"A new supercomputer called Frontier has been widely touted as the world's first exascale machine — but was it really?"

That's the question that long-time Slashdot reader MattSparkes explores in a new article at New Scientist... Although Frontier, which was built by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, topped what is generally seen as the definitive list of supercomputers, others may already have achieved the milestone in secret....

The definitive list of supercomputers is the Top500, which is based on a single measurement: how fast a machine can solve vast numbers of equations by running software called the LINPACK benchmark. This gives a value in float-point operations per second, or FLOPS. But even Jack Dongarra at Top500 admits that not all supercomputers are listed, and will only feature if its owner runs the benchmark and submits a result. "If they don't send it in it doesn't get entered," he says. "I can't force them."

Some owners prefer not to release a benchmark figure, or even publicly reveal a machine's existence. Simon McIntosh-Smith at the University of Bristol, UK points out that not only do intelligence agencies and certain companies have an incentive to keep their machines secret, but some purely academic machines like Blue Waters, operated by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, are also just never entered.... Dongarra says that the consensus among supercomputer experts is that China has had at least two exascale machines running since 2021, known as OceanLight and Tianhe-3, and is working on an even larger third called Sugon. Scientific papers on unconnected research have revealed evidence of these machines when describing calculations carried out on them.

McIntosh-Smith also believes that intelligence agencies would rank well, if allowed. "Certainly in the [US], some of the security forces have things that would put them at the top," he says. "There are definitely groups who obviously wouldn't want this on the list."

Last summer Chinese market analyst Ming-Chi Kuo reported the iPhone 13 would include satellite communication capability, remembers long-time tech pundit Robert Cringley, who adds that the prediction was denied by Apple. "This, in itself, was weird because Apple generally doesn't react to rumors. But beyond the mere reaction, the way Apple responded to Ming's prediction was especially odd." An unattributed leak from Cupertino said that the iPhone 13 definitely would not include satellite communication capability. And even if some iPhone could communicate with satellites, the leak continued, it wouldn't be offering satellite voice service (which Ming had mentioned), limiting iPhones to satellite text or iMessage.... This was making less and less sense, but it clearly meant there was something happening.

Then came the iPhone 13 launch and Ming was wrong for a change — no satellite communications. So the Cupertino rumor mill went about its business, Ming's satellite rumor apparently forgotten.

But not by me....
And this leads Cringley to another prediction of his own: I am convinced an announcement will be coming soon. Apple will shortly enter the satellite business by acquiring GlobalStar and its 24 satellites. They will use those 24, plus 24 more satellites that Apple has already commissioned, to offer satellite service for iMessage and Apple's Find My network just like they implied in their denial last year.

These apps are proxies for Apple entering — and then dominating — the Internet of Things (IoT) business. After all, iPhones will give them 1.6 billion points of presence for AirTag detection even on sailboats in the middle of the ocean — or on the South Pole.

IoT is already a big business that is going to get even bigger even faster because of Apple. Adding that satellite connection to iMessage and Find My offers the possibility of ubiquity for IoT, though only on Apple's network. Ubiquity (being able to track anything in near real time anywhere on the planet) signals the maturity of IoT, turning it quickly into a $1 TRILLION business — in this case Apple's $1 TRILLION business....

While Apple's stated goals will be only iMessage and Find My, followed by IoT, in the longer run Cupertino plans to dis-intermediate the mobile carriers — becoming themselves a satellite-based global phone and data company. That will require shifting over additional Globalstar bandwidth plus launching another 300-600 satellites, so it is several years away but IS coming. Apple will compete not just with every other mobile carrier including Cupertino's own customers, they will also compete with satellite Internet providers like Starlink, OneWeb, and Amazon's Kuiper. Apple can compete with Starlink with so many fewer satellites because GlobalStar has vastly more licensed spectrum than does SpaceX, which has to reuse the same spectrum over and over again with thousands of satellites.

Fedora project leader Matthew Miller spoke to TechRepublic's Jack Wallen this week, sharing some thoughts on the future of Linux — and on open source in general: Matthew Miller: I think it's a lost cause to try to "sell" our quirky technology interest to people who don't see it already. We need to take a different approach.... I think our message, at its root, has to be around open source.... [W]ith Linux, when you install an open-source distro, you're not just part of a fan community. You're part of a colossal, global effort that makes software more available to everyone, makes that software better and better, and makes the whole world better through sharing... Just by using it you're sharing in this amazing undertaking, part of a move away from scarcity to an economy based on abundance....

