Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest
 

Contents

  1. Watching TikTok Videos and Instagram Reels Deactivates the Brain’s Cognitive Control Network
  2. Ukrainian Publishers Call For Support After Russian Attacks Destroy 10 Million Books
  3. Voters Aren’t Waiting For November to Try Ousting Officials Over Data Centers
  4. Does Using AI to Edit an Op-Ed on Students’ Math Skills Undermine the Argument?
  5. YouTube Offers Creators Millions of Dollars to Stay Off Netflix
  6. Reverse-Lookup Service Exposed Millions of Photos of People’s Faces
  7. FCC Abolishes Gigabit Speed Goal, Suggesting It Is Unfair To Slower Technologies
  8. Japan to Require AI Firms to Disclose Training Data
  9. New Study Challenges Common Assumptions About Screen Time For Kids
  10. Rescue Mission Is Called Off For NASA’s Aging Swift Space Telescope
  11. Whistleblower Arturo Bejar Leads Testimony In Landmark Trial Against Meta
  12. PINE64 Halts Linux Device Production Amid DRAM and EMMC Shortages
  13. Stripe Buys AI Startup OpenRouter For $7.5 Billion
  14. Amazon’s Drones Will Soon Deliver to Nearly 500 US Cities and Towns
  15. Music Publisher Round Hill Files $1 Billion Copyright Infringement Suits Against Suno, Anthropic

Alterslash picks up to the best 5 comments from each of the day’s Slashdot stories, and presents them on a single page for easy reading.

Watching TikTok Videos and Instagram Reels Deactivates the Brain’s Cognitive Control Network

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from RathBiotaClan:
Millions of people finish short video after short video every day; a new brain-scan study shows that the very act of finishing a clip they like temporarily quiets the brain regions that normally help them stay focused and weigh longer-term goals. When people watch a short video they enjoy enough to finish, two brain regions involved in cognitive control show significant deactivation. That is the central finding of a new study from Zhejiang University, published in NeuroImagein January 2026.

Using functional MRI alongside proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (H-MRS), the research team examined 56 young adults while they freely watched short video clips inside an MRI scanner. Both the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) showed reduced activity specifically when participants watched clips they liked enough to view to completion. Cognitive control helps people balance immediate pleasures against longer-term goals, and impairments in this system are linked to conditions such as depression, anxiety, ADHD, and addiction. Short-video platforms present rapid, algorithmically curated streams that are built for continuous, low-effort consumption.

Prior behavioral research has tied both internet addiction and smartphone addiction to weaker self-control, and separate neuroimaging work has documented disruptions to reward and cognitive-control circuits in people with behavioral addictions. Despite this, few studies had directly tested whether the act of watching entertaining short videos itself suppresses the brain’s cognitive control regions. The Zhejiang University team set out to answer that question, along with a second one: what neurochemical factors might explain why this suppression varies from person to person?

Ukrainian Publishers Call For Support After Russian Attacks Destroy 10 Million Books

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Russian attacks on Ukrainian publishing infrastructure in July and August destroyed roughly 10 million books, which equates to about 30% of Ukraine’s annual book output. The Ukrainian Book Institute is warning of a potential “collapse of the entire book ecosystem” and is calling for international financial and industry support to help publishers, printers, and distributors recover. The Guardian reports:
A major attack on August 1 hit warehouses belonging to the RNK-Ranok publishing group in Kharkiv, destroying approximately 8m books, following July attacks in Kyiv which led to the loss of more than 1.5m books. In all, the recent attacks have led to the destruction of approximately 30% of the volume of books produced annually in Ukraine.

The RNK-Ranok logistics centre, which stores books for the company’s many imprints, is also the distribution centre for the national bookselling chain KnyhoLand, which runs 51 shops and several websites. Along with the estimated 8m books lost, a further 600,000 school textbooks were destroyed. The total loss has been preliminarily estimated at almost 1bn hryvnias (16.5m eueros). “At this stage, we face the risk of the collapse of the entire book ecosystem,” said Oleksandra Koval, director of the Ukrainian Book Institute. The institute is asking for donations to support Ukrainian publishers, and is calling on the international publishing community to work with Ukrainian publishers and raise awareness about Russian attacks on Ukrainian culture.

On August 16, a Russian attack on Kyiv led to a fire breaking out at the Pochaina book market, destroying several rows of stalls, books and vendors’ property. The Pochaina market, founded in 1997, was once one of Ukraine’s largest book markets, with hundreds of stalls and books from more than 120 publishers. The institute said the book industry was of “strategic importance” to Ukraine, preserving and promoting Ukrainian culture and giving the country’s voice a platform at home and abroad. […] The institute also called for an end to cooperation with Russian publishers and literary agencies, saying that solidarity with Ukrainian publishers was crucial to preserving cultural heritage that Russia was “deliberately trying to destroy.”

Putin’s “Project Panama”

By ffkom • Score: 3 Thread
It seems that AI companies are not the only ones destroying millions of books in an effort to end certain parts of human culture.

Voters Aren’t Waiting For November to Try Ousting Officials Over Data Centers

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
A growing backlash against AI data centers is spilling into local politics, with residents in more than a dozen communities pushing recall elections against officials who approved projects. “People are standing up and saying, ‘Sorry, we don’t want these data centers in our communities for a number of reasons,’" Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, said in an interview. "‘If you can’t have the guts to stand up to some large corporation, you should not continue serving in office.’" The New York Times reports:
In Festus, Mo., critics of a local data center project gathered enough signatures in May to force a vote to remove the mayor and City Council members who had approved a $6 billion data center, though the effort is tied up in legal wrangling. In Mason, Mich., residents will vote in November over whether to recall a City Council member over a vote to create zoning rules for data centers. Voters in Yukon, Okla., will also decide in November whether to recall their mayor after the town moved to sell land to a data center developer. And residents of Independence, a city of 121,000 that is 10 miles from Kansas City, will vote on whether to remove Mr. Perkins on Sept. 1.

