." [...] While the identity of the attacker has not been disclosed, Linares believes those responsible did their homework. "This was definitely a threat actor who likely did internal reconnaissance for several weeks, had physical proximity to the target environment, had a proper budget and knew their physical security limitations," he said.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: On Tuesday, 40 civil rights groups published an open letter calling on MGM Television executives to cancel the studio's upcoming reality show Ring Nation, which will feature former NSA employee and comedian Wanda Sykes presenting humorous surveillance footage captured from Ring doorbell cameras. The groups say the studio is "normalizing and promoting Amazon Ring's dangerous network of surveillance cameras," which, along with the Neighbors app, "violate basic privacy rights, fuel surveillance-based policing that disproportionately targets people of color and threatens abortion seekers, and enables vigilantes to surveil their neighbors and racially profile bystanders."

There's just one potential problem with the well-intentioned campaign: Amazon owns Ring, producer Big Fish Entertainment, and distributor MGM, and it also owns the Prime Video streaming service should it need somewhere to air it. It also has specific partnerships with thousands of police departments around the country should they happen to prove useful. This tower of vertical integration means that Ring Nation is a show designed from the ground up to leverage Amazon's vast monopoly to push its own product on Americans, and it also means that it will probably (but not definitely) be impossible to kill. There's very little chance that MGM executives will push back on the project when it's probably exactly the type of thing Amazon imagined being able to do when it spent $8.5 billion on a merger with MGM this year. "Ring Nation is not a comedy but rather a propaganda strategy to normalize and further digitize racial profiling in our communities. Truthfully the cognitive dissonance about the dangers of these tools is a real concern. It's striking to see a host who has been such a vocal supporter of racial justice protesters defend the very tech that was used to surveil activists during the uprisings in 2020," said Myaisha Hayes, campaign strategy director at Cancel Ring Nation co-organizer Media Justice, in a statement.

"The Ring Nation reality-TV series is anything but funny. It weaponizes the joy of our daily lives in an attempt to manufacture a PR miracle for scandal-ridden Amazon," Evan Greer, director of co-organizer Fight for the Future, said in a statement. "By normalizing surveillance, it will teach our children to relinquish their privacy in exchange for a quick laugh. In the coming weeks, Fight for the Future, Media Justice, and our org partners will be mobilizing our supporters and forming a loud and fearless coalition of civil rights groups to cancel Ring Nation," Greer said.

The show is set to launch on Sept. 26, though it hasn't been announced which networks will carry it.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Americans addicted to Amazon could soon be wooed by a Chinese tech giant most of them have never heard of. Pinduoduo is planning to expand its reach to the US next month, according to reports in Bloomberg and Reuters. The company is known for delivering goods at rock-bottom prices -- while putting its employees through conditions that a prominent labor activist says should horrify Americans. Described by its founder, the former Google employee Colin Huang, as a cross between "Costco and Disneyland," Pinduoduo has ridden a wave of meteoric Chinese tech growth to become one of the largest e-commerce companies in the world since its founding in 2015.

Pinduoduo targeted China's smaller cities and more rural areas, where consumers tend to be less wealthy and more cost-conscious, says JS Tan, an MIT graduate student who researches the Chinese tech industry. Its signature feature is "group buying," which allows users to organize people to make mass purchases directly from manufacturers at a steep discount. Because Pinduoduo is heavily integrated with WeChat, China's top social media platform, it's a snap for users to gather up friends, family and internet strangers to order big batches of everything from electronics to baby formula to groceries -- something that became a lifeline during China's strict Covid lockdowns.