Jack Wallen: What's the biggest difference in Linux today vs. Linux of 10 years ago?

Matthew Miller: I think first we have to start with just the amazing ubiquity of it. Ten years ago, it was cute to find a TV that ran Linux. Now, not only is it definitely powering your TV, you've probably got Linux running on your lightbulbs! It's everywhere. And while Linux had pushed proprietary Unix from the server room, ten years ago Windows-based servers were pushing back. The cloud changed that — now, the cloud is Linux, almost completely. (Anything that isn't is a legacy app that it was too much trouble to port!) From tiny devices to the most powerful mainframes and supercomputers: Linux, Linux, Linux....

Jack Wallen: If Linux has an Achilles' heel, what is it?

Matthew Miller: Linux and the whole free and open-source software movement grew up with the rise of the internet as an open communication platform. We absolutely need that to continue in order to realize our vision, and I don't think we can take it for granted.

That's more general than an Achilles' heel, though, so right now let me highlight one thing that I think is troubling: Chrome becoming the dominant browser to the point where it's often the only way to make sites work. Chromium (the associated upstream project) is open source, but isn't really run as a community project, and, pointedly, very very few people run Chromium itself. I'd love to see that change, but I'd also like to see Firefox regain a meaningful presence.
Miller also said Fedora's next release is focused on simplicity. ("When the OS gets in the way, it drops from the conversation I want to have about big ideas to ... well, the boring technical details that people never want to deal with")

And he also shared his thoughts on what Linux needs most. "What I'd really like to see more of are more non-technical contributors. I mean, yes, we can always benefit from more packagers and coders and engineers, but I think what we really need desperately are writers, designers, artists, videographers, communicators, organizers and planners. I don't think big companies are likely to provide those things, at least, not for the parts of the Linux world which aren't their products."

"We need people who think the whole grand project I've been talking about is important, and who have the skills and interests to help make it real."

Android Central was sent images of Google's upcoming Pixel Watch after it was reportedly left at a restaurant in the U.S. It's reminiscent of when an Apple iPhone 4 was lost and found at a bar in 2010. From the report: Android Central has reviewed the images of the watch that could be announced during Google I/O next month. It's possible that the watch itself could be released alongside the Pixel 7. The source, who we have left anonymous to protect their identity, said the watch, which could be "a testing model for the Internal Pixel team," was found at a restaurant. The source requested Android Central to not publish their name or the restaurant name, including location, in order to protect their job. After the reporting of this story, the source wrote a Reddit post about the alleged watch. The source indicated that the watch was left at the restaurant "for a few weeks expecting the people that left it to return, but that never happened."

The watch in our images looks almost identical to leaks of rumored rendered images. It has a minimalist design and follows what leaks have suggested a screen with hardly any bezels. The image also confirms one of the rumored colors that the watch will come in: black. Previous rumors have suggested the watch will have a rotating crown and potentially two hidden buttons. It is a bit hard to tell from the image above, but if this is the rumored watch then there is definitely at least one button next to the crown.

[I]t seems that the watch's band is a proprietary Google band and looks very similar to the jelly-like Apple Watch sport bands. This could mean that we might see many more colors to come. It also looks like it attaches directly to the watch case. This might make swapping out watch bands difficult, especially when most of the other top Android smartwatches give you more leeway with standard watch band types. No charger was left behind with the watch, but it is possible that the watch could be charged from the back of the watch case. This is also how Fitbit's Versa 3 and Sense smartwatches (Fitbit is owned by Google) and the Apple Watch are charged. The source indicated that the bottom "looks metallic but feels like it's coated with glass." [...] The source indicated that nothing happened past the boot logo when they tried to power it up [...]. This likely means that there is no OS yet installed on the watch.

78-year-old rancher Ed Butcher has, for 60 years, lived with a nuclear missile as his closest neighbor — an active U.S. government nuclear missile, buried just beneath his cow pasture.

"Do you think they'll ever shoot it up into the sky?" asks his wife Pam, during a visit from the Washington Post.

"I used to say, 'No way,' " Ed said. "Now it's more like, 'Please God, don't let us be here to see it.' " The missile was called a Minuteman III, and the launch site had been on their property since the Cold War, when the Air Force paid $150 for one acre of their land as it installed an arsenal of nuclear weapons across the rural West. About 400 of those missiles remain active and ready to launch at a few seconds notice in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado and Nebraska. They are located on bison preserves and Indian reservations. They sit across from a national forest, behind a rodeo grandstand, down the road from a one-room schoolhouse, and on dozens of private farms like the one belonging to the Butchers, who have lived for 60 years with a nuclear missile as their closest neighbor.