Some local officials have already lost their jobs in the face of data center concerns in regularly scheduled elections. Last year, two members of the Georgia Public Service Commission lost their seats amid concern about data centers’ driving up electricity prices. A Virginia state delegate, Geary Higgins, also lost his job last year after his opponent branded him “Data Center Geary.” […] Independence would be one of the first municipalities to hold a data-center-motivated recall election. A judge this month rejected a legal challenge by Mr. Perkins and others, who argued the recall violated Missouri’s Constitution.

Good

By strike6 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Not specific to data centers, but too often legislators ignore the will of the people who voted them in. We could use more of this type of accountability.

Voters unknowingly bankrolled by the CCP

By schwit1 • Score: 3 Thread

The CCP is pressing everywhere.
https://apnews.com/article/sou…

And won’t this just make Elon richer in the long run as he puts datacenters into space?

BTW, the next Starship test launch is a few weeks away.

Re: Good

By Jfetjunky • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
Yeah what a bunch of lunatics being worried about giving more power and control to billionares. That’s been working amazing so far. They should get with the program!

Large scale backlash, not serious discussion

By JoshuaZ • Score: 3 Thread
There’s obviously a massive large-scale backlash here, and it is pretty bipartisan. Part of it is concern about water use (which is largely overblown) and part is concern about increases in electricity cost (which is much more reasonable). But it is clear that two related things are happening: 1) People are reacting this way to all data centers, whether or not they have anything to do with AI. 2) People are blocking data centers rather than trying to take reasonable steps to make them manageable with their concerns, like requiring that they have solar panels. There’s room for compromise here, but we’re not getting it.

Re:Good

By Ogive17 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

his AI data center thing is the latest moral panic. Few really cares much about the water use or incremental increase to electricity costs… certainly not enough to become activists and start recall campaigns.

This tells me you live in an area that is not attracting data centers.

Most of my family live in such areas. A significant portion of the population already live paycheck to paycheck. People have been hit hard by the higher inflation over the past 4 years since wages are not keeping up. Small increases to utilities is actually a very big deal when it’s something that is not necessary to day-to-day life.

People do what they can when food goes up because it’s a necessity. AI is a luxury item, so when people who are less likely to benefit from AI data farms are the ones getting hit with “incremental” cost increases, they abso-fucking-lutely care.

It’s not about job replacement, it’s about squeezing more money out to the “1%" at the expense of the working class.

Does Using AI to Edit an Op-Ed on Students’ Math Skills Undermine the Argument?

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian:
A math professor at the University of California, Berkeley, criticizing a “severe” math deficiency among students in an op-ed for the San Francisco Standard, admitted to using artificial intelligence to help edit the piece. The Standard published a 2,000-word piece by Zvezdelina Stankova last week, in which the professor said some of her math students were “five to eight years” behind and lacked a “middle school” education on fractions and basic algebra. Stankova said the UC system’s test-blind admissions were to blame, suggesting that students who weren’t sufficiently prepared for the rigor of Berkeley’s mathematics program were admitted because a longstanding benchmark like the SAT had disappeared.

Over the weekend, journalists at Berkeley’s student newspaper, the Daily Californian, noticed the op-ed’s language sounded like AI. According to Berkeley sophomore Francis Luo, they ran it through AI-detection software Pangram, which claimed 33% of the op-ed had been generated or assisted by AI. In response, Stankova admitted she had used AI software to “help edit the piece” but that the article was “the result of several hundred person-hours of intensive human work, of which about 80 hours are my own.”

Stankova said by email she had used AI to locate “numerous documents and articles related to the initiative” but that “all analysis is the result of the team members.” When asked about their AI usage policy, the Standard — which published the op-ed — shared this statement by email: “While AI may assist, our expectation is that humans are behind every article we publish and take responsibility for every word. Our understanding in working with the author of this op ed was — and continues to be — that this piece reflects her and her colleagues’ extensive original analysis, research and expertise.”
Should the op-ed have been entirely written without artificial assistance or is the use of AI a distraction from the argument at hand? That’s the question at the heart of the debate playing out online.

According to the op-ed, Stankova and her peers found that the number of students with a “severe deficit” in their readiness for a calculus I class had tripled after the University of California adopted test-blind admissions. Some students were allegedly five to eight years behind and struggling with basic algebra and fractions, among other concepts.

Much of that decline, Stankova argues, is from the removal of standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, which served as important benchmarks for identifying whether applicants were prepared for Berkeley-level coursework.

Well of course they are focusing on AI.

By sarren1901 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Because we sure as fuck aren’t going to focus on the poor mathematics skills of our youth. Much much easier to attack the messenger then actually debate the salient points being made by the Op-Ed.

Now I personally enjoy writing so I’m not likely to invoke AI for a template or setup piece to edit. I would however allow AI to assist me in research. Sure, I’d need to verify that, but that’s true regardless. You always need to verify your sources when you are writing anything. Well, real journalist and academics would anyway. Just a couple years ago I was finishing a degree and I had a end of year project to build. It required I list all my sources to backup what I was ultimately submitting. Shame we have a lot of lazy frauds that would rather just cheat.

So yes, I’m quite sure the Internet is attacking this person’s AI assisted Op-Ed because they know it’s correct but don’t want to face the music that we’re doing a major disservice to our youth by letting them slide on Math. IE letting them slide on critical thinking and logic. Who needs logic when we can just appeal to emotion, like Trump!

