Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest
 

Contents

  1. America Now Has 70% More Bookstores Than in 2020, Says Bookshop.org Founder
  2. Two Hot Climate Tech Startups Just Raised $1 Billion+ in IPOs
  3. Right-to-Repair Laws Gain Political Momentum Across America
  4. Bank Robber Challenges Conviction Based on His Cellphone’s Location Data
  5. Google Studies Prompt Injection Attacks Against AI Agents Browsing the Web
  6. Elon Musk Vies to Turn X Into Super App With Banking Tool Near Launch
  7. Remembering The 1984 Unix PC. Why Did It Fail So Hard?
  8. How Will Apple Change Under Its New CEO?
  9. Linux Version of Framework’s Laptop 13 Pro is Outselling Its Windows Variant
  10. New Problem for NASA’s ‘Lunar Gateway’: Corrosion in Two Modules Caused by Supplier
  11. How Teachers Fight Students’ Shortening Attention Spans Shorter Activities, Hands-On Projects, and Meditation
  12. Fans Angry Over Pokemon Go Champion’s Disqualification For Allegedly Shaking the Table
  13. Privacy Advocate Accuses US Government of Investing in AI-Powered Mass Surveillance
  14. 40 Years After the Chernobyl Disaster, More Countries Are Turning To Nuclear Power
  15. Is AI Cannibalizing Human Intelligence? A Neuroscientist’s Way to Stop It

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.

America Now Has 70% More Bookstores Than in 2020, Says Bookshop.org Founder

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
“There are about 70% more bookstores now than there were six years ago in the United States,” says Andy Hunter, the founder/CEO of Bookshop.org. Fast Company checks in on his site, which gives over 80% of its profit margin to independent bookstores, structuring itself as a B Corporation (a for-profit company certified for its social-impact) while providing an alternative to Amazon and other online booksellers:
Hunter created Bookshop.org in January 2020 to help independent bookstores survive by utilizing e-commerce… “There were over 5,000 bookstores in the American Booksellers Association in 1995, which is one year after Amazon launched. By 2019, that had gone down to 1,889, so more than half of them disappeared.” He says he never could have predicted how the pandemic would accelerate his company’s growth… “All these stores that had been trying to get around e-commerce or never really launching or building their website, they had to sell online. That was the only way they could survive during the pandemic....”

“Our goal is to help independent local bookstores get their fair share of online sales, which would end up being maybe 10% of Amazon’s market share,” he says. “And right now we’re at about 2%, so we have a long way to go. But a lot of people didn’t even think we could ever get 1%....” Bookshop.org has given almost $47 million back to local bookstores. For Hunter, it’s not just about the money but changing the way society thinks. He’s delighted that many big organizations no longer use Amazon affiliate links, choosing to send people his way instead. “People have absorbed the message that they should support independent bookstores when they buy books,” he says.

Two Hot Climate Tech Startups Just Raised $1 Billion+ in IPOs

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
Public stock exchanges “appear to be warming to climate tech startups,” reports TechCrunch. “Or at least some of them.”
This week, nuclear startup X-energy went public, raising $1 billion in an upsized share offering that appears to have delivered a windfall for its investors, including Amazon [and Google]. Retail investors apparently can’t get enough, with the stock popping 25% in its first hour of trading. Also this week, geothermal startup Fervo said it filed for an initial public offering. The size of the Fervo IPO has yet to be disclosed, but private investors have valued the company at around $3 billion, according to PitchBook.

The move to go public aligns with what investors told TechCrunch at the end of last year. After years of tepid attitudes toward climate tech companies, they expected public markets to start welcoming energy-related startups. Nearly every investor that weighed in on the question said the startups with the best chances of going public specialize in either nuclear fission or enhanced geothermal. Fervo, specifically, was mentioned several times. Thank data centers for that. The AI craze has taken a trend of rising demand for electricity and made it sexy and salable.

Sigh

By ledow • Score: 3 Thread

It’s still not “green” if you just pump it into a datacentre.

In a datacentre, it gets used up by what are effectively space heaters (computers), and then vented out into the world. And about half of that power is used to try to cool that heating by… venting the heating to the world. The actual “AI” output barely even registers in the efficiency of the overall system, even if you use that to design something actually useful (because, yeah, AI can innovate, invent, infer, right?).

There are far more interesting uses you could put such huge amounts of electricity to that don’t just directly convert it to heat so that people can see a funny animated cat picture.

A lot of hype, pump and dump !!

By bsdetector101 • Score: 3 Thread
valued the company at around $3 billion…based on what…a a lot of hot air !!

Right-to-Repair Laws Gain Political Momentum Across America

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
“California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Connecticut, Oregon and Washington have all passed comprehensive right-to-repair regulations,” reports CNBC, “covering everything from consumer electronics and farm equipment to wheelchairs and automobiles.”

And the consumer movement “continues to gain political momentum” across America…
As of this year, advocates are tracking 57 right-to-repair bills across 22 states. In Maine, the state senate just advanced a bill that would bring the right to repair to electronics in the state. Texas’s new right-to-repair law kicks in on Sept. 1 and covers phones, laptops, and tablets, but excludes medical and farm equipment, and game consoles.... [U.S.] Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are unlikely political bedfellows but have joined together to sponsor the REPAIR Act… The REPAIR Act would require automakers to give vehicle owners, independent repair shops, and aftermarket manufacturers secure access to vehicle repair and maintenance data, preventing manufacturers from funneling consumers into their own exclusive and more expensive dealership repair networks… Hawley criticized big corporations in his arguments in favor of right-to-repair legislation.

“Big corporations have a history of gatekeeping basic information that belongs to car owners, effectively forcing consumers to pay a fixed price whenever their car is in the shop,” Hawley told CNBC. “The bipartisan REPAIR Act would end corporations’ control over diagnostics and service information and give consumers the right to repair their own equipment at a price most feasible for them.” The largest small business lobby in the U.S., the NFIB, says 89% of its members support right-to-repair legislation, making it a top legislative priority for 2026.

Beware also “proponents” co-opting shifting tides

By sinkskinkshrieks • Score: 4, Informative Thread
Look at their actions and their interests.

Bank Robber Challenges Conviction Based on His Cellphone’s Location Data

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Associated Pres:
Okello Chatrie’s cellphone gave him away. Chatrie made off with $195,000 from the bank he robbed in suburban Richmond, Virginia, and eluded the police until they turned to a powerful technological tool that erected a virtual fence and allowed them collect the location history of cellphone users near the crime scene… Now the Supreme Court will decide whether geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches… Chatrie’s appeal is one of two cases being argued Monday…

Civil libertarians say that geofences amount to fishing expeditions that subject many innocent people to searches of private records merely because their cellphones happened to be in the vicinity of a crime. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the technique could “unleash a much broader wave of similar reverse searches,” law professors who study digital surveillance wrote the court… In Chatrie’s case, the geofence warrant invigorated an investigation that had stalled. After determining that Chatrie was near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian around the time it was robbed in May 2019, police obtained a search warrant for his home. They found nearly $100,000 in cash, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the bank teller. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison. Chatrie’s lawyers argued on appeal that none of the evidence should have been used against him. They challenged the warrant as a violation of his privacy because it allowed authorities to gather the location history of people near the bank without having any evidence they had anything to do with the robbery.

Prosecutors argued that Chatrie had no expectation of privacy because he voluntarily opted into Google’s location history. A federal judge agreed that the search violated Chatrie’s rights, but allowed the evidence to be used because the officer who applied for the warrant reasonably believed he was acting properly.

Double standard?

By spaceman375 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

“the officer who applied for the warrant reasonably believed he was acting properly. "
Ignorance of the law does not make it okay.

Re:Double standard?

By fuzzyfuzzyfungus • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Ooh, you are going to love ‘qualified immunity’. Invented more or less out of whole cloth to protect our brave boys in blue from the terrors of the (checks notes) civil rights movement.

uh yeah that’s how it almost always works

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
Criminal procedure cases almost always get to the Supreme Court with a guilty defendant, more specifically where the evidence of guilt came from a process that is being contested. If the defendant was demonstrably not guilty (e.g., the police raided his house and there was nothing there) then he wouldn’t have been convicted and there wouldn’t be a need to litigate new constitutional defenses. There could be some other grounds for suing the police (e.g., that they did not have sufficient grounds for a search warrant) but it wouldn’t be in the context of a criminal appeal.