It's buried behind a chain-link fence and beneath a 110-ton door of concrete and steel. It's 60 feet long. It weighs 79,432 pounds. It has an explosive power at least 20 times greater than the atomic bomb that killed 140,000 people in Hiroshima. An Air Force team is stationed in an underground bunker a few miles away, ready to fire the missile at any moment if the order comes. It would tear out of the silo in about 3.4 seconds and climb above the ranch at 10,000 feet per second. It was designed to rise 70 miles above Earth, fly across the world in 25 minutes and detonate within a few hundred yards of its target. The ensuing fireball would vaporize every person and every structure within a half-mile. The blast would flatten buildings across a five-mile radius. Secondary fires and fatal doses of radiation would spread over dozens more miles, resulting in what U.S. military experts have referred to as "total nuclear annihilation."

"I bet it would fly right over our living room," Ed said. "I wonder if we'd even see it."

"We'd hear it. We'd feel it," Pam said. "The whole house would be shaking."

"And if we're shooting off missiles, you can bet some are headed back toward us," Ed said... "I guess we'd head for the storage room," Ed said.

"Make a few goodbye calls," Pam said. "Hold hands. Pray."

Ed got up to clear his plate. "Good thing it's all hypothetical. It's really only there for deterrence. It'll never actually explode."

"You're right," Pam said. "It won't happen. Almost definitely not."

A new social engineering scam is making the rounds, and this one is particularly insidious: It tricks users into sending money to what they think is their own account to reverse a fraudulent charge. From a report: The FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center issued the warning, which it said involves cybercriminals who have definitely done their homework. "In addition to knowing the victim's financial institution, the actors often had further information such as the victim's past addresses, social security number, and the last four digits of their bank accounts," the IC3 said.

The con starts off as many that target individuals do nowadays: With a text message. In this case it's not a phishing attempt, it's an attempt to ascertain whether the person receiving the message is susceptible to further manipulation. Posing as the target's bank, the message asks whether a large charge ($5,000 in the example the FBI gives) was legitimate and asks for a reply of YES or NO. Replying no leads to a follow-up text: "Our fraud specialist will be contacting you shortly. This is where social engineering comes in, and the FBI is painting a picture of a sophisticated operation. The "fraud specialists" contacting users reportedly "speak English without a discernible accent," and once they establish credibility with the victim they move on to "helping" them "reverse" the fake transaction.

It gets even more insidious here: The charges that are being refuted aren't bank charges directly: they are payments being made through an instant payment app like Venmo or CashApp. The fraudster never asks for a password or any information that might clue someone in that they're being strung along. Instead, the caller asks the victim to use their bank website or app to remove their email address from the digital payment app (thereby unlinking the app and bank account), which the fraudster then asks for. Next, the victim is asked to send the same amount as the fake payment to themselves using their own email address, which has already been added to an account the criminal controls.

Several readers have shared this report: Employees with the firm, Targeted Victory, worked to undermine TikTok through a nationwide media and lobbying campaign portraying the fast-growing app, owned by the Beijing-based company ByteDance, as a danger to American children and society, according to internal emails shared with The Washington Post. Targeted Victory needs to "get the message out that while Meta is the current punching bag, TikTok is the real threat especially as a foreign owned app that is #1 in sharing data that young teens are using," a director for the firm wrote in a February email. Campaign operatives were also encouraged to use TikTok's prominence as a way to deflect from Meta's own privacy and antitrust concerns. "Bonus point if we can fit this into a broader message that the current bills/proposals aren't where [state attorneys general] or members of Congress should be focused," a Targeted Victory staffer wrote.

The emails, which have not been previously reported, show the extent to which Meta and its partners will use opposition-research tactics on the Chinese-owned, multibillion-dollar rival that has become one of the most downloaded apps in the world, often outranking even Meta's popular Facebook and Instagram apps. In an internal report last year leaked by the whistleblower Frances Haugen, Facebook researchers said teens were spending "2-3X more time" on TikTok than Instagram, and that Facebook's popularity among young people had plummeted. In one email, a Targeted Victory director asked for ideas on local political reporters who could serve as a "back channel" for anti-TikTok messages, saying the firm "would definitely want it to be hands off." In other emails, Targeted Victory urged partners to push stories to local media tying TikTok to dangerous teen trends in an effort to show the app's purported harms. "Any local examples of bad TikTok trends/stories in your markets?" a Targeted Victory staffer asked.