Completely different

By strike6 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Can’t believe this is even a story. Of course it doesn’t matter. There are differences between what the Professor is complaining about and using A.I. to help write her opinion piece: 1) It’s a completely different subject area. She’s a math teacher, not an English teacher. But even an English teacher might use A.I. to assist in writing an opinion piece that has nothing to do with his/her academic life. 2) It wasn’t coursework. If she was doing it in an English CLASS maybe there would be a point. 3) She was writing an opinion piece for wide distribution. It makes sense to get some assistance in doing so, and/or helping do the research to support the piece. That’s exactly the type of thing A.I. is actually useful for.

This is a bit extreme

By Whateverthisis • Score: 5, Informative Thread
First, I haven’t seen any articles yet claiming that these “AI detection tools” don’t have a high false positive rate anyways, so those tools alone are controversial.

Second, if AI’s job, like any tool, is to make our lives easier, then editing something seems like a good use of the technology. When i write stuff, I often will get all my thoughts down as best as I can, but then use AI to evaluate if the message can come across in a more impactful way with fewer words, which helps to make it clearer for my intended recipient. In that the AI isn’t generating the information at all, it’s doing what it’s actually good at, ie looking at text and recommending changes based on what people who are better writers might do. Particularly someone like this professor whom, just by judging based on her name, English is likely her second language so she may not be the best at communicating in writing. If that’s what we’re talking about here, this seems like a non-controversy.

Re:Completely different

By smooth wombat • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Would like to add one tidbit because I’ve had this same conversation at work. The professor stated they used AI to help edit only after hundred of hours of writing. In other words, they did the heavy lifting and only used AI at the end to help refine what they had already done.

Is this any different than a human editor? If I write a book, do what I can to edit it down, then go to an editor who makes suggests, removes or reorders parts, and so on, is that any different than having AI do the same thing? In both cases you wrote the words. In both cases you went somewhere else to help edit.

If people claim that using AI to edit a work is “cheating” because it’s no longer your work, then the same should apply to a human editor.

Strawman / Ragebait

By Zelucifer • Score: 3 Thread

The Professor in question barely mentioned AI. Instead The Guardian ran a hit-piece on her that doesn’t even properly engage with her points until more than halfway through.

This is the only mention of AI in the whole piece:

General learning loss would lower the entire distribution. It would not hollow out the middle while piling students up at exactly zero. Something else appears to be compounding the problem. Whatever the mix of causes, the problems at UC accelerated precisely when the system discarded the one standardized baseline it once had. Without standardized tests, admissions officers are flying blind, especially as grade inflation has made transcripts a weaker indicator of readiness, and artificial intelligence has made admissions essays a weaker signal of students’ work.

And as The Guardian article says “Stankova, in her email, said “the issue of how AI was used is orthogonal to and a distraction from the thousands of hours our team has put into the initiative” of reinstating standardized tests in admission.”

YouTube Offers Creators Millions of Dollars to Stay Off Netflix

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Bloomberg reports that YouTube is offering major creators millions of dollars to keep some content exclusive to its platform as Netflix increasingly signs YouTube-native talent to non-exclusive deals. YouTube has also warned that creators who simultaneously publish on Netflix could lose marketing support, event opportunities, and access to revenue from certain brand campaigns. Quartz reports:
Bloomberg described two categories of payment: funding directed at specific programs, and a portion of the revenue YouTube brings in through large advertiser partnerships. No agreements have been finalized, but YouTube is close to deals with several partners, citing people familiar with the negotiations who declined to be identified. Creators who sign with Netflix face consequences. YouTube has warned creators that those who simultaneously publish videos on Netflix risk being sidelined from the platform’s marketing campaigns and events, and would lose access to a share of proceeds from certain major brand deals.

Netflix has been signing YouTube creators to non-exclusive deals that allow them to post the same content on both platforms simultaneously. Creators including Alan Chikin Chow and Nick DiGiovanni have already signed such agreements, and Netflix remains in active conversations with dozens of other channels and programs, including the celebrity talk show Hot Ones. Netflix’s pitch is straightforward: creators receive a substantial additional payday for content they have already produced, and their work reaches an audience that numbers more than 325 million subscribers.

YouTube Chief Executive Officer Neal Mohan had previously held that creators who work with competitors tend to drive viewers back to YouTube. But Bloomberg reported that Mohan and his team decided in recent weeks that the growing number of creators posting simultaneously on both platforms had become a problem that needed to be addressed. The concern is that when a video runs on both platforms simultaneously, YouTube’s ability to convince advertisers of that video’s exclusive value is undermined.

Time for another anti-trust investigation Google.

By MikeDataLink • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Do no evil. We all know why you removed it. Couldn’t be more obvious.

Could be a good thing.

By Randseed • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
If this means that the Netflix versions aren’t censored to the point of absurdity, then I’m all for it. Heaven forbid in something like a podcast about the Duke Lacrosse case someone mention the words “sexual assault,” or “rape.” Or in a story about a celebrity suicide someone say “suicide” instead of “unalive.” Or the word “fuck” come out without an asterisk in the middle of it for no identifiable reason.

Re:Time for another anti-trust investigation Googl

By dgatwood • Score: 5, Informative Thread

as evil is almost always necessary when the stated goal of your business is to maximize shareholder value at all costs

Don’t interpret this as me having an opinion on this specific article (I don’t), but that’s a gross misrepresentation of what the law requires. As someone running a business, you *do* have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders, but that’s not the same thing as requiring you to maximize shareholder value at all costs. Doing what is best for the company and the shareholders does not strictly mean more dollars.

For example, if a company had a choice whether to make a drone that would make a lot of money by selling to militaries, but would be used to annihilate the shareholders, no rational person would claim that the fiduciary duty requires them to build the drone.

More broadly, companies have a responsibility to behave ethically, for two reasons:

In other words, behaving unethically is how companies find themselves massively regulated in ways that negatively impact long-term profits. Every antitrust suit is an example of this, as the only reason those laws exist is because some company previously behaved unethically.

Re:This explains the mail I just received…

By YuppieScum • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

€15.95 a month? Why not just install a good, free ad-blocker into your browser?