"Pinduoduo is known for its extreme overtime," said Li Qiang, a veteran labor activist and founder of the non-profit China Labor Watch. "The competition is extremely intense, and the conditions are much crueler than in America." Two Pinduoduo employees died within a two-week period from December 2020 to January 2021, igniting a national scandal. The first worker, 22-year-old Zhang Fei, died on 29 December, when she was heading home around 1.30am after a series of extremely long shifts. The second worker, an engineer in his 20s, jumped to his death on 9 January after abruptly asking for leave from the company and traveling home the same day. The controversy grew when days later, a Pinduoduo employee who called himself Wang Taixu said he had been fired by the company after posting a photo of a colleague being taken into an ambulance after collapsing. Wang subsequently published a lengthy video on the video-sharing site Bilibili detailing labor abuses he had witnessed at the company; he alleged that some workers were made to work as many as 380 hours a month, which the company denied. "I think that for American tech workers, this definitely isn't a good thing," said Li. "In terms of manufacturing costs, American companies have no way to compete with Pinduoduo. If Pinduoduo succeeds, it could take Chinese-style labor practices and bring them to America."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Instagram will walk back some recent changes to the product following a week of mounting criticism, the company said today. A test version of the app that opened to full-screen photos and videos will be phased out over the next one to two weeks, and Instagram will also reduce the number of recommended posts in the app as it works to improve its algorithms. "I'm glad we took a risk -- if we're not failing every once in a while, we're not thinking big enough or bold enough," Instagram chief Adam Mosseri said in an interview. "But we definitely need to take a big step back and regroup. [When] we've learned a lot, then we come back with some sort of new idea or iteration. So we're going to work through that."

The changes come amid growing user frustration over a series of changes to Instagram designed to help it better compete with TikTok and navigate the broader shift in user behavior away from posting static photos toward watching more video. Redesigns often incur the wrath of users who are hostile to change, but in this case the high-profile dissatisfaction was backed up by Instagram's own internal data, Mosseri said. The trend toward users watching more video is real, and pre-dated the rise of TikTok, he said. But it's clear that people actually do dislike Instagram's design changes. "For the new feed designs, people are frustrated and the usage data isn't great," he said. "So there I think that we need to take a big step back, regroup, and figure out how we want to move forward."

The company also plans to show users fewer recommendations. On Wednesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said [on an earnings call (PDF)] that recommended posts and accounts in feeds currently account for about 15 percent of what you see when you browse Facebook, and an even higher percentage on Instagram. By the end of 2023, that figure will be around 30 percent, Zuckerberg said. But Instagram will temporarily reduce the amount of recommended posts and accounts as it works to improve its personalization tools. (Mosseri wouldn't say by how much, exactly.) "When you discover something in your field that you didn't follow before, there should be a high bar -- it should just be great," Mosseri said. "You should be delighted to see it. And I don't think that's happening enough right now. So I think we need to take a step back, in terms of the percentage of feed that are recommendations, get better at ranking and recommendations, and then -- if and when we do -- we can start to grow again." ("I'm confident we will," he added.) Mosseri made clear that the retreat Instagram announced today is not permanent.

CNET spoke to the systems and deputy program manager for the Hubble Space Telescope at Lockheed Martin, who remembers the first 1995 "deep field" image from the Hubble Space Telescope — taken over 10 days and revealing 3,000 galaxies. But he also remembers just how revolutionary it was. "To look at a 'dark' sliver of the sky and see so many stars and galaxies really drives home how much we still have to learn about the universe."

Looking back, that was only from 340 miles above our atmosphere — not the million miles from Earth travelled by the Webb Space Telescope (which also scours the universe "for cosmic bits emanating luminescence elusive to human eyes, otherwise known as infrared light.")

Yet while this has been a glorious month for astronomy, "We will absolutely still need Hubble," said Cornell University astronomer Nikole Lewis. "In fact, I'm in the process of trying to put together a budget for a large treasury program on Hubble." Lewis is after something Hubble has but JWST lacks. She studies exoplanets and intends to use visible and ultraviolet light wavelengths to decode clouds and hazes of foreign worlds — the type of light JWST isn't sensitive to. "There's a lot of important information at those wavelengths."

Despite JWST's clout, Hubble is also still the top candidate for scrutinizing galaxies moving along the X or Y axis, rather than the Z axis. "While galactic motion 'toward' and 'away' from Earth is very easy to measure with redshift," a JWST specialty, "'side to side' motion is harder," Caplan said.

In truth, this unique Hubble power turns out to be how we realized a pretty massive detail about galaxies. Many of them are on a crash course right now. By staring at Andromeda over the years — the galaxy that Hubble's namesake used as evidence in 1923 to prove our universe extends beyond the Milky Way — and measuring how its light on individual pixels transferred from one to the next, JWST's predecessor showed us that this galaxy isn't just orbiting ours. "They really will collide," Caplan explained. Would JWST have caught that?