sciencehabit shares a report from Science.org: Physicists in Australia have programmed a quantum computer half a world away to make, or at least simulate, a record-size time crystal -- a system of quantum particles that locks into a perpetual cycle in time, somewhat akin to the repeating spatial pattern of atoms in an actual crystal. The new time crystal comprises 57 quantum particles, more than twice the size of a 20-particle time crystal simulated last year by scientists at Google. That's so big that no conventional computer could simulate it, says Chetan Nayak, a condensed matter physicist at Microsoft, who was not involved in the work. "So that's definitely an important advance." The work shows the power of quantum computers to simulate complex systems that may otherwise exist only in physicists' theories.

[Philipp Frey and Stephan Rachel, theorists at the University of Melbourne] performed the simulation remotely, using quantum computers built and run by IBM in the United States. The qubits, which can be set to 0, 1, or 1 and 0 at once, can be programmed to interact like magnets. For certain settings of their interactions, the researchers found, any initial setting of the 57 qubits, such as 01101101110 ..., remains stable, returning to its original state every two pulses, the researchers report today in Science Advances. [...] Whereas more than 100 researchers worked on the Google simulation, Frey and Rachel worked alone to perform their larger demonstration, submitting it to the IBM computers over the internet. "It was just me, my graduate student, and a laptop," Rachel says, adding that "Philipp is brilliant!" The entire project took about 6 months, he estimates. The demonstration isn't perfect, Rachel says. The flipping pattern ought to last indefinitely, he says, but the qubits in IBM's machines can only hold their states long enough to simulate about 50 cycles. Ultimately, the stabilizing effect of the interactions might be used to store the state of a string of qubits in a kind of memory for a quantum computer, he notes, but realizing such an advance will take -- what else? -- time.

Respondents to the annual survey of the Rust community reported an uptick in weekly usage and challenges, writes InfoWorld: Among those surveyed who are using Rust, 81% were using the language on at least a weekly basis, compared to 72% in last year's survey. Of all Rust users, 75% said they are able to write production-ready code but 27% said it was at times a struggle to write useful, production-ready code.... While the survey pointed toward a growing, healthy community of "Rustaceans," it also found challenges. In particular, Rust users would like to see improvements in compile times, disk usage, debugging, and GUI development...

- For those who adopted Rust at work, 83% found it "challenging." But it was unclear how much of this was a Rust-specific issue or general challenges posed by adopting a new language. During adoption, only 13% of respondents believed the language was slowing their team down while 82% believed Rust helped their teams achieve their goals.

- Of the respondents using Rust, 59% use it at least occasionally at work and 23% use it for the majority of their coding. Last year, only 42% used Rust at work.
From the survey's results: After adoption, the costs seem to be justified: only 1% of respondents did not find the challenge worth it while 79% said it definitely was. When asked if their teams were likely to use Rust again in the future, 90% agreed. Finally, of respondents using Rust at work, 89% of respondents said their teams found it fun and enjoyable to program.

As for why respondents are using Rust at work, the top answer was that it allowed users "to build relatively correct and bug free software" with 96% of respondents agreeing with that statement. After correctness, performance (92%) was the next most popular choice. 89% of respondents agreed that they picked Rust at work because of Rust's much-discussed security properties.

Overall, Rust seems to be a language ready for the challenges of production, with only 3% of respondents saying that Rust was a "risky" choice for production use.
Thanks to Slashdot reader joshuark for submitting the story...

Intel's mysterious Software Defined Silicon (SDSi) mechanism for adding features to Xeon CPUs will be officially supported in Linux 5.18, the next major release of the operating system. Tom's Hardware reports: SDSi allows users to add features to their CPU after they've already purchased it. Formal SDSi support means that the technology is coming to Intel's Xeon processors that will be released rather shortly, implying Sapphire Rapids will be the first CPUs with SDSi. Intel started to roll out Linux patches to enable its SDSi functionality in the OS last September. By now, several sets of patches have been released and it looks like they will be added to Linux 5.18, which is due this Spring. Hans de Goede, a long-time Linux developer who works at Red Hat on a wide array of hardware enablement related projects, claims that SDSi will land in Linux 5.18 if no problems emerge, reports Phoronix. "Assuming no major issues are found, the plan definitely is to get this in before the 5.18 merge window," said de Goede.