So security cameras = bad?

By locater16 • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
Security cameras can give evidence that anyone that walks by them was there on the timestamp, even if they had nothing to do with the crime. And in this day and age there can be half a dozen on any given street, showing everyone that walked by all day. They show you, what you look like, even what you have with you if they’re somehow good. Everyone’s fine with security cameras, if asked you’d answer “of course police should be able to look at them if a crime was committed nearby!” but change this to “a security camera but only showing someone’s cellphone was in this rough location” and now it’s bad?

Point being, these arguments seem pretty equivalent, just something to think about.

Wait! What?

By PPH • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

They challenged the warrant as a violation of his privacy because it allowed authorities to gather the location history of people near the bank without having any evidence they had anything to do with the robbery.

Gathering other people’s location data was a violation of Chatrie’s privacy? What if I was one of those “other people” and I say I don’t care if the police accessed my location data. And every other innocent person in that net said the same thing? Chatrie can’t hide behind my rights.

Google Studies Prompt Injection Attacks Against AI Agents Browsing the Web

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
Are AI agents already facing Indirect Prompt Injection attacks? Google’s Threat Intelligence teams searched for known attacks that would target AI systems browsing the web, using Common Crawl‘s repository of billions of pages from the public web).
We observed a number of websites that attempt to vandalize the machine of anyone using AI assistants. If executed, the commands in this example would try to delete all files on the user’s machine. While potentially devastating, we consider this simple injection unlikely to succeed, which makes it similar to those in the other categories: We mostly found individual website authors who seemed to be running experiments or pranks, without replicating advanced Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) strategies found in recently published research…

We saw a relative increase of 32% in the malicious category between November 2025 and February 2026, repeating the scan on multiple versions of the archive. This upward trend indicates growing interest in IPI attacks… Today’s AI systems are much more capable, increasing their value as targets, while threat actors have simultaneously begun automating their operations with agentic AI, bringing down the cost of attack. As a result, we expect both the scale and sophistication of attempted IPI attacks to grow in the near future.
Google’s security researchers found other interesting examples:

The researchers also note they didn’t check the prevalance of prompt injection attacks on social media sites…

How impolite…

By fuzzyfuzzyfungus • Score: 3 Thread
You’d think a company in the adtech business would be more…polite…about what are basically just banner ads for bots.

Good.

By Gravis Zero • Score: 3, Interesting Thread

AI agents should be exploited by websites because AI agents themselves are exploiting the websites. I see no downsides to someone causing an AI agent to self-destruct.

Re: This is getting interesting

By SafeMode • Score: 5, Informative Thread

You can’t teach a large language model. It doesn’t understand or reason. It just predicts and associates tokens well enough to simulate those things. It can’t live-adjust it’s training of those associations..,which is required for actual learning. It’s got basically a fixed long term memory and an entirely disconnected temporary memory for the specific context of the prompt that it’s currently responding to that must be fed to it from elsewhere. After which it starts over from scratch when a new prompt is submitted. Agents try and assist with smart rag-ish features to inject relevent context to mimic memory. But it doesn’t alter the model…it isn’t learning anything. So sad for the ai browsers and such. My heart goes out to the billionaires running the ai companies and the hardships they must endure to conquer the unwashed masses for once and for all.

These are not attacks

By EldoranDark • Score: 4, Interesting Thread
This is an attempt and defense. Your AI agents go to people’s houses, walk over the Not Welcome mats, help themselves to whatever they find in the fridge and complain about some owners trying to fight them off with a water spray bottle.

Elon Musk Vies to Turn X Into Super App With Banking Tool Near Launch

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader shared this report from Bloomberg:
More than three years after acquiring Twitter, Elon Musk says he’s nearing his long-stated goal of turning it into an “everything app” with a new financial services tool that he pledged to launch for the public this month… Early users testing the service have touted competitive perks, including 3% cash back on eligible purchases and a 6% interest rate on cash savings — the latter of which is roughly 15 times the national average. Musk’s new product is also expected to offer free peer-to-peer transfers, a metal Visa debit card personalised with a user’s X handle, and an AI concierge built by Musk’s xAI startup that tracks spending and sorts through past transactions, according to reports from users with early access.

Musk, who first rose to prominence in Silicon Valley by co-founding PayPal Holdings Inc, sees payments as crucial to creating a so-called super app similar to social products that have flourished in China. WeChat, for example, lets users hail a ride, book a flight and pay off their credit card… If it works, X Money would sit at the intersection of social media and finance in a way no American product has attempted at this scale… Creators who currently receive payments from X for engagement will be switched from Stripe to X Money as their payment platform, according to early users — a move that guarantees an initial base of active accounts. Some have already been testing X Money to send payments to one another through the app’s chat feature or directly through their profiles, according to early participants in the rollout…

X currently holds licences in 44 states, according to its website, and likely won’t be able to operate in states where it hasn’t obtained a licence.

I know better

By spaceman375 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Phones can be lost, stolen, and hacked. My phone has never seen a single credit card number, nor have I ever logged in to any bank with it. Letting any app have access to my money is never going to happen. I know my home pc can be hacked, but it’s a linux box; I know what’s going on with my home network and all the devices on it. Not so for phones. I’d say Elon can kiss my ass, but he’d have to pay me a LOT to do that. Eeeewww.

Re:This is almost certainly DOA

By bill_mcgonigle • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Just think of it as a means of controlling what people say.

Criticize the wrong nation state? No money for seven days.

But, ohh, that sweet sweet 5% interest rate.

These people actually upload their biometrics to foreign nation states to get a “reply boost”.

Re:This is almost certainly DOA

By gweihir • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Musk is a really, really bad businessperson that got lucky once. He is also not very smart and not well educated. But at this tike he is part of a cabal that tries to subjugate free society and get filthy rich in the process. And they have not (yet) dropped him.

Re: aka

By dfghjk • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Hating Elon Musk is not partisan politics. These days only loving Elon Musk is.

Re: aka

By ack154 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

People who don’t make all of life’s decisions based on partisan politics.

If hating nazis and making choices to not fund their nonsense is “partisan politics” … then sign me up!

And honestly, that’s before you consider all of the lies and delays and missed deadlines and shifted goalposts of his entire “robotaxi” concept that may never actually happen at scale.

Remembering The 1984 Unix PC. Why Did It Fail So Hard?

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
“I love these machines,” writes long-time Slashdot reader Shayde:
I was super-active in the Unix-PC Usenet groups back in the 90s… We hacked the hell out of them. They were small, sexy, and… they ran Unix!

Unfortunately, they were a commercial failure. There were so many things wrong with them — not just stuff that broke, but the baseline configuration was nigh on worthless. I recently was able to get another machine and got it up and running (with a few hiccups). I whipped up a video showing all the cool things it can do, but also running through what went wrong and why it ultimately failed.
The video shows the ancient green-on-black screen of 1984’s AT&T Unix PC (with the OS running on a silicon drive emulation). The original machine had 512K of memory and a 10-megabyte hard drive described as slow, failure-prone, and noisy. There’s also a drive for inserting floppy disks, and a separate MS-DOS board (with its own CPU) that could be plugged into the expansion slot — but the device was “remarkably heavy,” weighing in aqt 40 pounds

See the strange 1984 mouse, and its keyboard with both a Return key and a separate Enter key. There’s even plug-in ports for phone landlines. “It looked great,” Shayde says in the video, showing off its Spirograph demo and ‘80s-era games like Pong, Conway’s Game of Life, GNU Chess, “Trk”, and NetHack. But besides slow startup times, it was expensive — in today’s dollars, it would’ve cost roughly $15,000 — and suffered from Unix’s lack of spreadsheets, word processing software and other office productivity tools at the time. At that price the Unix PCs couldn’t compete with IBM’s home computers and their desktop applications. “It just didn’t have the resources, the software, the capabilities and the price point that made it attractive.”

I’ll Tell You Why

By SlashbotAgent • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

There were two primary reasons why it failed.