I haven’t seen an advert on YouTube for years…

Reverse-Lookup Service Exposed Millions of Photos of People’s Faces

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Security researcher Jeremiah Fowler found that people-search service ClarityCheck left more than 9 million image files accessible in an unsecured Amazon S3 bucket, despite advertising its reverse-image search as “private and secure.” A separate misconfiguration also exposed email addresses, phone numbers, and other personal information. Wired reports:
Overall, according to findings from independent security researcher Jeremiah Fowler, the exposed ClarityCheck database contained roughly 450 GB of images, including what appeared to be profile images, screenshots, and other photographs of adults, teenagers, and children. All of the images were stored in an unsecured Amazon S3 bucket, with files in folders named “faces” and “profiles,” which could be accessed by anyone online through a URL included in the company’s publicly available website code.

ClarityCheck is one of a number of so-called people-finder tools that have appeared online in recent years. These websites broadly claim to be able to search the web, public records, and other databases to identify individuals. ClarityCheck’s website says it can run searches on phone numbers, email addresses, vehicle identification numbers, and names. Its photo-search page says it can help “identify anyone in a photo” and find social media profiles “in seconds.” While ClarityCheck secured the giant image database after WIRED contacted the company in July, Fowler warns that it was seemingly exposed for months, and his initial efforts to flag the problem to the company were unsuccessful. Accidental data exposures create risk for any personal information, but particularly for sensitive and unchangeable biometric data like face images.

[…] In addition to the face data, ClarityCheck had also misconfigured its APIs such that its website URLs could be manipulated to reveal data about people simply by entering names; anyone using any consumer browser could have done this. Entering a name into one of the URLs would return multiple potential email addresses, physical addresses, and phone numbers for people with that name. After WIRED contacted the company, the URLs were secured. The ClarityCheck spokesperson said in the statement that the details displayed were “sourced from publicly available information and licensed third-party data providers.”
A spokesperson for ClarityCheck said in a statement: “Once this was drawn to the attention of the appropriate teams, we acted immediately to restrict access.” The company disputed any characterization that the data was “exposed,” saying that an “ordinary member of the public” would not have come across it.
“We do not accept that data in the temporary storage location was ‘publicly exposed,’ which implies large-scale public access,” the spokesperson says. “Access required knowledge of a specific, unindexed URL that was not discoverable through ordinary use of the ClarityCheck service or a general web search.”

Collecting photos of random children?

By ebunga • Score: 3 Thread

Millions of photos of children? Why would they want that?

What difference does it make?

By sarren1901 • Score: 3 Thread

Whether this site was insecure or not matters not at all. If I can just pay for access then it’s no different then if access was free. The end results are precisely the same for privacy. These assholes very likely just bought up a shit ton of personal data congregated by Meta and the like.

So ohh my, the site that lets people look people up was insecure. The fact the site exist at all is the actual problem.

It only takes one person

By aldousd666 • Score: 3 Thread
One person can download the whole archive and make it available. Silly talking head man knows that, but doesn’t want anyone to panic. I’ve never actually seen anyone make a security by obscurity argument unironically in defense of a breach.

FCC Abolishes Gigabit Speed Goal, Suggesting It Is Unfair To Slower Technologies

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica:
The Federal Communications Commission last week eliminated the gigabit speed goal established during the Biden administration and declared that current levels of broadband deployment in the US are acceptable. Though fiber networks have routinely offered such speeds for years, the FCC said the gigabit speed goal is not “technologically neutral,” suggesting that it isn’t fair to other, slower technologies.

In 2024, the FCC raised its broadband benchmark to 100Mbps downstream and 20Mbps upstream, setting the new standard by which to judge whether deployment is reasonable and timely. The FCC at the time also set a long-term speed goal of 1Gbps download speeds paired with 500Mbps upload speeds, saying it would use the goal “as a guidepost for evaluating our efforts to encourage deployment.” Republican Brendan Carr, who is now the FCC chairman, never liked that long-term goal. He proposed abolishing it last year, and the change was finalized on August 14 in the FCC’s latest broadband deployment report. The reports are mandated by Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act.

“As part of our return to following the plain language of Section 706, we adopt our proposal from the Notice [of Inquiry] to abolish without replacement the long-term goal of 1,000/500 Mbps established in the 2024 Report,” the order said. “A long-term goal is not mentioned in Section 706 and could appear to violate our obligation to conduct our analysis in a technologically neutral manner. At present, it is impossible to predict long-term technological developments and the evolution of consumer preferences.” The FCC said that comments submitted by cable industry group NCTA and wireless industry group CTIA “support our reasoning for abolishing the long-term goal.”
Last year, the Brendan Carr-led FCC said (PDF) that the gigabit goal “may be unreasonably prejudicial to technologies such as satellite and fixed wireless that presently do not support such speeds.” However, last week’s report contradicts that stance.

“We disagree with commenters arguing that our concern about technological neutrality merely serves to accommodate technologies that may currently offer slower speeds,” the FCC said. “At present, we do not know the nature of future consumer preferences and, considering that the goal is not required by the statute and does not serve any positive purpose (as discussed herein), we believe it prudent to abolish it.”

Not sure I disagree

By alta • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

I recently downgraded from Cable 800MB to starlink. Simply because for some reason at 2pm EVERY SINGLE DAY my ping times with charter would go from around 30/ms to 100-1000/ms and it lasted for a few hours. I work from home and that was unusable. The only other “broadband” available was starlink. So now I’m much slower in the 100-200MB range, but overall we haven’t noticed much difference.

So I’d say, yeah, you don’t have to go all the way up to gigabit to be considered broadband.

Just another grift

By Berkyjay • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Now the question to ask is which of these poor technologies, that has been treated so unfairly, does Trump and his buddies have money invested in?