Intel Software Defined Silicon (SDSi) is a mechanism for activating additional silicon features in already produced and deployed server CPUs using the software. While formal support for the functionality is coming to Linux 5.18 and is set to be available this spring, Intel hasn't disclosed what exactly it plans to enable using its pay-as-you-go CPU upgrade model. We don't know how it works and what it enables, but we can make some educated guesses. [...]

New FDA-approved eye drops could replace reading glasses for millions: "It's definitely a life changer" "A newly approved eye drop hitting the market on Thursday could change the lives of millions of Americans with age-related blurred near vision, a condition affecting mostly people 40 and older," reports CBS News.

"Vuity, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October, would potentially replace reading glasses for some of the 128 million Americans who have trouble seeing close-up." The new medicine takes effect in about 15 minutes, with one drop on each eye providing sharper vision for six to 10 hours, according to the company.... Vuity is the first FDA-approved eye drop to treat age-related blurry near vision, also known as presbyopia. The prescription drug utilizes the eye's natural ability to reduce its pupil size, said Dr. George Waring, the principal investigator for the trial.

"Reducing the pupil size expands the depth of field or the depth of focus, and that allows you to focus at different ranges naturally," he said.

A 30-day supply of the drug will cost about $80 and works best in people 40 to 55 years old, a Vuity spokesperson said. Side effects detected in the three-month trial included headaches and red eyes, the company said.

Apple Podcasts rises above bad reviews, but at what cost? From a report: You pissed off people by somewhat breaking your app, and they're leaving angry reviews. How can you salvage your reputation? Apple just found one incredibly effective way -- get listeners to submit better reviews by interrupting their podcast experience with an in-app prompt to submit a rating. That's how the Apple Podcasts app went from a publicly embarrassing 1.8-star score all the way to 4.6 stars in a little over a month without any actual fixes, as developer and App Store watchdog Kosta Eleftheriou points out. And it's still going up: according to AppFigures data, the app has been getting thousands of ratings every day since November 9th, with the vast, overwhelming majority of them issuing a 5-star score. The app has made it to 4.7 stars overall as of this writing and is firmly the No. 1 App Store search result for "podcast." It looks far more desirable to a new user than it might have before.

If you think there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for this, you might be right -- it could definitely be that people who bother to submit reviews tend to be angry, and a lot of people who love Apple Podcasts and never bothered to look it up in the App Store (remember, it's preinstalled!) are finally balancing things out. But do those people actually love Apple Podcasts? Because if you really look at the reviews, it seems like some funny business is going on. There are new, positive reviews, but they aren't reviews of the Apple Podcasts app at all -- they're reviews of podcasts themselves.

"It has never been more difficult to be a software developer than it is today," says Nigel Simpson, a former director of enterprise technology strategy at Walt Disney.

And they're not the only one who thinks so, writes the U.K. Group editor of InfoWorld: "Complexity kills," Lotus Notes creator and Microsoft veteran Ray Ozzie famously wrote in a 2005 internal memo. "It sucks the life out of developers; it makes products difficult to plan, build, and test; it introduces security challenges; and it causes user and administrator frustration."

If Ozzie thought things were complicated back then, you can't help but wonder what he would make of the complexity software developers face in the cloud-native era. The shift from building applications in a monolithic architecture hosted on a server you could go and touch, to breaking them down into multiple microservices, packaged up into containers, orchestrated with Kubernetes, and hosted in a distributed cloud environment, marks a clear jump in the level of complexity of our software. Add to that expectations of feature-rich, consumer-grade experiences, which are secure and resilient by design, and never has more been asked of developers. "There is a clear increase in complexity when you move to such a pervasive microservices environment," said Amazon CTO Werner Vogels during the AWS Summit in 2019. "Was it easier in the days when everything was in a monolith? Yes, for some parts definitely."

Or, as his colleague, head of devops product marketing at AWS, Emily Freeman, said in 2021, modern software development is "a study in entropy, and it is not getting any more simple."

On the other hand, complex technologies have never been easier to consume off the shelf, often through a single API — from basic libraries and frameworks, to image recognition capabilities or even whole payments stacks. Simply assemble and build your business logic on top. But is it really that simple?
The article also cites a critical 2020 blog post by RedMonk analyst Stephen O'Grady. "The process of application development is simply too fragmented at this point," O'Grady wrote. "The days of every enterprise architecture being three-tier, every database being relational, and every business application being written in Java and deployed to an application server are over.