1. Price. It cost a frigging fortune!

2a. No off the shelf software. At its price point the only “people” buying these were businesses and granted researchers. But, there was no off the shelf or precompiled business software for it to be useful.

2b. You had to write your own software. Even if you bought software or had a developer write it for you, you then had to compile it to run on this box. There were only a select few with the knowledge, time, and patience to compile their own shit on that oversized calculator.

Related movie trivia

By tiqui • Score: 5, Informative Thread

In the Sylvester Stallone movie “Cobra”, there are two types of computers seen. In his apartment, there’s a PC clone. In the police station, there are more PC clones but also a bunch of these AT&T Unix PC machines.

The only ones operating are the PC clones, whose vendor provided people. The provider of the AT&T machines provided nobody, and no information on how to run them. They looked super-cool for their day. During down-time, people switched them on, thought they were interesting, and then ignored them. Nobody has time on a movie set to figure stuff out just for some set dressing - every minute is money being burned. This was a very sad product placement marketing failure.

Re:Related movie trivia

By Shayde • Score: 5, Funny Thread
DANG. I should have mentioned that. These guys were used in a LOT of backgrounds in movies in the 80s. My wife gets all jumpy when I go “HEY! THERE! THATS A UNIXPC!” “I -was- enjoying the movie, thankyouverymuch.”

Re:It was price

By laughingskeptic • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
The price for a working system was high, but AT&T sold systems with just Unix running on them for much less. If I remember correctly every little component was a plus-up (sh, compiler, nroff, etc). The sum of all of the plus-ups to make a useful system was high. But you could buy a system that booted but couldn’t do anything for much less and some people did which did not make for happy customers. We got two for our university lab on a 2-for-1 deal on the hardware and a free-to-us university-wide software license. Wasn’t a bad deal for us, there were only 3 vendors selling 386 based systems at the time and AT&T was one of them. One of those clunky hard drives did not even last a year and its 3C501 based networking stack was awful.

Robert Cringely of “Accidental Empires”…

By joshuark • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Robert Cringely of “Accidental Empires” wrote about how AT&T was run by a “3rd wave guy” and was shocked when Info World did actual scientific tests. He wrote in his book:

“Then Bob Kavner came to town, head of AT&T’s computer operation and the guy who invested $300 million of Ma Bell’s money in Sun Microsystems and then led AT&T’s hostile acquisition of NCR—yet another company that didn’t know its PC from a hole in the ground. Eating a cup of yogurt, Kavner asked why we gave his machines such bad scores in our product reviews. We’d tested the machines alongside competitors’ models and found that the Ma Bell units were poorly designed and badly built. They compared poorly, and we told him so. Kavner was amazed, both by the fact that his products were so bad and to learn that we ran scientific tests; he thought it was just an InfoWorld grudge against AT&T. Here’s a third-wave guy who was concentrating so hard on what was happening inside his own organization that he wasn’t even aware of how that organization fit into the real world or, for that matter, how the real world even worked. No wonder AT&T has done poorly as a personal computer company.”

https://www.cringely.com/2013/…

—JoshK.

How Will Apple Change Under Its New CEO?

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
How will Apple change in September under its new CEO — former hardware chief John Ternus? The blog Geeky Gadgets is already expecting "significant updates to the iPhone over the next three years,” as well as streamlined internal engineering (plus durability enhancements and high-capacity batteries).

2026: Foldable display
2027: Bezel-less iPhone 20 (celebrating the iPhone’s 20th anniversary)

CNET’s web sites (which include ZDNET, PCMag, Mashable and Lifehacker) are even hosting a contest “to see which of our readers can make the best Apple predictions for 2026. Answer five questions in any of our three rounds of the contest to be entered to win [$applePrize] in September.”

But the blog 9to5Mac already has a list of new upcoming Apple products, courtesy of Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman (who appeared on the TBPN podcast this week “to talk about Apple’s CEO transition, what to expect from John Ternus, and more.”
As part of the conversation, Gurman said: “There are six major Apple products in development right now, six major new product categories.” Here’s the full list he shared:

1. AI AirPods
2. Smart glasses
3. Pendant
4. Smart display
5. Tabletop robot
6. Security camera

[…] Gurman has reported on the Pendant before as a new AI wearable that’s an alternative to AI AirPods and Glasses. All three products are expected to rely heavily on a paired iPhone for Siri and other AI features. The smart display (‘HomePad’), tabletop robot, and security camera are all brand new Apple Home products.
The AI features arrive "thanks to the revamped Apple Foundation Models trained by Google Gemini,” reports the AppleInsider blog (citing Gurman’s Power On newsletter at Bloomberg). The smart doorbell camera will include “an Apple Intelligence-upgraded version of the facial recognition already included with HomeKit Secure Video. Today, HSV can utilize the Apple Home admin’s tagged faces in their Photos app to label people that are viewed on the camera. When a known person rings the doorbell, Siri will announce them by name over the HomePod chime.”

Please, John,

By jenningsthecat • Score: 3 Thread

Ternus around! We need a new direction here at Apple.

Maybe Apple would be more enterprise friendly?

By ctilsie242 • Score: 3 Thread

I’d like to see the new CEO make Apple more enterprise and business friendly. Start selling a complete ecosystem again, which may not make as much money as the devices directly, but it is profit coming in, and people would buy them. For example, if Apple started making an updated Time Capsule with S3 capability for backups (including object locking), a streaming server where devices can use that server for GPU rendering, revamping ABM/ASM to have more business-friendly features, and offering an enterprise model iMac, this would go a long way. One feature that would be nice to have is being able to reboot a device if it hasn’t seen an internet connection in a period of days, or it notices its geolocation renders it out of bounds. At least get it to the BFU (before first unlock) state, which would be annoying for the user, but can mean the difference between data being secured, versus it completely dumped. Other things that would help would be “users”, so company stuff could reside under a completely different context than normal personal stuff, similar to what Android has. This way, a remote wipe by a company to a personal device not owned by that company only would nuke the company profile and its section of the filesystem.

After that, iCloud needs some updates. Snapshotting would be nice, or the ability to store long term archives that would require a form of authentication for them to be modified or deleted. Maybe even focus on having iCloud be a M365 replacement?

Even though Apple had some cool things, there wasn’t much in the way of groundbreaking new products. The Vision Pro has its uses, but I really don’t see much adoption of it. Maybe look at markets like home servers.

Of course if Apple could make a cheap, reliable backup solution with media holding 1-10TB native, the world, both consumers and enterprise would beat a path to their door.

Bring back the Apple ][+!

By Traf-O-Data-Hater • Score: 4, Funny Thread
That is all.

Linux Version of Framework’s Laptop 13 Pro is Outselling Its Windows Variant

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
Framework began shipping its new Laptop 13 Pro this week. And the Ubuntu variant is outselling the Windows variant, reports PC World:
[I]t’s selling quickly by Framework’s internal metrics, with six batches of the Intel version of the laptop already sold out. [A later Framework social media post added “Spoke too soon, we’re onto Batch 8.”]

“Also nice validation of our approach, the Ubuntu configurations are outselling the Windows ones!”

That’s not really surprising, for a few reasons. One, if you’re buying a Framework laptop, you have a good reason to order it without an OS, even if you want Windows 11. It’s easy to get it free or cheap elsewhere. (Framework says it’s not counting the “None (bring your own)" option in these Ubuntu numbers.) Two, there are precious few places to order a new laptop with any kind of Linux pre-loaded — you’ve got Framework, a few smaller vendors like System76 and Slimbook, and a few models from Dell. Lenovo sold Ubuntu-loaded laptops at one point, but I can’t find any on the site right now…

Perhaps it doesn’t hurt that Microsoft and Windows are currently on a bit of an apology tour. After a couple of years of pushing hard on “AI” features that no one wants — not even the people who do want “AI” want the Copilot flavor — Microsoft is pulling back its integration into everything and now promising features that Windows has been missing ever since Windows 10.
Framework also reports that:

Re:Of course it is. It’s cheaper.

By Powercntrl • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

This is a relatively spendy laptop we’re talking about here. If you really wanted to run Windows, going with a laptop from a different manufacturer would save you even more money. That’s always kind of been the irony of the so-called “Windows tax”, skipping Windows really only works in your favor when you’re buying individual desktop components. When it comes to prebuilt machines though, unless you’re dead-set on a specific brand, it’s often cheaper to just buy something that already has Windows preinstalled.

