Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest
 

Contents

  1. Trump Administration Will Pay More Energy Firms to Cancel Wind Farms
  2. Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman Head To Court
  3. Study Finds a Third of New Websites Are AI-Generated
  4. EU Tells Google To Open Up AI On Android; Google Says That’s ‘Unwarranted Intervention’
  5. Notepad++ Finally Lands On macOS as a Native App
  6. China Blocks Meta’s $2 Billion Takeover of AI Startup Manus
  7. Supreme Court Reviews Police Use of Cell Location Data To Find Criminals
  8. GitHub Copilot Is Moving To Usage-Based Billing
  9. Microsoft To Stop Sharing Revenue With OpenAI
  10. California’s Billionaire Tax Has the Signatures to Make the Ballot
  11. DeepSeek V4 Arrives With Near State-of-the-Art Intelligence At 1/6th the Cost
  12. America Now Has 70% More Bookstores Than in 2020, Says Bookshop.org Founder
  13. Two Hot Climate Tech Startups Just Raised $1 Billion+ in IPOs
  14. Right-to-Repair Laws Gain Political Momentum Across America
  15. Bank Robber Challenges Conviction Based on His Cellphone’s Location Data

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.

Trump Administration Will Pay More Energy Firms to Cancel Wind Farms

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
The Trump administration says it will reimburse energy companies $885 million to cancel two planned offshore wind farms, with the firms in turn agreeing to put money into oil and gas projects instead. “The deals are modeled after a similar agreement last month with the French energy giant TotalEnergies,” notes the New York Times. “TotalEnergies forfeited its leases for two wind projects planned off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, while committing to a range of fossil-fuel investments.” From the report:
[…] The first new agreement affects Bluepoint Wind, a wind farm in the early stages of development off New York and New Jersey. The project was proposed by Global Infrastructure Partners, a part of asset manager BlackRock, and Ocean Winds, which is itself a joint venture between Engie and EDP Renewables, two European clean-energy firms. The second deal would cancel Golden State Wind, another early-stage venture off California’s central coast. Golden State Wind is a 50-50 partnership between the developers Ocean Winds and Reventus Power.

Both Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind agreed not to pursue any new offshore wind projects in the United States, although that pledge would not necessarily apply to the companies behind the ventures. Ocean Winds has also been developing another giant wind farm known as SouthCoast Wind, off Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., that is much further along in the planning and permitting process. That project is not affected by Monday’s announcement, although it has essentially been paused since Mr. Trump took office last year. […] It is also unclear how much the companies will actually invest in new fossil fuel infrastructure. In documents released this month, Interior revealed that it would count investments that TotalEnergies made before the deal toward its pledge, raising questions over whether the company had any obligations to make additional investments.

Ideologically fueled insanity.

By sg_oneill • Score: 5, Informative Thread

How does ANY of this make sense. We’re paying people NOT to generate energy?

Undoing the damage this bezerk administration is doing to science , society and the environment will take decades. Good luck explaining THAT to your grandkids.

The three most evil people on earth are

By FudRucker • Score: 5, Funny Thread
Netanyahu, Putin & Trump

Re:Ideologically fueled insanity.

By Nick-Name369 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Wow....I thought our African politicians were corrupt, but they are rank amateurs compared to yours. Shithole country indeed....

Re:RuckFu

By ukoda • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Abject, ignorance? The three named people have been responsible for the deaths of a large number of people for their own egotistical reasons. That qualifies them as evil in my book.

In the case of trump it is fine if he fucks over the USA as that is what people there voted for. The problem is trump is fucking over the whole planet. In this example he is increasing global warming, with the key word there being ‘global’. And for such a petty reason, the view at his Scottish gold club. Scotland rightly put him in his place and his ego is so fragile that he is hell bent on stopping all wind turbines like a extra dumb Don Quixote.

Re:Ideologically fueled insanity.

By thegarbz • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Is it though? Given how offshore wind with fixed platforms can be competitive with gas turbines without subsides, and given how wind is being built without subsidies elsewhere I think that this can be the usual case of “according to the administration” just meaning once again - we’re lying through our teeth to justify supreme orange man’s ideology.

Even then the approach is stupid. Some of these projects are very early on. Just remove the subsidies and they’ll fail their FID and cancel themselves. The fact that you need to pay them out to the tune of the dollars mentioned shows that any pretext of them not being viable is just bullshit.

Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman Head To Court

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press:
Technology tycoons Elon Musk and Sam Altman are poised to face off in a high-stakes trial revolving around the alleged betrayal, deceit and unbridled ambition that blurred the bickering billionaires’ once-shared vision for the development of artificial intelligence. The trial, which started Monday with jury selection, centers on the 2015 birth of ChatGPT maker OpenAI as a nonprofit startup primarily funded by Musk before evolving into a capitalistic venture now valued at $852 billion. The trial’s outcome could sway the balance of power in AI — breakthrough technology that is increasingly being feared as a potential job killer and an existential threat to humanity’s survival. Those perceived risks are among the reasons that Musk, the world’s richest person, cites for filing an August 2024 lawsuit that will now be decided by a jury and U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California.

The civil lawsuit accuses Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, and his top lieutenant, Greg Brockman, of double-crossing Musk by straying from the San Francisco company’s founding mission to be an altruistic steward of a revolutionary technology. The lawsuit alleges they shifted into a moneymaking mode behind his back. OpenAI has brushed off Musk’s allegations as an unfounded case of sour grapes that’s aimed at undercutting its rapid growth and bolstering Musk’s own xAI, which he launched in 2023 as a competitor. Gonzalez Rogers questioned potential jurors Monday about their views on Musk, Altman and artificial intelligence. Some jurors said they had negative views of Musk, but most said they would still be able to treat him fairly and focus on the facts of the case. […] “Part of this is about whether a jury believes the people who will testify and whether they are credible,” Gonzalez Rogers said during a court hearing earlier this year while explaining why she believe the case merited a trial. The judge will make the final decision on the case, with the jury serving in an advisory role.
The latest development is that a jury has been seated. During selection, several prospective jurors expressed negative views of Elon Musk, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected attempts by Musk’s lawyer to remove some of them solely on that basis, saying dislike of Musk does not automatically mean someone can’t be fair.
The court is selecting nine jurors, and the case is expected to wrap by May 21, when it would go to the jury. Tomorrow, April 28th, will feature opening statements.

Scam Artman vs Felon Husk

By T34L • Score: 3 Thread

I wish they could both lose

Re: Scam Artman vs Felon Husk

By sodul • Score: 4, Informative Thread

They will be both losing thanks to discovery and the fact that a lot of the evidence will become public.

Both of them are pretty well known for rejecting reality and substituting their own. We should be able to witness multiple parallel realities during this trial.

Re:we’ll finally know

By ZipK • Score: 4, Funny Thread

We will all learn, by official measure of the court, which one of these guys has a bigger dick.

“Has a” or “is the”?

Weighted Bench.

By geekmux • Score: 3 Thread

The latest development is that a jury has been seated. During selection, several prospective jurors expressed negative views of Elon Musk, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected attempts by Musk’s lawyer to remove some of them solely on that basis, saying dislike of Musk does not automatically mean someone can’t be fair.

Just curious if it could be found in a blatantly obvious way that a certain Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers just might have established a long professional history of using a rather specific justification for disqualifying jurors.

Also known as a core fucking reason you actually go through as many rounds of jury selection as necessary.

If having a ‘negative view’ was actually that harmless, then why exactly have liberals demanded for society to define ‘hate speech’ while ironically enjoying Free Speech Freedoms to the extreme? The grown-ass child hypocrite calling for more Charlie Conservatives to get Kirked is merely expressing a ‘negative view’, but the PhD-educated biology teacher trying to explain why it’s called BI-ology is somehow the ‘evil’ one spreading goose-stepping hate speech?

Trial should already get tossed. On the grounds of make it make sense. With evidence.

No. I don’t care who wins or loses here. I care about fair trials. For every reason you should too.

Study Finds a Third of New Websites Are AI-Generated

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
alternative_right shares a report from 404 Media:
Researchers working with data from the Internet Archive have discovered that a third of websites created since 2022 are AI-generated. The team of researchers — which includes people from Stanford, the Imperial College London, and the Internet Archive — published their findings online in a paper titled "The Impact of AI-Generated Text on the Internet.” The research also found that all this AI-generated text is making the web more cheery and less verbose.
“The proliferation of AI-generated and AI-assisted text on the internet is feared to contribute to a degradation in semantic and stylistic diversity, factual accuracy, and other negative developments,” the researchers write in the paper. “We find that by mid-2025, roughly 35% of newly published websites were classified as AI-generated or AI-assisted, up from zero before ChatGPT’s launch in late 2022.”
“I find the sheer speed of the AI takeover of the web quite staggering,” Jonas Dolezal, an AI researcher at Stanford and co-author of the paper, told 404 Media. “After decades of humans shaping it, a significant portion of the internet has become defined by AI in just three years. We’re witnessing, in my opinion, a major transformation of the digital landscape in a fraction of the time it took to build in the first place.”