"The single most defining characteristic of today's infrastructure is that there is no single defining characteristic. It's diverse to a fault."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Oculus consulting CTO John Carmack has been bullish on the idea of "the metaverse" for a long time, as he'll be among the first to point out. But the id Software co-founder spent a good chunk of his wide-ranging Connect keynote Thursday sounding pretty skeptical of plans by the newly rebranded Meta (formerly Facebook) to actually build that metaverse. "I really do care about [the metaverse], and I buy into the vision," Carmack said, before quickly adding, "I have been pretty actively arguing against every single metaverse effort that we have tried to spin up internally in the company from even pre-acquisition times." The reason for that seeming contradiction is a somewhat ironic one, as Carmack puts it: "I have pretty good reasons to believe that setting out to build the metaverse is not actually the best way to wind up with the metaverse."

Today, Carmack said, "The most obvious path to the metaverse is that you have one single universal app, something like Roblox." That said, Carmack added, "I doubt a single application will get to that level of taking over everything." That's because a single bad decision by the creators of that walled-garden metaverse can cut off too many possibilities for users and makers. "I just don't believe that one player -- one company -- winds up making all the right decisions for this," he said. The idea of the metaverse, Carmack says, can be "a honeypot trap for 'architecture astronauts.'" Those are the programmers and designers who "want to only look at things from the very highest levels," he said, while skipping the "nuts and bolts details" of how these things actually work.

These so-called architecture astronauts, Carmack said, "want to talk in high abstract terms about how we'll have generic objects that can contain other objects that can have references to these and entitlements to that, and we can pass control from one to the other." That kind of high-level hand-waving makes Carmack "just want to tear [his] hair out... because that's just so not the things that are actually important when you're building something." "But here we are," Carmack continued. "Mark Zuckerberg has decided that now is the time to build the metaverse, so enormous wheels are turning and resources are flowing and the effort is definitely going to be made."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Protocol: A company proposing job-seekers ask past coworkers to pay money and "sponsor" them for a new job launched, and rather immediately shut down, its website on Wednesday. The main idea behind the site, called "Skip the Interview," was to partner with companies who would set sponsorship amounts for job postings. The job-seeker would then ask current or former coworkers to contribute to this sponsorship fund, controlled by Skip The Interview. The first person to raise the funds gets the job. It seems that Skip The Interview thinks people are willing to back up job references with money. Quite a few people on Twitter and Reddit disagree.

After being roasted on Twitter, an account with the handle @skipinterview responded to some concerns on developer Angie Jones' thread. "We decided to take the site down, as we clearly didn't talk to enough people before launching, and are going to talk to a lot more people before moving forward," the account wrote. The account later tweeted on the thread: "Hi everyone. This is Chris the founder. Our goal is definitely not to be discriminatory in any way. We actually won't do junior roles for that reason. We think anyone who has worked in a role for 3+ years before can raise funds from colleagues." An account named "Chris_Evans_1112" also responded to a negative thread on Reddit, saying the company had launched solely to receive feedback. According to their website, Skip The Interview is processing the negative feedback and refining their pitch. It appears they have more research to do.

Gizmodo takes a hard look at a "growing sense of excitement" about collaboration between bitcoin-mining operations and nuclear power plants (which are now plagued by high operating costs compared to renewables as well as natural gas): Of the three partnerships between bitcoin companies and nuclear energy that the Wall Street Journal mentioned, two involve bitcoin miners partnering with existing nuclear sources to power their operations... These are not companies investing in the future, but rather companies searching for anything that will help keep the profits flowing using existing power plants. It's pretty safe to say that some cash-strapped owners of nuclear plants will be using mining partnerships not to make any technological strides, but rather to simply keep the old plants operating.

"The plants themselves are pretty well-run, and they know what they're doing," said Alex Gilbert, a project manager at the think tank Nuclear Innovation Alliance. "It really is a matter of the economics. There's a certain point where you're definitely unprofitable, and you're going to be likely to close because you're not getting enough money in power markets. But if a bitcoin operation takes 10 to 15 to 30 percent of your power at a reasonable price, that tips you into profitability." This profitability means the plants can stay open, giving miners a little carbon-free energy as a treat while keeping the U.S.'s biggest source of zero-emissions power operational. This is especially a good idea while we wait for more renewables — and policies that favor them — to come online, in what could be the first real-world proof bitcoin is doing some societal good instead of being a waste of energy and resources....