It’s rumored that large OEMs pay somewhere around $5-$10 for a Windows Home license, so if you’re buying something like a Lenovo or Dell, you’re not actually paying very much extra for the preinstalled copy of Windows (that you may or may not even want).

Never run Windows on bare metal!

By Misagon • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

Linux as host OS is the way.

I think that if you are going to run MS Windows at all, then you should run it in a virtual machine that supports snapshots.
Then, if you’d get a bad Windows Update — which MS has had a tendency to push out much too often lately — then you would be able to roll back your Windows installation to a previous snapshot instead of getting a bricked computer.

Your data should also never be on the C: drive, for the same reason.

Wipe

By markdavis • Score: 3 Thread

>“Framework says it’s not counting the “None (bring your own)" option in these Ubuntu numbers.”

I run nothing but Linux on all my hundreds of machines, including all my personal ones, and have for decades. For personal laptops, my preference has been ThinkPads for quite a while. I don’t care what it comes with, it is going to get wiped and replaced with Linux immediately. No dual boot. I will buy whatever OS option for it that is least expensive (MS-Windows, whatever Linux, or no OS).

If I were in the market for a Framework, which might happen one day, I certainly wouldn’t care if Linux were “preinstalled”, and if it were Ubuntu, it is certain to be wiped and replaced with Mint or something else. If the Ubuntu option were the same cost as zero OS, I would opt for Ubuntu, even though I would wipe it, simply to show Linux support.

Re:Of course it is. It’s cheaper.

By sarren1901 • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

I was under the impression when you bought a windows laptop, that all the other junk that’s preinstalled is subsidizing the cost of the hardware. The last time I bought a laptop, I did a great deal of research to find one that would definitely work with Xubuntu. I also found during my research, that pre-installed Linux machines were costing MORE then the Windows version. A real head scratchier on the surface.

I am happy with my Dell but they definitely didn’t make it easy to install Linux. For starters, it refused to boot from USB. I ended up having to partition the hard drive to include an installation partition where I had the Linux iso stored. Then, I had go into the BIOS and point the shim to let me boot from that partition. I eventually got it working just fine, but it wasn’t trivial.

I also didn’t want to just wipe the drive, as I did want Win11 as a boot option for the super rare case that I needed windows. So far, I’ve only needed it for one single game that’s been long dead and can only be played on a private server now. I rarely boot to Windows on that machine.

Framework makes the dream work

By WaffleMonster • Score: 3 Thread

The framework laptops look nice. I wish they had a keyboard option with a trackpoint and a smartcard module.

New Problem for NASA’s ‘Lunar Gateway’: Corrosion in Two Modules Caused by Supplier

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
In March, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced that the moon-orbiting “Lunar Gateway” space station was being “paused” to focus instead of missions to the moon’s surface. And Ars Technica agrees that the project was essentially “spending billions of dollars to make it more difficult to reach the lunar surface and faced the prospect of watching Chinese astronauts wander around on the Moon from orbit instead of being there themselves.”

“But this week, we learned another reason that Gateway is going away, and it’s pretty shocking.”
During testimony before the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Isaacman faced questions about NASA’s budget… He then publicly confirmed rumors (reported last month by Ars) that there is corrosion in both the HALO [Habitation and Logistics Outpost] and I-HAB modules of the Gateway. “The only two habitable volumes that were delivered — both were corroded,” Isaacman said. “And that’s unfortunate because it would have delayed, probably beyond 2030, the application of Gateway....”

In a statement, Northrop confirmed the issue as well. “Using NASA-approved processes, Northrop Grumman is completing repairs to HALO after a manufacturing irregularity,” a company spokesperson told Ars. “We expect to complete repairs by the end of the third quarter. HALO can still be repurposed for any mission, and it’s the most mature technology to support a deep space or lunar habitat.” By referring to a “manufacturing irregularity,” Northrop answered the central mystery here: how corrosion could appear in both modules. This is because a French-Italian space and defense company, Thales Alenia Space, built the primary structure of HALO for Northrop Grumman. The module was delivered from Italy to the United States about a year ago

Thales is a powerhouse of the European space industry. It built several pressurized modules of the International Space Station, and it’s working with Axiom Space to build its commercial space station. The company also had a big piece of the Lunar Gateway in addition to HALO, developing the I-HAB module and a future communications and refueling module known as ESPRIT… After the issue was discovered, the European Space Agency established a “tiger team” to investigate. “Based on the investigation and available data, the corrosion issue was understood to be technically manageable and did not constitute a showstopper for I-HAB, which was, in any case, in better conditions than HALO from [a] corrosion point of view,” the spokesperson said…

After publication of this story on Friday, Axiom Space confirmed that it has also experienced corrosion issues. In a statement, the company said: “Axiom Space has experienced a similar phenomenon with the first module; we are leveraging the expertise of NASA and Thales Alenia Space to address the issue. Module 1 is on track to launch in 2028.”

Alloy exposed to salty, humid sea air

By Mirnotoriety • Score: 5, Informative Thread
ClippyAI: The alloy at the center of the Gateway controversy is Aluminum-Lithium 2195. The very chemical properties that make 2195 high-performing also make it vulnerable to Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC). HALO was manufactured in Turin, Italy, and then shipped across the Atlantic to the United States. Exposure to salty, humid sea air is a worst-case scenario for this alloy.

Re:Northrop answered the central mystery here:

By rufey • Score: 5, Informative Thread

While you had to read further on and also between the lines, they did answer the question of how both modules had corrosion.

The structure element of both the HALO and I-HAB modules were built by one sub-contractor: Thales Alenia Space. And the source of the corrosion came from that one sub contractor.

Agreed that at first I thought the “central question” was how did it happen, but apparently the “central question” in this context was how more than one piece of hardware have corrosion. By identifying the single source for the corrosion on both modules, then can then figure out the how it came about and why it wasn’t uncovered in the manufacturing process.

I have fairly low standards for journalism, and this one is, sadly, below what I’d expect. I wouldn’t rule out this being written mostly by a LLM. I did watch the part of the hearing where Isaacman mentioned the corrosion, and it didn’t seem to a big deal during the hearing, as in “stop the press!” type revelation. And the fact that its being repaired seems to indicate it didn’t compromise the entire structure where it would need to be thrown onto the scrap heap. This could be just the tip of the iceberg of issues with Gateway that would have pushed it well past 2030.

I would say though that removing the Gateway element from the moon landing goal actually makes things simpler by removing the “rest stop” if you will from the picture. Apollo didn’t need something like Gateway to land on the moon. Just skip the rest stop and go directly to your destination. And if you don’t need to stop at the rest stop, don’t build the rest stop at all.

The bigger problem was the Gateway idea itself

By tiqui • Score: 3 Thread

The Apollo program had no need for a moon-orbiting space station. The Saturn V launch vehicle, and the CSM and LM were properly designed and sized for the planned missions, and those planned missions were scoped to be what was possible with the tech of the day. Three people were going, so the CSM was sized for three. Two people were landing, so the LM was sized for two. The tech of the day could not withstand an approx 340 hour lunar night, so all landings would be etirely during lunar day. Fuel requirements were too high (thus would have driven a need for larger launcher) for big orbital plane changes, so all landings were in the lunar equatorial regions. The list of requirements and constraints was insane, but the systems were properly aligned with them.