Nonetheless, all of this is to say that as JWST continues to flood the internet with colorful depictions of space's outer reaches, we should remember that it isn't Hubble's replacement. JWST is its successor. It'll work in tandem with Hubble and wouldn't exist in a world without it.... And though the James Webb Space Telescope's story began with a bang, we ought not to let Hubble's end with a whimper. "They're not shutting Hubble down," said Dave Meyer, a Northwestern University professor focused on Hubble discoveries.

"We still think that's about a decade away."
And that systems and deputy program manager for the Hubble Space Telescope at Lockheed Martin also shared another part of its legacy: inspiring the next generation of astronomers. "I grew up being fascinated by the Shuttle program and was mesmerized watching the astronauts service Hubble.

"That was definitely part of my inspiration to become an aerospace engineer."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Car and Driver, written by Ezra Dyer: Politicians have to run on some kind of platform, and Ben Moss -- my incoming state House representative here in North Carolina's District 52 -- decided that his animating principle is Being Mad at Electricity. To prove his animosity toward this invisible menace, he's sponsoring House Bill 1049, which would allocate $50,000 to destroy free public car chargers. It contains some other enlightened ideas, but that's the main theme: We've simply got to do something about these free public chargers, even if it costs us $50,000! Those things cost tens of cents per hour, when they're being used.

Of course, there's a caveat here. Moss isn't saying that free public Level 2 chargers -- of which there are three in my town, with plans in the works to convert to paid kiosks -- definitely need to get crushed by a monster truck. That rule only comes into play if a town refuses to build free gas and diesel pumps next to the EV chargers. So anyway, warm up El Toro Loco, we're smashin' some car zappers! But what about private businesses? you ask. Don't worry, Moss hasn't forgotten that a business might put a charger on its property as an inducement for EV owners to patronize the establishment. And small business is the heart of the local economy. That's why he's staying out of the way when it comes to private property. Just kidding! Ben Moss cares about the consumers being harmed by these hypothetical free chargers -- namely, any customer who arrived via internal-combustion vehicle, or on foot, or in a sedan chair. Why is someone else gaining some advantage based on a decision they made? That's not how life works.

Thus, House Bill 1049 decrees that all customer receipts will have to show what share of the bill went toward the charger out in the lot. That way, anyone who showed up for dinner in an F-150 (not the electric one) can get mad that their jalapeno poppers helped pay for a business expense not directly related to them. It's the same way you demand to know how much Applebee's spends to keep the lights on in its parking lot overnight, when you're not there. Sure, this will be an accounting nightmare, but it'll all be worth it if we can prevent even one person from adding 16 miles of charge to a Nissan Leaf while eating a bloomin' onion -- not that restaurants around here have free chargers, but you can't be too careful. Now, there is a charger at the neighborhood Ford dealership, which is marking up Broncos by $20,000. Coincidence? I think not. "Critics of this bill might point out that increasing the number of electric cars could actually benefit owners of internal-combustion vehicles, thanks to reduced demand for petroleum products," adds Dyer. "Electron heads, as I call them, also like to point out that electricity is generated domestically, so your transportation dollars are staying in the U.S. rather than going to, say, Saudi Arabia."

A new report finds that blockchain systems might not be working as well as many crypto enthusiasts assume. From a report: The report was commissioned by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, and the work was done by the software security research company Trail of Bits. Trail of Bits CEO Dan Guido says blockchain -- the public ledgers that keep track of cryptocurrencies, which are replicated on computers around the world -- isn't the egalitarian tech its advocates claim. "It's been taken for granted that the blockchain is immutable and decentralized, because the community says so," says Guido. But in practice, he says, these networks have evolved in ways that concentrate power in the hands of certain people or companies, including the large pools of "miners" whose computers earn virtual currency by maintaining the blockchains.

Guido's team calls these potential situations "unintended centralities" -- situations in which someone gains leverage over the decentralized system, creating opportunities for tampering with the record of who owns what. Another example in the report of this kind of concentration is the fact that 60% of Bitcoin traffic is handled by just three internet service providers. "Let's say somebody with great top-down control of the internet in their country starts to interfere with that network," Guido says. By slowing down or stopping legitimate blockchain traffic, an attacker could become the "majority" voice in the consensus of what's written to a blockchain at that moment. "They can rewrite history. They can censor transactions. They can make it so that you can't spend your Bitcoin," says Guido. "It's definitely something people would want to do if they want to 'grief' the network."