A few small-to-medium reactors should be ready for licensing in a few years and some over the next decade, he said, helped along by private and federal funding. To actually get to a point where the kinds of smaller reactors could be developed that would be competitive with the (rapidly falling) price of renewables, Gilbert said, would take a significantly larger bump from private capital — as well as more customers. "Providing early demand for advance reactors, especially microreactors, that's how bitcoin can most help the nuclear sector," he said.... I'm not a technofuturist who dreams of a libertarian paradise, but I have to admit that there's kind of a cool idea here. If the bitcoin community really believes cryptocurrencies are the money of the future, let them be the first to invest in a budding technology that could be the energy of the future.

In the interim, however, they shouldn't be allowed to rest on their greenwashing laurels while continuing to churn out emissions as they wait for fast reactor technology to become feasible in 10 years. Government regulations are, of course, anathema to crypto true believers. But a mandate that any new mining facilities source power from nearby nuclear plants could go a long way toward cleaning up bitcoin's act and ensuring the carbon-free energy we desperately need stays on the grid while fancy fast reactors come online.

The partners that license Windows haven't always supported Microsoft's moves to step on their turf with its own tablets and laptops. So how is Microsoft navigating those relationships now? From a report: The CEO of Acer told the Financial Times Microsoft should "think twice" when it first introduced its Surface tablet in 2012. And Asus reportedly felt blindsided when Microsoft chief product officer Panos Panay unveiled the Surface Book -- which was more like a traditional laptop computer -- in 2015. When Panay speaks at Microsoft events about the latest Surface computers, he almost unnaturally enthusiastic and oddly specific about hardware components. Now, he said, he's excited -- he likes to use the word "pumped" -- about the diversity of options for consumers and organizations, no matter who builds the hardware.

"OEMs provide choice for customers," Panos said of Microsoft's partners. "Not just choice for choice's sake. What do you want to accomplish? You can pick a device that suits you." In 2016, Microsoft announced a partnership with Lenovo, the world's biggest seller of PCs, in an effort to prevent conflicts that might arise between the Surface business and Windows. "We came to a very simple approach...we call it a level playing field," said Lenovo's leader of worldwide strategic alliances, Christian Eigen, who has known Panay for 15 years. "It means Microsoft does not give, from an operating system point of view, any feature exclusively to Surface." The CEOs of Microsoft and Lenovo communicate four to six times per year, and teams lower down in the organizations talk 12 to 24 times per year, Eigen explained. Microsoft also improved its communications with partners around Windows 11. "It was definitely, by far, more transparent and open and kind of cooperative development," Eigen said. [...] "My whole goal is, 'Hey, what do your customers need?' This is from an OEM brand perspective," Panay said. "Same with Surface. 'What do the Surface customers need?' Ultimately, they're all Windows customers." He said has has had input on every Surface model, including the Surface Laptop Studio PC that went on sale this week.

An anonymous reader shares a report from Daring Fireball, written by John Gruber: Chaim Gartenberg, writing for The Verge, "The Lightning Port Isn't About Convenience; It's About Control": "Notably absent from Apple's argument, though, is the fact that cutting out a Lightning port on an iPhone wouldn't just create more e-waste (if you buy Apple's logic) or inconvenience its customers. It also means that Apple would lose out on the revenue it makes from every Lightning cable and accessory that works with the iPhone, Apple-made or not -- along with the control it has over what kinds of hardware does (or doesn't) get to exist for the iPhone and which companies get to make them. Apple's MFi program means that if you want to plug anything into an iPhone, be it charger or adapter or accessory, you have to go through Apple. And Apple takes a cut of every one of those devices, too." Gartenberg summarizes a commonly-held theory here: that Apple is sticking with its proprietary Lightning port on iPhones because they profit from MFi peripherals. That it's a money grab.

I don't think this is the case at all. Apple is happy to keep the money it earns from MFi, of course. And they're glad to have control over all iPhone peripherals. But I don't think there's serious money in that. It's loose-change-under-the-couch-cushion revenue by Apple's astonishingly high standards. How many normal people do you know who ever buy anything that plugs into a Lightning port other than a USB cable? And Apple doesn't make more money selling their own (admittedly overpriced) Lightning cables to iPhone owners than they do selling their own (also overpriced) USB-C cables to iPad Pro and MacBook owners. My theory is that Apple carefully weighs the pros and cons for each port on each device it makes, and chooses the technologies for those ports that it thinks makes for the best product for the most people. "What makes sense for the goals of this product that we will ship in three years? And then the subsequent models for the years after that?" Those are the questions Apple product designers ask.