The post-shuttle space program had NONE of that. It was primarily driven by the Bush[43] admin running back to space capsules under parachutes (forgetting that NASA did shuttles in-part as a running-away-from-parachutes play after Apollo13 and Apollio15) out of political fear post-Columbia while being unwilling to spend the money for a 2nd generation re-usable space plane. The Orion capsule was set to both support deep space ops AND replace shuttle for servicing ISS crew rotations, so it’s sized for four on extended missions, but SEVEN people for short low Earth orbit ops. People forget that one of its jobs was to replace the seven-person shuttles - this latter option will never happen because we now use commercial Dragons (also initially sized for 7, but only used for 4) for that purpose. This made Orion big and HEAVY. Orion’s weight was a huge driver in the Ares I debacle, which contributed to the downfall of the Bush era “Constellation” program. When the Obama admin tried to kill the Bush program and shift NASA manned spaceflight money to “education”, a bi-partisan revolt in congress wrote the SLS into LAW in 2010 (which is why the giant orange rocket is nick-named the “Senate Launch System”). The rocket design spec was specified in that law! The congress basically mandated a jobs program for people in certain districts who’d worked on the shuttle program. Note: at this point, neither the SLS launcher nor the Orion capsule was scaled for any particular use. As part of the Constellation-to-SLS transition, the very-capable upper-stage powered by two new derivatives of the Apollo J-2 engines was cancelled (thereby crippling the launcher) with the function slightly replaced by a modified Delta-IV upper-stage (sized to boost unmanned satellites) called the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Then the US-built service module for Orion was cancelled, and a deal was worked with Europe to have them provide a service module (partly as compensation for their discontinuation of cargo service to the ISS and partly as buy-in for their participation in future exploration missions). The Euro service module is derived from their old ISS cargo hauler (the ATV) and uses one Space Shuttle OMS engine from the US as its big engine; this is NOT a huge, capable, SM like the one of the Apollo era with their big fuel tanks and giant SPS engines. The result is that the SLS-SM-Orion combo is not capable of an Apollo-style mission. There’s simply no ability to put Orion into LLO (low-lunar-orbit) and then get it home from there. The solution was a hack… send Orion to a very elliptical NRHO (Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit) where a lander is pre-positioned, and have the lander return there. This requires a far better lander than Apollo had, but happily it’s been decades and we have much better tech now. The Gateway is the glue in that scheme, becoming a hub where landers can be stationed and maintained (solar power works in lunar orbits, but not on the surface where there are those long lunar nights). The whole scheme would be a joke as a band-aid for an improperly-scaled rocket and spacecraft, but it was able to provide one significant benefit that was a good sales point: unlike Apollo, a super-capable lander and a NRHO rendezvous made lunar orbit plane changes reasonable, and thus acce

How Teachers Fight Students’ Shortening Attention Spans Shorter Activities, Hands-On Projects, and Meditation

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
The Washington Post reports that some teachers are now implementing “brain breaks” in their classrooms to cope with shorter attention spans, “including limiting screen time; cutting the time students spend on one activity; adding more engaging, hands-on projects; and practicing meditation.”
Some teachers say the efforts are helping, at least a little… To engage students, teachers say they often feel the need to deliver teaching not only in shorter bursts, but also in more entertaining ways. “The new word is ‘edutainment,’" said Curtis Finch, superintendent of Deer Valley Unified School District in Arizona. “How can you make your lesson applicable, interactive? Teachers are going to have to be more engaging for students....”

In a kindergarten classroom at McKinley STEAM [a K-8 public school], students start the day with a meditation. The classroom of two dozen children is perhaps its quietest during this short activity every morning. Imagine you’re in the Arctic, a voice from a meditation video tells them, with snowflakes melting on your skin. Silently, the children lay down on the carpet and close their eyes for a moment. After the meditation, the students gather in a circle and do a few deep breathing exercises before taking turns proclaiming what they are capable of each day. “I can be a good student,” one little boy said before the child next to him replied: “I can listen to the teacher.” The goal is that these mantras will stay with the children hours later, when they have to sit through the more tedious lessons of the day.
An instructional coach at McKinley STEAM says the strategies are working students aren’t reaching for their phones during class and sometimes actually get drawn into lessons.

The article also explains why some teachers find this necessary:
In recent years, educators say, it has grown more challenging to get students to pay attention. Eighty-eight percent of respondents in an international survey from 2025 of more than 3,000 teachers believed their students’ attention spans were getting shorter. In a study published last year about kindergarten through second-grade classrooms in the United States, 75 percent of teachers said attention spans had dropped since the coronavirus pandemic, when the use of laptops and other technology for schooling spread rapidly. A growing body of research says that excessive screen time and short-form content such as TikTok videos are part of the problem. At least 36 states, including Ohio, have laws requiring schools to have some form of a cellphone ban.

There is debate over whether screen time reduces people’s ability to focus or their desire to — many developmental experts lean toward the latter, suggesting that it is possible to help students regain longer attention spans.

Seriously?

By markdavis • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

>“An instructional coach at McKinley STEAM says the strategies are working students aren’t reaching for their phones during class”

Why would ANY classroom allow students to “reach for their phones during class”?? And we wonder why children have zero attention spans?

I am 100% behind trying to make classes more interesting, more interactive, more engaging, more varied in approach. Not all children learn or engage in the same way. But discipline has to play a major role as well. Allowing students to be disrespectful, disruptive, or distracted has to be a hard no. And students using phones during class is outrageous.

The headline says “fight”

By MpVpRb • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

But the rest of the comment implies surrender
Instead of teaching concentration and focus, teachers are dumbing down the class to feed the students what they want

Re:Seriously?

By Fons_de_spons • Score: 4, Interesting Thread
Teacher here, ah, a good excuse to preach! You do not put a bag filled to the top with colorful candy on their desk and expect them not to eat it. If you do, sure, then you have to make sure they are entertained. That is a bit inhumane though. At our school, we banned smartphones. Also for teachers during class. Kids are more relaxed. Teachers are more relaxed! Although the difference is not that large, it definitely does not cause a spectacular change, but it is noticeable.
Quite frankly, a large part of class needs to be the opposite of entertaining. “Boring!” It is our job to keep it that way. A lot of kids understand this and are willing to go through this. Bless them! You actually have to get them to wind down from the “entertain us!” mode before you can teach.
I teach math, old school. Chalk board, students make their own notes. Taking notes, very boring! It depends from year to year, but occasionally I have a class that detests that. I sell it as a way to concentrate on boring stuff. Kids know their attention span is short. They appreciate it if you tell them why you do it that way and that you are trying to help. Entertain them? Yes! Colorful glitter pens, artistic lines below titles with marker pens, find your own abbreviations, … Bad day? Doodle a bit. It reasonably works!
In math, the boredom is needed, I noticed. Kids think they are stupid. They look at a question and the answer does not magically pop up in their heads. “I am stupid, I have a blackout, …”, they expect to push a button and get a result instantly. I have to learn them to be patient. Be bored! Wonder in their mind. Try something stupid. Write down what they do know, … If you are conditioned to be regularly entertained, that part is going to be very hard.
I could go on for a few paragraphs. But I notice that my preachings are having effect. Everyone is getting bored. Good! No worries, you’ll live.

“The new word is ‘edutainment’"

By darkain • Score: 4 Thread

“The new word is ‘edutainment’"

This is a new word? It dates back to at least the 1930s.

And in the 1990s, it was a mandate for television funding. This lead to the awesomeness of things like Bill Nye.

Seriously, you want to keep students attention? Just roll in the big fucking CRT from the closet with the VHS player on a shelf below it, throw on some Bill Nye or Myth Busters, and you’ll get em all hooked instantly. This isn’t hyperbole, this is tried and true. Anyone of a certain age will have endless fond stories of this experience.

Re: Seriously?

By AmazingRuss • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
They can call the office. The office knows where their kid is, and can deliver the kid or a message to the kid.

Fans Angry Over Pokemon Go Champion’s Disqualification For Allegedly Shaking the Table

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
It’s "the curious case of… the Pokémon Go pro who celebrated too hard,” reports the gaming news site Aftermath. It all started on the first weekend in April
Firestar73, a competitive Pokémon Go player who placed seventh at last year’s world championships, managed to narrowly cinch a game-five finals win at the 2026 Pokémon Orlando Regional Championships after battling his way out of the dreaded losers’ bracket. As stress and adrenaline gave way to relief, Firestar73 stood up from his chair, threw off his headphones, raised his arms in a sort of victorious flexing motion, and then fist pumped for good measure. Immediately afterward, he politely shook his opponent’s hand… [T]he tournament’s staff went on to deem Firestar73’s conduct “unsportsmanlike” and stripped him of his win.
“After weeks of fans flooding The Pokémon Company’s social channels to demand a repeal of the ruling, the company has finally issued a statement,” reports Kotaku. “Spoilers: It will not be reverting its decision.” Their official statement?
"[D]uring game one of the bracket reset series, a player was issued a Warning for the action of hitting and shaking the table during gameplay. Actions such as these can have a negative impact on the experience of participants and disturb the match in progress. Then, during game five, this same player’s behavior continued to be disruptive, including shaking the table to the point that there was a disruption to the broadcast experience. These repeated infractions resulted in a penalty that was escalated to Game Loss. "
Meanwhile, Aftermath now reports, Firestar73 “has disputed Play! Pokémon’s account of events entirely
“The ‘incident’ you are now, for the first time, claiming was the basis of the decision did not affect the gameplay at all, yet decided the whole tournament,” he wrote on Twitter. “Section 2.1 requires a ‘clear explanation of any infraction and its penalty,’ and I was never given this as the basis at all.”