Re:Just another grift

By drinkypoo • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

99.44% chance that this is about sending more tax money to ol’ musky.

Re:Just another grift

By kqs • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Honestly, I suspect that it’s more that telecom companies are supposed to improve their service, but that would cut into their profits, so they want to continue selling turds and calling it chocolate. We can all agree that wireless internet will not work the same as wired, but the only reason that so many people have terrible wired internet is because the companies would make less profit if they fixed it. So the FCC is saying “No worries! Customers are not important, your profits are!”

I hope everyone is having the day they voted for.

Re:Just another grift

By Junta • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

This is exactly what it is, Starlink can’t do gigabit, can’t do low latency, but *can* reach random places easily. Musk and Trump seemingly have made up relatively recently and I am certain this favor is a consequence.

So with this Starlink gets access to funds that are generally made available to give *quality* access to especially rural places. Money to make up for the relatively high incremental cost of wiring up an area compared to the revenue. Except Starlink has effectively zero incremental cost to serve these areas, so they get to collect the same money as a provider would have had to spend to actually run real wires.

Japan to Require AI Firms to Disclose Training Data

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Japan is preparing a nonbinding “comply or explain” code that would urge generative AI companies, including foreign firms operating in Japan, to disclose what models they use, what training data they rely on, and how that data was collected. The proposal would also let rights holders ask whether specific webpages were included in training datasets. The Japan Times reports:
The draft code comprises three principles. The first principle requires businesses to disclose the generative AI models they use, their training data and methods for collecting such data on their websites and make the information publicly accessible. Meanwhile, disclosure of sensitive information will not be mandatory. The second principle calls for businesses to disclose whether certain webpages are included in training data when requested by copyright holders and other rights holders who allege infringement. The third principle states that businesses will respond to requests for information from system and service users concerned about copyright infringement.

New Study Challenges Common Assumptions About Screen Time For Kids

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
bryanandaimee shares a report from ScienceDaily:
A Finnish study has found an unexpected association between screen use and cognitive performance. Children who accumulated more screen time as they grew up tended to show better cognitive processing during adolescence. One of the researchers cautions against viewing screen time as entirely harmful and says the goal should be to balance physical activity with screen use that encourages active thinking. […] “The findings suggest that screen time can support children’s and adolescents’ cognitive processing. Presumably, the essential point here is what kind of things they do in their screen time. Teachers and parents should encourage children to use devices and screens in such ways that promote active thinking, problem-solving, creativity and learning,” states Doctoral Researcher Petri Jalanko from the University of Jyvaskyla.

Digital activities that involve learning, creativity, problem-solving, or other forms of active mental engagement could potentially help explain the association observed in the study. “We should not regard screen time solely as harmful but seek balance between physical activity and screen time that promotes active thinking,” Jalanko summarizes. The relationship between physical activity and cognition was more complicated. Among girls, greater amounts of light intensity physical activity since childhood were associated with better working memory during adolescence. Among boys, greater participation in guided physical activity from childhood through adolescence was linked to better working memory.

The researchers also found an unexpected pattern involving unsupervised exercise. Lower levels of self-reported unsupervised physical activity were associated with better cognitive processing in adolescence. By contrast, physical activity and sedentary time measured using a device that tracked heart rate and movement were not associated with cognitive processing. One possible explanation is that these sensors can measure movement and physiological activity but cannot determine exactly what a person is doing during periods of activity or inactivity.
The findings have been published in the journal Pediatric Exercise Science.

It’s conditioning during development

By Baron_Yam • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Whatever you focus on, you will get better at. You can play piano obsessively and never be Beethoven, but you will (eventually) acquire competence unless you have a significant mental impairment.

So why would we expect anything else from obsessive focusing during childhood and adolescence? Use your screens to watch interesting, thoughtful, or informative things and you’re conditioning your brain with those things. Use them to indulge your worst social instincts on social media and you’re going to get ‘better’ at that, which unfortunately means turning yourself into a miserable person.

Doing this as a kid, when you don’t have a couple of decades of other experiences under your belt to soften the impact makes it worse.

Finland provides far superior schools

By cosmicl • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Just search it up. Finland provides really really good public primary and secondary schools and teachers for their kids. From Wiki… " All primary and secondary teachers must hold a master’s degree, and teaching is one of the most prestigious and selective professions in the country.” Kids in Finland learn how to learn. Most likely they are using more of their screen time for that.

Re:Its eggs the of 90s

By phantomfive • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

For individuals there really is only one reasonable course here. Ignore the sensational studies and news.

Man, if you’re getting your science information from news stories, the problem is you.

We live in a world where the actual study is a click away. At least read the abstract.

This is not difficult!

By CEC-P • Score: 3 Thread
They have known this for decades. If you’re watching Tik Tok, you’re becoming an A.D.D. dopamine addict. If you’re playing puzzle games and building systems in a sim game, you’re getting smarter. There is no such thing as “screen time.” That’s like saying “going outside” is a category. Yeah, and doing what?!

Re:Paid for by the Mark Zuckerberg Election Commit

By zlives • Score: 4, Funny Thread

screen time includes porn… right? right!!

Rescue Mission Is Called Off For NASA’s Aging Swift Space Telescope

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
NASA has called off a $30 million mission to rescue its aging Swift space telescope after Katalyst Space’s Link spacecraft developed persistent control and positioning problems. The Associated Press reports:
Katalyst said Link will not attempt to capture Swift and boost it to a higher orbit because of problems with controlling the spacecraft. NASA said this means the telescope will plunge through the atmosphere after more than 20 years of tracking some of the biggest explosions in the universe like gamma ray bursts and exploding stars. Its demise is not expected before October.

NASA paid $30 million to Katalyst in an attempt to raise the telescope to a safer, longer-lasting orbit. Intense solar activity caused it to lose altitude faster than expected. The rescue spacecraft went into an uncontrollable spin a few weeks after its liftoff in early July. While flight controllers managed to slow Link’s tumble, issues continued to plague its pointing and positioning in orbit.