The sub-head on Gartenberg's piece is "The iPhone doesn't have USB-C for a reason". Putting that in the singular does not do justice to the complexity of such decisions. There are numerous reasons that the iPhones 13 still use Lightning -- and there are numerous reasons why switching to USB-C would make sense. The pro-USB-C crowd, to me, often comes across as ideological. I'm not accusing Gartenberg of this -- though it is his piece with the sub-head claiming there's "a" singular reason -- but many iPhones-should-definitely-use-USB-C proponents argue as though there are no good reasons for the iPhone to continue using Lightning. That's nonsense. To be clear, I'm neither pro-Lightning nor pro-USB-C. I see the trade-offs. If the iPhones 13 had switched to USB-C, I wouldn't have complained. But I didn't complain about them not switching, either. You'll note that in none of my reviews of iPad models that have switched from Lightning to USB-C in recent years have I complained about the switch. Apple, to my eyes, has been managing this well. But, if the iPhones 13 had switched to USB-C, you know who would have complained? Hundreds of millions of existing iPhone users who have no interest in replacing the Lightning cables and docks they already own. "In 15 generations of iPhones, Apple has changed the connector once. And that one time was a clear win in every single regard," adds Gruber. "Changing from Lightning to USB-C is not so clearly an upgrade at all. It's a sidestep."

Regardless of which side you take on this debate, it's inevitable that Apple iPhones will adopt USB-C. Last week, the executive arm of the European Union, the European Commission, announced plans to force smartphone and other electronics manufacturers to fit a common USB-C charging port on their devices. The rules are intended to cut down on electronic waste by allowing people to re-use existing chargers and cables when they buy new electronics. Unless Apple plans to skip out on the European market or pay a potentially steep fine for refusing to adopt the port, they'll likely give into the pressure and release a USB-C-equipped iPhone by the time this law goes into effect in late 2023 or 2024.

Slashdot reader fahrbot-bot quotes the New York Times: Two red things are hiding in a part of the solar system where they shouldn't be. The space rocks may have come from beyond Neptune, and potentially offer hints at the chaos of the early solar system.

Scientists led by Sunao Hasegawa from JAXA, the Japanese space agency, reported in The Astrophysical Journal Letters on July 26, 2021 that two objects, called 203 Pompeja and 269 Justitia, spotted in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter appear to have originated beyond Neptune. The discoveries could one day provide direct evidence of the chaos that existed in the early solar system.

"If true it would be a huge deal," says Hal Levison, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Colorado, who was not involved in the research...

"People have been talking about some fraction of asteroids coming from the Kuiper belt for quite a while now," said Josh Emery, a planetary scientist from Northern Arizona University who was not involved in the paper. He said the research "definitely takes a step" toward finding evidence to support that hypothesis. Not everyone is convinced just yet. Dr. Levison, who was also not involved in the paper, says objects should become less red as they approach the sun. "It seems to be inconsistent with our models," said Dr. Levison, who is the head of NASA's Lucy mission, which is scheduled to launch in October to study Jupiter's Trojans [asteroids captured in its orbit].

Michaël Marsset from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a co-author on the paper, agrees that it's not clear why they would be so red, but it is possibly related to how long it took them to become implanted into the asteroid belt. Some Trojans may also be as red, but haven't been found yet.

To truly confirm the origin of 203 Pompeja and 269 Justitia, a spacecraft would likely need to visit them.

Most Americans who haven't been vaccinated against COVID-19 say they are unlikely to get the shots and doubt they would work against the aggressive delta variant despite evidence they do, according to a new poll that underscores the challenges facing public health officials amid soaring infections in some states. AP: Among American adults who have not yet received a vaccine, 35% say they probably will not, and 45% say they definitely will not, according to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Just 3% say they definitely will get the shots, though another 16% say they probably will. What's more, 64% of unvaccinated Americans have little to no confidence the shots are effective against variants -- including the delta variant that officials say is responsible for 83% of new cases in the U.S. -- despite evidence that they offer strong protection. In contrast, 86% of those who have already been vaccinated have at least some confidence that the vaccines will work.

That means "that there will be more preventable cases, more preventable hospitalizations and more preventable deaths," said Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University. "We always knew some proportion of the population would be difficult to persuade no matter what the data showed, (and) a lot of people are beyond persuasion," said Adalja. He echoed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky in calling the current surge "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" because nearly all hospital admissions and deaths have been among those who weren't immunized.