NiteTimeClasher, who won the tournament by disqualification, doesn’t seem pleased either. “Was not my decision,” he appears to have written in a Pokémon Discord. “Firestar is the Orlando regional champion. Hope you all understand.” Others have attempted to divine what the company meant by a “disruption to the broadcast experience,” and what they’ve found doesn’t look all that severe.

Not long after Play! Pokémon handed down its edict, one judge who was not involved in this particular match, Professor Rex, publicly voiced his outrage. “As a judge I’m not supposed to discuss ruling[s] publicly,” he wrote. “However, I also believe that as a judge my job is to give players a fair space to compete. If a player in a high stakes battle can lose out on thousands of dollars for shaking the table, what kind of space have we built? If the table can’t handle the intensity of the competition, that’s not the players’ fault. I’ve judged multiple Go regionals, [and] I just can’t support how this was handled.”

After posting internal correspondence meant for judges and asking “some questions they didn’t like” in the Discord for those who judge and otherwise help out at Pokémon events, Rex was banned from the Discord. That’s when, to the extent they had not already, things spun out of control. Rex went on to share judges’ personal information in a perhaps-misguided attempt at forcing transparency, which caused other judges — some of whom mostly agreed with him — to call him out and take issue with his conduct. As of now, almost no one is happy.

Alledgedly?

By Valgrus Thunderaxe • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
It’s not an allegation. He DID shake the table, twice. The question is not whether he did so, it’s whether it should result in the disqualification being discussed.

So, basically…

By jd • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

Instead of dealing with the issue privately, calmly, and respectfully, the judges decided to push the issue, causing the winner and the defeated player to demand an explanation, and another judge to go nuclear. Going nuclear is rarely the best option, but is frequently the only meaningful option because the other side has made any kind of civil discourse impossible due to their conduct and attitude.

Whilst I cannot judge what happened at the tournament, as I wasn’t there, I can judge that the complete breakdown in communication was the fault of the judges - as they are the ones responsible for managing that communication and the situation. “They’re only human” is to ignore the fact that if you assume a position of responsibility, then you are the one responsible and if you’re not up to the job then that is indeed your fault. If you’re not capable of handling responsibility, then you’re not capable of handling positions of authority. It really is that simple.

Rex may have overstepped bounds, in order to try and force the judges to actually have some sense, but that is when you CALM THE SITUATION DOWN. You do NOT inflame it further. Competent figures of authority have an obligation to de-escalate situations that are spiralling out of control in order to ensure that everyone gets heard and everyone is happy - or at least happier. The judges were clearly not competent.

Does that mean Rex was competent, or that he should be given a license to violate confidences? No. He was also in a position of authority, albeit in other respects, and that means that he needed to be competent too and to de-escalate. However, I am sympathetic to his stance and feel that his attitude was probably the more understandable and rational, to the extent that the information in the OP is correct.

The players concerned are the only ones I consider to be wholly innocent in this matter and the only ones who seem to be interested in handling it maturely. They got emotional, nerds and geeks do that. And, yes, the table should have been set up to cope. They have decided who morally won, regardless of who technically won, and I consider that their right.

The outrage!

By Baron_Yam • Score: 5, Funny Thread

I suspect I’ll be able to sleep tonight. Somehow.

It’ll be a struggle knowing some guy was told he couldn’t have a Pokemon award because he couldn’t stop banging a table, but I’ll manage.

Re: So, basically…

By toutankh • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

As a volunteer international sports referee myself, Rex sounds like a dick. You don’t post internal communication. You don’t throw your peers under the bus. You don’t dox them because you disagree with their ruling.

Unsportsman-like conduct ..

By PPH • Score: 4, Informative Thread

.. rules are a thing. Even in the NFL.

An aside: I thought Pokemon Go was an AR (Augmented Reality) contest, played out in public. Not like a chess match between two competitors. What’s up with the table?

Privacy Advocate Accuses US Government of Investing in AI-Powered Mass Surveillance

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
The Conversation published this warning from privacy/tech law/electronic surveillance attorney Anne Toomey McKenna (also an affiliated faculty member at Penn State’s Institute for Computational and Data Sciences). The U.S. government “is able to purchase Americans’ sensitive data because the information it buys is not subject to the same restrictions as information it collects directly. The federal government is also ramping up its abilities to directly collect data through partnerships with private tech companies. These surveillance tech partnerships are becoming entrenched, domestically and abroad, as advances in AI take surveillance to unprecedented levels… "
Congressional funding is supercharging huge government investments in surveillance tech and data analytics driven by AI, which automates analysis of very large amounts of data. The massive 2025 tax-and-spending law netted the Department of Homeland Security an unprecedented US$165 billion in yearly funding. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of DHS, got about $86 billion. Disclosure of documents allegedly hacked from Homeland Security reveal a massive surveillance web that has all Americans in its scope. DHS is expanding its AI surveillance capabilities with a surge in contracts to private companies. It is reportedly funding companies that provide more AI-automated surveillance in airports; adapters to convert agents’ phones into biometric scanners; and an AI platform that acquires all 911 call center data to build geospatial heat maps to predict incident trends. Predicting incident trends can be a form of predictive policing, which uses data to anticipate where, when and how crime may occur…

Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s national policy framework for artificial intelligence, released on March 20, 2026, urges Congress to use grants and tax incentives to fund “wider deployment of AI tools across American industry” and to allow industry and academia to use federal datasets to train AI. Using federal datasets this way raises privacy law concerns because they contain a lifetime of sensitive details about you, including biographical, employment and tax information....
The author argues that it’s now critical for Americans to know “why the laws you might think are protecting your data do not apply or are ignored.”
On March 18, 2026, FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed to Congress that the FBI is buying Americans’ data from data brokers, including location histories, to track American citizens.... But in buying your data in bulk on the commercial market, the government is circumventing the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions and federal laws designed to protect your privacy from unwarranted government overreach… Supreme Court cases require police to get a warrant to search a phone or use cellular or GPS location information to track someone. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act‘s Wiretap Act prohibits unauthorized interception of wire, oral and electronic communications.

Despite some efforts, Congress has failed to enact legislation to protect data privacy, the use of sensitive data by AI systems or to restore the intent of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Courts have allowed the broad electronic privacy protections in the federal Wiretap Act to be eviscerated by companies claiming consent. In my opinion, the way to begin to address these problems is to restore the Wiretap Act and related laws to their intended purposes of protecting Americans’ privacy in communications, and for Congress to follow through on its promises and efforts by passing legislation that secures Americans’ data privacy and protects them from AI harms.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader sinij for sharing the article.

Cui bono?

By phantomfive • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
The problem with surveillance, one of them…

I don’t like it, but I’m willing to hear arguments in favor of mass surveillance, then we can make a cost/benefit chart and compare and see how it turns out.

But they have nothing! How many terrorist events have they prevented through mass surveillance? Zero! Let the program die! We’ll save money that way.

Re: Cui bono?

By FudRucker • Score: 5, Informative Thread
I read an article a few years ago that even the NSA themselves said they collect so much data that it takes too long to sift through it to be effective at stopping a terrorist attack

H.R. 8470 - the Surveillance Accountability Act

By Shakes Fist • Score: 5, Informative Thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?…
The Surveillance Accountability Act closes the loopholes, ends warrant-less data purchases, and for the first time creates a private right of action allowing Americans to personally sue federal agents who violate their constitutional rights.

Re:Cui bono?