Maty Bohacek, a student researcher at Stanford and one of the co-authors of the paper, added: “As AI-generated content spreads, the challenge is finding a role for these models that doesn’t just result in a sanitized, repetitive web,” he said. “Rather than forcing models to be perfectly compliant and agreeable, allowing them to have a more distinct personality or ‘friction’ might help them act as a creative partner rather than a replacement for human voice.”

Might be to late already!

By oldgraybeard • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
The Internet is being buried with AI generated slop being created, indexed, summarized and regurgitated as even more AI slop to be consumed by AI bots to generate even more AI slop. With anything really creative, innovative, informative and true being the needle in the proverbial haystack and effectively hidden.

GIGO

By Registered Coward v2 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
So AI will be training itself on stuff generated by itself, the ultimate self licking ice cream cone. Reminds me of the game of putting a paragraph repeatedly through translation software back and forth between to languages until you got gibberish,

This is a race to the bottom

By Arrogant-Bastard • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
The damage that it’s going to do the Internet, and to society, and to education, government, and all the other components of society, is staggering. An enormous amount of work done by dedicated people over decades will be swamped by the flood of AI slop, and I don’t think we’ll know what we’ve lost until it’s gone.

Many readers of this site are likely familiar with various sci-fi stories that deal with nanobots which have begun reproducing without limit, eventually consuming all resources and reducing their planet to “gray goo”. This is the information equivalent: it will expand to occupy everything that it possibly can, overwhelming everything generated by humans. And when that happens, it will impact our shared view of reality, which is based on a (mostly) common set of facts.

And when nothing is real, anything can be real. This will not escape the attention of would-be fascists and dictators.

Re:Same as it ever was

By karmawarrior • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Wordpress is a framework for publishing web content. It’s not really relevant here. You can publish slop using AI too. And the fact a website is Wordpress based does not mean the content is good or bad.

This is idiotic snobbery, and you should know better.

Re: Might be to late already!

By liqu1d • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
My website was king for 10 years. Now it’s buried under 50 rudimentary AI clones churning out blog posts about how their software is better, whilst they blanket Reddit with new accounts promoting themselves and spreading misinformation about mine. Reddit seems to ban a lot but not all. Impossible to compete. Still have my core users but they’re dwindling. Was a fun run.

EU Tells Google To Open Up AI On Android; Google Says That’s ‘Unwarranted Intervention’

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica:
In January, the European Commission began an initial investigation, known as a specification proceeding, into how Google has implemented AI in the Android operating system. The results are in, and the EU says Android needs to be more open, which is not surprising. Meanwhile, Google says this amounts to “unwarranted intervention,” which is equally unsurprising. Regardless of Google’s characterization of the investigation, the commission may force Google to make Android AI changes this summer. This action stems from the continent’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), a sweeping law that designates seven dominant technology companies as “gatekeepers” that are subject to greater regulation to ensure fair competition. Google has consistently spoken against the regulations imposed under the DMA, but it and the other gatekeepers have been subject to the law for several years now, and there’s little chance the commission backs away from it.

The issue before the commission currently is the built-in advantage for Gemini on Android. When you turn on any Google-powered Android phone, Gemini is already there and gets special treatment at the system level. The European Commission is taking aim at the lack of features available to third-party AI services. The commission believes that there are too many experiences on Android that only work with Google’s Gemini AI, and as a gatekeeper, Google must change that. “As we navigate the rapidly evolving landscape of AI, it is clear that interoperability is key to unlocking the full potential of these technologies,” said Commission VP for Tech Sovereignty Henna Virkkunen in a statement. “These measures will open up Android devices to a wider range of AI services, so that users will have the freedom to choose the AI services that best meet their needs and values, without sacrificing functionality.”