“This is not the outcome we were working toward, but it does not change why this mission was worth attempting,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said in a statement. As a consolation prize, Katalyst will continue to operate Link in proximity with the telescope to demonstrate capabilities for future rescue operations. Katalyst CEO Ghonhee Lee said it was an ambitious mission on an aggressive timeline that was thrown together in under a year. “We took on this high-risk, high-reward challenge and are proud of the milestones we reached along the way,” Lee said in a statement. “We have already learned a tremendous amount.”

A Contributor to Science

By LondoMollari • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Here’s a glass of port to Swift: its discoveries so sweet, results so intoxicating. You shall be missed but not forgotten.

Space telescopes will soon be much cheaper

By greytree • Score: 3, Informative Thread
Starship will soon be flinging stuff into space for pennies, which will also mean weight optimizations will be less necessary, so we can get better telescopes into orbit for much cheaper.

Re: Space telescopes will soon be much cheaper

By dargaud • Score: 5, Informative Thread
Haven’t you seen all the recent deep cuts to NASA science missions? And science in general. In some cases it will take over a generation to recover.

Re: Space telescopes will soon be much cheaper

By LindleyF • Score: 4, Funny Thread
Please don’t fling billions in of pennies into space.

Re:Space telescopes will soon be much cheaper

By greytree • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
Starship avoided the one big problem with Shuttle ( that is rarely mentioned ): It was manned.

That meant that the Shuttle system could not be tested without killing people, so it hardly changed over decades ( and was more dangerous as a result ).
Starship is iterating fast, with major internal changes taking on the order of two years to test and debug.

Also, Starship is built to be quick and easy to make.

A Starship, as of now, could be used to cheaply bring ~100 tons to LEO *even if it is not reused*.

Once the tiles are debugged and Starship is caught - big problems that look likely to be solved in months not years - Starship will be capable of bringing cargo to orbit super cheaply, every month and soon after that every week and soon after that every day.

I just hope Musk will allow the launch of a few scientific missions between his Starlink and AI cargos.
They will be amazing.

Whistleblower Arturo Bejar Leads Testimony In Landmark Trial Against Meta

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR:
Meta was infused with a culture in which employees obsessed over user numbers and consistently pushed safety to the side, according to Arturo Bejar, a former employee turned whistleblower, who testified today in the landmark child safety trial against the social media company. Only one man had the ability to change that, Bejar said: CEO Mark Zuckerberg. But he didn’t. “At the end of the day, it was the company culture that Mark had created that made it so that it was practically impossible to deliver features that addressed the wellbeing and safety issues that we’ve been talking about,” he said.

Bejar is a linchpin witness for a consortium of states led by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey that sued Meta, alleging violations of consumer and child data protection laws, and that the company lied to the public about risks its platforms posed. The attorneys for the states say Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to hook young users and to keep them on site longer thanks to features such as infinite scrolling and the “like” button. Meta has denied the allegations. In his opening statement on Tuesday, attorney Paul Schmidt argued that the company was sensitive to the risks to teens, sought to address them and did not deceive the public about them. The state attorneys have not yet said if they will call Zuckerberg as a witness.

Testifying in federal court in Oakland, California, for a second day on Wednesday, Bejar, who worked on safety issues at Meta for eight years, said he interacted with Zuckerberg dozens of times, and charged that Zuckerberg was not telling the truth when he made public denials that the company put profits over safety. In particular, Bejar addressed a widely-shared Facebook post Zuckerberg made in 2021 after another whistleblower, Frances Haugen, shared internal documents with The Wall Street Journal that highlighted risks to the mental health of teens. In the post, Zuckerberg said it’s “just not true” that Meta prioritizes profit over safety and wellbeing. “Based on my experience at Meta, that is not an accurate statement,” Bejar said. […] Bejar testified, at almost every turn the company chose policies that boosted usership and revenue over safety. Safety was “not a meaningful priority,” he said.

Surprised

By commodore73 • Score: 4, Interesting Thread
Surprised he didn’t “suicide” before the trial. More power to people like this!

Good for Bejar

By dskoll • Score: 5, Informative Thread

People like this witness are the heroes we need. I hope he has security, though. With this much at stake, I wouldn’t put anything past Meta or its political buddies.

Re:Good for Bejar

By CommunityMember • Score: 4, Informative Thread

Financial security on the other hand…I wouldn’t put it past them to do whatever they could to make sure he can’t find another job or penalize any tech company that hires him somehow, of course for other ostensible reasons.

In one of his interviews, he stated that he never expects to be able to find employment in his field ever again. Advocacy roles (in various non-profits), on the other hand, may be his future.

Why would anyone believe…

By WillyWanker • Score: 3 Thread

…that a malignant narcissistic sociopath would give a shit about people’s mental health and wellbeing?

CEO sets the culture

By toxonix • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Zuckerburg is entirely responsible for all evils Meta creates and propagates - he’s the founder, CEO and chairman of the board. Whatever the results are, ultimately the buck stops with Zuck.

PINE64 Halts Linux Device Production Amid DRAM and EMMC Shortages

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
BrianFagioli writes:
PINE64 has some very bad news for Linux hardware fans. PINE64 says it has no plans to produce additional Linux devices in the near future because of the ongoing DRAM and eMMC shortage. Future production will depend on component pricing after mid 2027, while existing PineNote and PineTab2 inventory could run out in roughly three months. The company says PineTime, PineVoice, and Pinecil production will continue as usual, but the outlook for its Linux hardware is much less certain.
“That’s it for this post, all in all it’s a bit bleak for the Linux devices, but in the meantime PineStore still have a great lineup of MCU powered devices which will continue to expand with more exciting devices,” the company said.

Oh no!