By gweihir • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Mass surveillance is only useful for establishing authoritarian states. Anybody that still thinks differently does not have a working mind. As soon as these mechanisms exist, they are used for control. It has never been different and it will not be different now.

Terrorism? Nonsense. Since when are terrorists communication in ways that mass-surveillance covers? Organized crime? Same thing.

Welcome to the machine…

By mspohr • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Welcome, my son, welcome to the machine
Where have you been?
It’s alright we know where you’ve been

Welcome my son
Welcome to the machine
What did you dream?
It’s all right, we told you what to dream

(thank you Pink Floyd)

40 Years After the Chernobyl Disaster, More Countries Are Turning To Nuclear Power

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Associated Press:
The 1986 Chernobyl disaster fueled global fears about nuclear power and slowed its development in Europe and elsewhere. Four decades later, however, there’s a revival around the world, a trend that has been given a big boost by war in the Middle East. Over 400 nuclear reactors are operational in 31 countries, while about 70 more are under construction. Nuclear power accounts for producing about 10% of the world’s electricity, equivalent to about a quarter of all sources of low-carbon power.

Nuclear reactors have seen steady improvements, adding more safety features and making them cheaper to build and operate. While Chernobyl and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan diminished the appetite for such power sources, it was clear years ago that there probably would be a revival, said Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency. With the war in the Middle East, “I am 100% sure nuclear is coming back,” he added…

The United States is the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, with 94 operational reactors accounting for about 30% of global generation of nuclear electricity. And it is increasing efforts to develop nuclear energy capacity with a goal to quadruple it by 2050… China operates 61 nuclear reactors and is leading the world in building new units, with nearly 40 under construction with a goal to surpass the U.S. and become the global leader in nuclear capacity. European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen has acknowledged that it was Europe’s “strategic mistake” to cut nuclear energy and outlined new initiatives to encourage building power plants. [In 1990, nuclear energy accounted for roughly a third of Europe’s electricity, the article points out, but it’s now only about 15%.] Russia, meanwhile, has taken a strong lead in exporting its nuclear know-how, building 20 reactors worldwide…

Japan has restarted 15 reactors after reviewing the lessons of the earthquake and tsunami that damaged the Fukushima plant, and 10 more are in the process of getting approval to restart. South Africa has the only nuclear power plant on the African continent, although Russia is building one in Egypt, and several other African nations are exploring the technology… With 57 reactors at 19 plants, France relies on nuclear power for nearly 70% of its electricity.
The article includes an interactive graphic that shows the growth in the world’s nuclear capacity slowing down soon after the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown — with that capacity broken down by country. But it’s still increased by roughly 50%.

Even Ukraine — the site of the accident — now “still relies heavily on nuclear plants to generate about half of its electricity,” the article points out. But Germany “switched off its last three nuclear reactors in 2023.”

Nuclear reactor technology

By pygalge • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
Conflating modern reactors with Chernobyl is like saying there is no difference between a stationary diesel and a Mazda Wankel engine, or a turbocharged four. I also find it interesting that they wave Chernobyl and Fukushima and don’t mention Three Mile Island, which was probably more pertinent to current technologies than either of those other examples. The anti-nuclear bias in the report is pretty mild compared to what has been printed in the past, but seems still to be there. FUD has always been a viable tool for those who would protect their own entrenched interests.

Re:Nuclear reactor technology

By Stormwatch • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

If people treated airplanes the same way, they’d say: some planes have crashed before, so we must never fly again.

Bad faith legislation

By FeelGood314 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
In general, in the west, we are incapable of building large projects* but in the case of nuclear we passed a lot of safety legislation that didn’t add to safety but drove up costs and slowed construction. Many “environmental” groups lobbied for laws in bad faith, not to make nuclear safer but expressly to stop it. Legislators took the easy way out and approved legislation to appease groups that were never going to be appease with anything short of banning nuclear. Three Mile island demonstrated that 60s nuclear was safe. In the late 60s coal mines were going bankrupt. The “environmentalist” saved coal and in the process helped doom us to global warming.

*My city, Ottawa Canada, is taking 12 years to build a dog park in an open field. Government and competence is something only my grand parents experienced.

Re:Nuclear reactor technology

By karmawarrior • Score: 4, Informative Thread

> The problem with nuclear energy so far is that we don’t seem to be learning. Nuclear power is safe, the technology is great. The problem is, the management is the weak point. The human part. It seems every nuclear disaster was caused by a failure of management in some way - the need to get something done quickly or safety steps were bypassed in the name of efficiency.

That’s pretty much true of every disaster.

A car crashes into another car. The blame will fall on: (1) the tire mechanic who installed substandard tires, (2) the owner of the car who didn’t replace the tires when they should have done, (3) the driver who didn’t apply their brakes in time, (4) the passenger who distracted the driver by talking to them at a critical moment. This is true now, it was true at the time of the model T.

A train derails at a curve. The blame will fall on: (1) the driver who was driving it too quickly, (2) the maintenance person responsible for the signal that failed before the curve, (3) the maintenance crew responsible for the rails at the curve which, due to a missing pin, failed despite the train going at the correct speed, (4)....

A Slashdot poster posts something that’s clearly wrong. The blame will fall on (1) the poster who should have checked the post before hitting submit, (2) CmdrTaco and Pudge for not implementing an edit button, (3) subsequent buyers of Slashdot for not doing necessary maintenance and adding the feature…

I mean, the point is at the end of the day, any technology is dependent upon people, and any failure is a problem with the people running and maintaining it.

Is Nuclear Power safe? Not inherently, as you appear to imply, not even close. It requires a massive infrastructure of people working together in harmony making zero mistakes to make sure there isn’t a meltdown that leads to the creation of an Elephant’s Foot or something worse. The same is true of a Boeing 747, and 747s have an “excellent safety record” but because that infrastructure isn’t ever going to be perfect, the 747 has crashed at least 65 times, resulting in 3,746 deaths.

If it requires a massive infrastructure of people working together in harmony making zero mistakes to avoid catastrophic accidents that will kill, over time, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people, then it’s not “safe”.

It would be better, rather than pretending it’s safe, to consider it against the alternatives, and to determine whether those, ultimately, will kill more people. Clearly Nuclear can be compared favorably to standard coal infrastructure in that regard, at least unless someone actually invents “clean coal”, which appears increasingly unlikely. But on the other side, it’s clearly not safer than most renewables.

Re:20+ years reading Slashdot

By gessel • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Any aggregation of radioactive elements is inherently dangerous, always, no matter what safeguards, simply as a material that is hazardous to health. Most radioactive hazards associated with fissile materials represent health risks with atypically, even for poisonous elements, pernicious qualities. Not many people would be sanguine with health-impacting quantities of fissile materials in their environment, unlike say, lead or arsenic, both quite awful but a whole different scale of awful.

Any intentional aggregation of fissile material is intrinsically a risk to human health and safety. Nuclear advocates (many of whom would qualify as frothing fanbois) dismiss such concerns claiming they know of a “safe” reactor design, some of which are quite clever and are, indeed, intrinsically quite safe when operated correctly. Such fanbois will sometimes make the entirely valid point that the rate of death from even older reactor designs is way below the mortality rate induced by burning coal (true) and that nuclear power is much less carbon intensive than fossil fuels (also true).

There are compelling arguments about a diversity of sources, above the reliability of fissile power, about the longevity of investments, and about immunity to a range of possible weather (storms, extended rain) or geopolitical constraints (international fuel shipments), all of which (and more) have merit and should be considered carefully.

I consider four counter arguments that should be considered when contemplating the relative merit of fissile power generation over other methods:

1) Current advanced nuclear power plants have a projected LCOE of $0.11/kWh (DOE) standard new at $0.118-$0.192/kWh (lazard) while solar currently runs $0.05-$0.06/kWh (lazard) and $0.086 (NREL) for battery-backed 24/7 solar, declining to $0.047/kWh by 2050 (NREL). The economic justification for nuclear power is weak in all but a few geographic locations occupied by humans.