The commission does have a solid track record pushing for openness so far. Since the DMA came into force, Google has been required to make numerous changes to its business in Europe, like implementing search choice screens on Android, allowing alternative payment methods in the Play Store, and limiting data sharing across services. Now, the EU wants Google to make the Android platform more hospitable to third-party AI services. Google’s objection focuses on preserving the autonomy for device makers (including Google) to customize AI services. “This unwarranted intervention would strip away that autonomy, mandate access to sensitive hardware and device permissions; unnecessarily driving up costs while undermining critical privacy and security protections for European users,” said Google senior competition counsel Claire Kelly.
The problem isn’t that you can’t install ChatGPT or Grok; it’s that these chatbots don’t have the same access to data and features as Gemini.
To address that imbalance, the EU is considering several requirements that would force Google to give third-party AI assistants deeper access to Android, closer to what Gemini currently enjoys. The proposed requirements include:
- Letting alternative AI tools be launched system-wide through hot words, gestures, or button presses.
- Allowing third-party assistants to see screen context when users invoke them.
- Giving non-Gemini AI tools access to local device data, with user permission, so they can generate proactive suggestions, summaries, and contextual help.
- Allowing other AI services to control installed apps and Android system features on the user’s behalf.
- Ensuring third-party developers can access the necessary device hardware to run local AI models with strong performance, availability, and responsiveness.
- Requiring Google to create APIs that let outside AI providers plug into Android more deeply.
- Requiring Google to provide technical assistance to those AI providers.
- Making those APIs and support available free of charge.

Anti monopoly regulations are great

By Luckyo • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

I honestly wish US had anti-monopoly regulation that worked in a similar manner.

But also, I wish EU stopped google from locking down android in a few months. For those not in the know, google plans to do an over the air update to play services which will prevent users from installing apps from sources other than play, unless that dev pays google for the pleasure and identifies him/herself and agrees to terms.

Oh and if your app blocks ads or other “terms violations”? Google says fuck you, we own those phones and you’re not installing your app on it. It’s the classic “one party consents, other party also consents, but have you forgotten to ask the giant corporation for consent?” moment.

M$ and Edge browser

By evanh • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

M$ is forcing Edge back into everything yet again. Where’s the enforcement gone on that?

A not-Google OS

By NotEmmanuelGoldstein • Score: 3 Thread
This sounds like the Microsoft-only API that Windows had, decades ago. So, Google can easily predict how a government with serious anti-trust laws will treat Google’s favouritism to its own products. Google is losing its Play Store monopoly, that’s another warning for how this will end.

Google losing monopoly leverage is why it is locking-down Android OS: A tactic that didn’t work in the 1980s/1990s. The question is, is Android like Windows, too big to abandon, or can a not-Google OS provide the same API?

Who cares what Google says?

By jenningsthecat • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

Google Says That’s ‘Unwarranted Intervention’

This is in Europe, where - to a much greater extent than in America - the dog wags the tail rather than the other way around. So I think that Google will end up sticking its claim where the sun doesn’t shine. And if they huff and puff and bluff about withdrawing from the EU, I suspect they’ll be laughed at.

It seems to me that big American companies still fail to grasp just how done the rest of the world is with American attitudes and exceptionalism.

Notepad++ Finally Lands On macOS as a Native App

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
BrianFagioli writes:
Notepad++ has finally made its way to macOS, and this time it is not through a compatibility layer. A new community-driven port brings the long-standing Windows text editor over as a fully native Mac application, built with Cocoa and compiled for both Apple Silicon and Intel systems. Instead of relying on Wine or similar tools, the project replaces the Windows-specific interface with a macOS-native one while keeping the core editing engine intact, allowing longtime users to retain the same workflow, shortcuts, and overall feel.

The port is independent from the original Notepad++ project but tracks upstream changes closely, with development happening in the open. It is code-signed and notarized, and notably avoids telemetry or ads. Plugin support is being rebuilt for macOS and is still evolving, but the groundwork is in place. While macOS already has several established editors, this effort is aimed squarely at users who want the familiar Notepad++ experience without relearning a new tool.
You can download the app here.

Freecell

By alta • Score: 5, Funny Thread

I got tired of my mac not having freecell. So I told claude to create it as a python app with a gui. And it did. But the graphics were a little kludgy. So I told it to try again as a swift app. Boom, I have freecell for mac now. I’ve never coded anything for mac, I haven’t even looked at the (vulnerable) code it’s created.

Notepad++ is very useful on Windows

By 93 Escort Wagon • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

I don’t see the appeal for macOS users, though. BBEdit is pretty incredible, and can be used for free (although I have been a paid user for many years).

Re:Notepad++ is very useful on Windows

By PCM2 • Score: 4, Informative Thread

I remember BBEdit from ages ago. But these days, hell, I just use VS Code.

Re:Notepad++ is very useful on Windows

By silentbozo • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

I’m all for stuff that makes transitioning from one OS (Windows) to another (MacOS in this case) less difficult. Maybe they’ll port it to linux next?

Written by Claude Code, maybe vibe-coded

By ahziem • Score: 3 Thread
The GitHub commit history lists Claude Code as co-author on all changes. Are you glad Notepad++ finally works on a Mac or concerned about “vibe coding”?