By drinkypoo • Score: 5, Funny Thread

Where will I get a SBC that fails after three months now?

Re:Isn’t capitalism supposed to fix this?

By Valgrus Thunderaxe • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Because building more manufacturing capacity is a large expenditure and nobody wants to get stuck holding the cards if the AI boom turns into a bust.

The communists aren’t building any faster, either.

PINE64 products are not that great

By dskoll • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

I had a Pinebook PRO and it was… meh. Way too slow and underpowered for modern web browsing. Also shipped with Manjaro, but I’m a Debian fan. I installed Armbian instead; PINE64 doesn’t offer much in the way of hardware documentation and so I spent a fair bit of time getting Armbian to work. I had to munge the device tree files based on the ones in Manjaro. I ended up selling the laptop.

In retrospect, I probably should have hung on to it. I could probably sell it for more now!

Re:Isn’t capitalism supposed to fix this?

By caseih • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Nope that’s not it either. Companies have found out that if they collude and control the entire supply of something, they can make more money by not meeting demand, indefinitely. The free market basically no longer exists and definitely no longer discovers prices by matching supply and demand. Covid fundamentally broke it all. Even without collusion in markets with high barriers to entry, reducing supply, or at least not meeting demand maximizes shareholder profits.

Don’t mistake heavy criticism of our present failing system for endorsement of any other system such as CCP China. Saying all other systems are even more horrible is not a valid reason for blindly accepting the many problems we now face.

Re:Isn’t capitalism supposed to fix this?

By UnknowingFool • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

We have a massive shortage why is nobody stepping up to make more supply?

There were really only 3 DRAM manufacturers before this crisis. AI bought out nearly all of the production capacity to make HBM instead of DDR5. Some Chinese companies are now starting to make DRAM but they simply do not make enough. It turns out making even DRAM is hard.

And it’s not a short-term shortage everyone knew this was coming and we have known for a couple of years and we knew that was going to get worse and the absolute best case scenario is that it starts to get better sometime around 2029 or 2030.

All you have to do is start a chip foundry plant and start cranking out DRAM. It’s just that easy.

Stripe Buys AI Startup OpenRouter For $7.5 Billion

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Stripe is acquiring AI model marketplace OpenRouter as it pushes beyond payments into the infrastructure behind AI applications. According to The New York Times, the deal is reportedly valued at about $7.5 billion, with $1.5 billion allocated to OpenRouter’s founders. Less than three months ago the company was valued at about $1.3 billion. CNBC reports:
OpenRouter has become popular with developers seeking to use AI models, particularly those considered non-proprietary and available for free. Many of these so-called open-weight AI models stem from Chinese labs like DeepSeek and Z.ai, which have gained steam among developers for generally being more cost-efficient relative to proprietary AI models from U.S. companies like OpenAI and Anthropic.

In a blog post about the deal, Stripe noted that it’s been working with companies to “optimize their token costs and route tokens efficiently,” referring to a kind of metric used to measure AI model usage. Stripe said it’s difficult to manage AI costs relative to performance because of the rapid “pace at which models are released and repriced.” […]

OpenRouter said in a blog post that combining with Stripe will help with its overall vision of “a healthy AI ecosystem where many models thrive, where AI neurodiversity is a strength, where a lab or an inference provider with a breakthrough can reach millions of developers, and where no single model becomes the default by inertia.”
“Stripe is building the economic infrastructure for AI, and together with OpenRouter we’ll help businesses maximize profitability by routing their requests intelligently and spending their tokens efficiently,” Stripe CEO Patrick Collison said in a statement.

A company buying another company

By rsilvergun • Score: 4, Interesting Thread
For well over a billion dollars should be something you read once or twice in your lifetime not daily news.

Market consolidation is killing us all. And we’re too much of a bunch of pussies and or idiots to do anything about it.

Closed-source software outlets called Open-yada

By Rujiel • Score: 3 Thread
are a plague on this earth

This isn’t a comical bubble at all

By zeeky boogy doog • Score: 3 Thread
According to The New York Times, the deal is reportedly valued at about $7.5 billion, with $1.5 billion allocated to OpenRouter’s founders. Less than three months ago the company was valued at about $1.3 billion. CNBC reports:

This is normal, non-insane valuation in a market that is definitely not a bubble more inflated that the Bootes supervoid.

Used them a few times

By ZipNada • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

I have a couple of projects that need raw access to an appropriate AI model and OpenRouter can get that for you. And they do make it very convenient. You put some cash in your account with them and use their API to get access to whichever model you happen to choose at the time. It shows the prices clearly, so you can experiment to find one that works well for your purposes and is as inexpensive as possible. I didn’t bother to write the code that interfaces with OpenRouter of course, I used AI for that.

I am frankly amazed at the $billions that were spent to buy this thing. It’s really just a router for AI prompts and a convenient way to pay for the service, and they take a little cream off the top like a credit card agency. But I guess this is what attracted Stripe, which acts as a payment intermediary for all kinds of things. Stripe probably had very little expertise in the AI arena and this was an easy though expensive way in to the modern paradigm of paying for AI as a commodity.

Shouldn’t they be making network hardware?

By sabbede • Score: 3 Thread
Call your company OpenRouter, and what is anyone to expect you make besides routers? Switches and firewalls, that’s what.

Amazon’s Drones Will Soon Deliver to Nearly 500 US Cities and Towns

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Amazon says its Prime Air drone delivery service will expand sixfold to nearly 500 U.S. cities and towns by the end of 2026, including metro areas around Chicago, Syracuse, Cleveland, Atlanta, and Boise. According to Amazon Prime Air vice president David Carbon, the service has already delivered “hundreds of thousands of packages to customers” this year, typically within about an hour. The Verge reports:
These will join 11 locations across the US where Amazon already offers drone deliveries, with each Prime Air site serving an area of approximately 175 square miles. The service aims to quickly deliver packages of up to 5 pounds or less […]. Amazon reiterated its drone safety features alongside these expansion plans, including Prime Air’s “industry-leading Detect-and-Avoid system.” That’s likely an attempt to minimize any concerns raised by the communities where the service is expanding, given these drones have already been scrutinized for crashing into cranes, internet cables, gardens, and an apartment building.