2) Uranium is a finite resource, the cost of which is rising and currently $86.8/kg (tradingeconomics). The total proven proven reserves are sufficient for about 2 years of total human consumption in standard light water fission reactors. Breeders and advanced systems have significantly different total reserve values, but such systems come with significant risks, either in proliferation (breeders) or technological (advanced reactor designs). While it is an entertaining speculative argument to discuss technologies that might extend fuel supplies, solar panels and storage (PSH or grid-scale battery) are well proven and widely available today.

3) National security policy: defense against external antagonist: any centralized civilian facility is a target and nuclear reactors, even intrinsically safe ones, are a particularly tempting target. While containment structures are designed to be robust against, for example, the impact of a large passenger aircraft, they are not robust against “bunker buster” style munitions. Consider the consequences of a relatively trivial drone impact with the Chernobyl sarcophagus. As these sorts of attacks are democratized by the proliferation of low cost, long range, difficult to attribute munitions they will inevitably become more common and the only practical mitigation is decentralization. While nanoreactors such as the Zeus (1-20 MW) might make targeting more difficult, they’re still vastly more expensive than a few more drones making them juicy asymmetric targets for any NSAG and proliferate the next concern:

4) National security police: defense against extremist state takeover or occupation: “safe” nuclear reactors assume operation remains in the hands of moderately responsible, reasonable people, an assumption not supported by recent history. There is no fission design that does not rely on a concentration of fissile material, intrinsically radioactive. There is no such concentration that cannot be widely dispersed with a properly engineered application of conventional high explosives. Every nuclear reactor, anywhere in the world, is a pre-emplaced nuclear munition. To quote the (poor) AI transcription of Serhii Plokhy from the Economist’s Intelligence podcast https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2026/04/24/an-explosion-still-echoing-chernobyl-at-40 “The taboo on the occupation and military attacks on nuclear sites that existed before 2022 had been broken. It is gone. Now, the war in Ukraine is the war of drones more and more. And the non-nuclear country. Can very easily go nuclear by attacking somebody’s nuclear facilities like nuclear power plants.” Chernobyl is occupied, Zaporizhzhia is occupied, the Ukrainians got close to taking Kursk; if an occupying force is forced out, might they be tempted to salt the earth they’re forced to leave with fissile debris? Might one of the many political parties animated by an Armageddonist eschatology consider a nuclear reactor an inexpensive and readily available doomsday munition, a sort of clarion call to whatever deity they are waiting for? Even if they’re wrong about the level of doom a conventional detonation of a fissile core might achieve, the consequences would be far more lasting and terrifying than a fuel depot or even grid-scale lithium battery fire.

Is AI Cannibalizing Human Intelligence? A Neuroscientist’s Way to Stop It

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot
The AI industry is largely failing to ask a key design question, argues theoretical neuroscientist/cognitive scientist Vivienne Ming. Are their AI products building human capacity or consuming it?

In the Wall Street Journal Ming shares her experiment about which group performed best at predicting real-world events (compared to forecasters on prediction market Polymarket) — AI, human, or human-AI hybrid teams.
The human groups performed poorly, relying on instinct or whatever information had come across their feeds that morning. The large AI models — ChatGPT and Gemini, in this case — performed considerably better, though still short of the market itself. But when we combined AI with humans, things got more interesting. Most hybrid teams used AI for the answer and submitted it as their own, performing no better than the AI alone. Others fed their own predictions into AI and asked it to come up with supporting evidence. These “validators” had stumbled into a classic confirmation bias-loop: the sycophancy that leads chatbots to tell you what you want to hear, even if it isn’t true. They ended up performing worse than an AI working solo.

But in roughly 5% to 10% of teams, something different emerged. The AI became a sparring partner. The teams pushed back, demanding evidence and interrogating assumptions. When the AI expressed high confidence, the humans questioned it. When the humans felt strongly about an intuition, they asked the AI to come up with a counterargument… These teams reached insightful conclusions that neither a human nor a machine could have produced on its own. They were the only group to consistently rival the prediction market’s accuracy. On certain questions, they even outperformed it…

We are building AI systems specifically designed to give us the answer before we feel the discomfort of not having it. What my experiment suggests is that the human qualities most likely to matter are not the feel-good ones. They’re the uncomfortable ones: the capacity to be wrong in public and stay curious; to sit with a question your phone could answer in three seconds and resist the urge to reach for it. To read a confident, fluent response from an AI and ask yourself, “What’s missing?” rather than default to “Great, that’s done.” To disagree with something that sounds authoritative and to trust your instinct enough to follow it. We don’t build these capacities by avoiding discomfort. We build them by choosing it, repeatedly, in small ways: the student who struggles through a problem before checking the answer; the person who asks a follow-up question in a conversation; the reader who sits with a difficult idea long enough for it to actually change one’s mind. Most AI chatbots today default to easy answers, which is hurting our ability to think critically.

I call this the Information-Exploration Paradox. As the cost of information approaches zero, human exploration collapses. We see it in students who perform better on AI-assisted tasks and worse on everything afterward. We see it in developers shipping more code and understanding it less. We are, in ways that feel like progress, slowly optimizing ourselves out of the loop.
The author just published a book called " Robot-Proof: When Machines Have All The Answers, Build Better People.” They suggest using AI to “explore uncertainty.... before you accept an AI’s answer, ask it for the strongest argument against itself.”

And they’re also urging new performance benchmarks for AI-human hybrid teams.

Nothing surprising here!

By oldgraybeard • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Using AI to (1) tell you the answer vs (2) confirm your answer vs (3) a tool to assist. Most humans will will go the route of 1 or 2 because they don’t have the thinking thing going in the first place to use 3.
Today’s AI-less(AI)(no reasoning/thinking going on here folks) will create less able humans that can’t function and don’t know how to do much of anything.

Always check sources

By TheMiddleRoad • Score: 3, Interesting Thread
Modern search AI catalogues everything. Then it finds links/sources that it summarizes. Within that, you can find the links, and from there you can actually see what pages say, some of them written by humans. Generally, when I search like this, I find answers, eventually.

There’s more than just recall

By Lunati Senpai • Score: 3 Thread

These studies really irk me, because it all reminds me of studies on “does the internet make us dumber?” and junk like the “google effect” where people are less able to recall things, because they remember how to look it up, but not the information.

We have a giant collection of all of human knowledge that doubles every seven or so years, which doubles again the next year, which probably is going to get even faster soon as we get more efficient.

I’d love to see a double blind study that compares someone who researches knowledge in a book, versus online, versus AI, and compares all three as far as relative intelligence on things all three can look up. Give all of them a way to remember that info that’s shown to increase recall (like say, all of them have to write it down), vs a control group that gets nothing, and just writes it down. I’d bet that all of them would perform about the same, and would probably all be within a margin of error.

If you’re lazy, don’t take notes and just skim the book, you’re going to fail the test.

Repetition breeds knowledge and I want to see that taken into account. It’s not the AI making people dumber, it’s not repeating the info.

Some issues…

By Junta • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

So I suppose the real point they want to make is that human consideration with GenAI input is better than GenAI alone, but there’s some issues with the first bit about comparing ‘pure human’ to ‘pure AI’.

The first sign is they are using Polymarket as a benchmark and distinct from “human prediction”, but Polymarket is just comprised of human prediction. Polymarket is comprised of humans mostly, just a tendency to be humans that are more specifically informed about the topic they are betting on.

So we see “The human groups performed poorly, relying on instinct or whatever information had come across their feeds that morning”, this suggests the humans were asked cold about random events they had not researched and further were not allowed to research, so all they had to go on was guessing on whatever they had happened to hear about beforehand. If you asked me who was going to win the presidential election in a country I’ve never heard of and demanded I don’t look, well of course my answer is going to be garbage. You could include a totally made up name as a choice and I might pick that one because I just have no way of knowing.

I would have been much more interested if they were given a minute to do a quick internet search with AI results disabled to see how well they did versus GenAI results to see if the GenAI results improved their accuracy versus a quick internet search.

Re:Nothing surprising here!

By Bongo • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Indeed. The critical thinkers did better.

The people who rely on copying what everyone else does, what the authorities say, what the consensus view is, didn’t do as well as the people who started using critical thinking systematically, i.e. western enlightenment for example, and other places where that was used. The fact that now we can have an AI in the role of authority or group think isn’t surprising when you realise it, because so often we do just rely on common patterns, authorities, and copying.