Re:Cities?

By dgatwood • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

When companies throw around terms like “cities and towns” for drone logistics, they are usually talking about sprawling suburban developments with neat, wide-open lawns, not dense urban cores.

Well, yeah, but those are still cities. Almost twice as many people live in parts of cities that are not “dense urban cores”.

And the dense areas involve apartment complexes with hundreds or thousands of units and interior halls, so they’re not delivering one package to the building; they’re delivering a hundred. It wouldn’t make sense to send drones for that.

But if you can handle the suburban sprawl with drones, that’s a huge logistics win, because that’s where all the time is spent — not by somebody going to an urban-core building and dropping a hundred packages in the mail room, but by somebody going to a hundred individual houses and dropping off a hundred packages one at a time.

Air density and wind

By michael_cain • Score: 3 Thread
I live along the Colorado Front Range. The Goodyear blimps don’t fly here because of the elevation (reduces lift) and number of wind events with gusts to 60 mph. I will be curious to see if drone delivery is practical.

Tokyo

By hadleyburg • Score: 3 Thread

The other day, I was riding my bike along a street in Tokyo, when I heard a sound. I turned around, and noticed a small delivery robot. It wasn’t Amazon - It was Rakuten, but it was one of those robots which deliver small parcels. It was trundling along the street. But then I noticed that it was approaching a robot colleague. The sound I heard appeared to be some sort of greeting, or request for attention. They stopped at the crossing, facing each other. I briefly recalled that scene in Ex Machina (2014), when we see two robots communicating with each other for the first time.

Diverse hazards

By dsgrntlxmply • Score: 3 Thread
I happen to live across the road from a 115 kV power line, large trees, and the battlefields of inter- and intra- species crow wars. These crows have a very particular set of skills.

Re:Air density and wind

By thegarbz • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Blimps and drones are two very VERY different beasts. One of them is highly subject to winds, and slow moving with high inertia taking a long time to react to any external change in force.

The other is small, zippy, and can hold insanely steady with rapidly changing conditions.

Also these drones will be local launched, they aren’t flying long distances high in the sky and won’t be subject to the same winds as aircraft or blimps. The bigger question is one of landing areas.

Music Publisher Round Hill Files $1 Billion Copyright Infringement Suits Against Suno, Anthropic

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot
Independent music publisher Round Hill is suing Suno and Anthropic for allegedly using hundreds of copyrighted songs without permission to train their AI systems. The company says potential damages could exceed $1 billion, arguing there is “nothing fair” about building multibillion-dollar AI businesses on copyrighted material while rights holders receive nothing. From The Hollywood Reporter:
Round Hill is a prominent music publisher whose copyrights include the Goo Goo Dolls’ “Iris,” Bonnie Tyler’s “Total Eclipse of the Heart,” the Kinks’ “Lola” and Dio’s “Holy Diver.” The company provided a list of 500 songs that the defendants had infringed upon. Round Hill said in the suits that the company plans to “amend to list potentially ten thousand or more of their musical compositions,” with those damages potentially exceeding $1 billion. “While in other cases for copyright infringement, Defendant has waxed poetic about the necessity of progress and AI’s value to society, there is simply no reason — other than rote expediency — to have that progress come at the cost of copyrights holders,” prominent music attorney Richard Busch, representing Round Hill, wrote in the suits.

Round Hill further argued that the latter "‘expediency’ arguments completely falter” when taking into account Suno and Anthropic’s significant cash valuations they’ve earned while “exploiting illicit copies of copyrighted works, including the Round Hill Works.” “There is simply nothing fair about a company using theft to build for purely commercial purposes a multi-billion dollar business while those from which they steal receive nothing,” Round Hill said.
Suno also faces a lawsuit from Universal Music Group and Sony Music Group.

Any way for both sides to lose?

By pla • Score: 4, Interesting Thread
Can someone explain how this is a copyright issue? And I don’t mean that in the angsty teen “everything should be free” sense, I sincerely don’t get how this involves “copying” whatsoever.

AI companies may be playing fast and loose with IP, but using music for training is at worst a private performance for educational purposes. Or is the recording industry back to the good old days of claiming playing a CD is “copying” it into the air, and then our ears are “copying” into our brains? Because that’s functionally what the likes of Anthropic are doing with it.

To be clear, I’m neither an AI apologist or fanboy. I find it extremely useful at work, while still fearing it will eventually put us all in a zoo for our own protection (and that’s the good outcome).

Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants

By Pinky’s Brain • Score: 4, Informative Thread

Copyright is about reproduction, no distribution necessary.

Fair use is their only defence in the US.

Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants

By gweihir • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Training is analogous to learning.

No. Stop pushing that utterly stupid statement. It has neither factual nor legal merit.

Re: Standing on the shoulders of giants

By drinkypoo • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

We don’t know how the brain works so no it isn’t modeled on the brain.

We don’t know how learning works but the brain does things with what you’ve learned that LLMs can’t do, so it’s surely not working in the same way.

Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants

By Local ID10T • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Copyright is about reproduction, no distribution necessary.

That distinction is a recent invention. Copyright originally came about as a response to the invention of the printing press, and the subsequent publishing (for sale) of books without compensation to the authors. It was expressly about distribution for profit.

Fair use is their only defence in the US.

When we in the US created our copyright laws, we expressly stated the purpose as “to promote the progress of science, art, and useful knowledge.” Building on what was done before was the core of US copyright law. …which is where the idea of “fair use” comes from.