China Blocks Meta’s $2 Billion Takeover of AI Startup Manus

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
China has blocked Meta’s planned $2 billion acquisition of AI startup Manus, ordering the deal withdrawn after months of scrutiny from both Beijing and Washington. “The decision to prohibit foreign investment in Manus was made in accordance with laws and regulations,” reports CNBC, citing the National Development and Reform Commission. “It added that it has asked the parties involved to withdraw the acquisition transaction.” From the report:
The deal had attracted scrutiny from both China and Washington, as lawmakers in the U.S. have prohibited American investors from backing Chinese AI companies directly. Meanwhile, Beijing has increased efforts to discourage Chinese AI founders from moving business offshore. The Chinese government’s intervention in the transaction drew alarm among tech founders and venture capitalists in the country who were hoping to take advantage of the so-called Singapore-washing model, where companies relocate from China to the city-state to avoid scrutiny from Beijing and Washington.

Manus was founded in China before relocating to Singapore. The company develops general purpose AI agents and launched its first general AI agent in March last year, which can execute complex tasks such as market research, coding and data analysis. The release saw the startup lauded as the next DeepSeek. Manus said it had passed $100 million in annual recurring revenue, or ARR, in December, eight months on from launching a product, which it claimed made it the fastest startup in the world at the time to hit the milestone from $0. The company raised $75 million in a round led by U.S. VC Benchmark in April last year.

Now what will happen to Manus?

By Frank Burly • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
Now that Manus is in the hands of fate, we should ask who is pleased by this.

China stops pretending

By Pinky’s Brain • Score: 3, Insightful Thread

They can only enforce this by taking people hostage in China, either the employees themselves or their family … those are the true rules and regulation of China indeed.

somebody didnt make the proper kickbacks err

By Growlley • Score: 3, Funny Thread
tribute to the Trump Family and their Chinese equivalents.

Supreme Court Reviews Police Use of Cell Location Data To Find Criminals

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times:
When the Call Federal Credit Union outside Richmond, Va., was robbed at gunpoint in 2019, the suspect took $195,000 from the bank’s vault and fled before the police arrived. A detective interviewed witnesses and reviewed the bank’s security footage. But with no leads, the officer relied on a so-called geofence warrant to sweep up location data from all the cellphones in the vicinity of the bank for the 30 minutes before and after the robbery. The data he gathered eventually led to the identification and conviction of Okello T. Chatrie, now 31, a Jamaican immigrant who came to the United States in 2017.

Geofence searches have become increasingly popular as a tool for law enforcement, but critics say they put at risk the personal data of everyday Americans and violate the Constitution. Mr. Chatrie challenged the use of a geofence warrant in his conviction, in a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday. The justices will examine how the Constitution’s traditional protections apply to rapidly changing technology that has made it easier for the police to scoop up vast amounts of data to assemble a detailed look at a person’s movements and activities.

It has been eight years since the court last took up a major Fourth Amendment case involving the expectations of privacy for the millions of people carrying cellphones in the digital age. In that 2018 case, the court ruled that the government generally needs a warrant to collect location data drawn from cell towers about the customers of cellphone companies. The court has also limited the government’s ability to use GPS devices to track suspects’ movements, and it has required that law enforcement get a warrant to search individual cellphones. In Mr. Chatrie’s case, the government did obtain a warrant, but one that his legal team said was overly broad, violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

Re:if they found evidence

By dskoll • Score: 5, Informative Thread

But if it wasn’t legal to obtain the cell phone data in the first place, then none of that is admissible as it’s fruit of the poisonous tree.

Seems overly broad

By fropenn • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
IANAL, but to me it seems overly broad to get a warrant that says “we want to know every phone that was in this area during a 30-minute period.” Just like if they wanted a warrant to search every person who, say, was in a museum the day a theft occurred, before letting them leave the premises. To me that seems to broad.

On the other hand, if they had some other evidence, such as a tip, that Mr. X suddenly had a bunch of cash and was bragging about knocking off a bank, then getting a warrant to see of Mr. X’s phone was in the bank that day seems much more appropriate for granting a warrant.

One is fishing, the other is following the evidence. I believe the Constitution protects from fishing expeditions.

Re:Seems overly broad

By fropenn • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

The data gets collected by at least a dozen data aggregators, who go on to sell it to hundreds of other companies. Which means that my cell phone records are probably for sale to literally anyone on the planet who goes to the effort of calling up a data aggregator and writing a check.

True, and I’m opposed to this too, but it is irrelevant when it comes to the constitutionality of a search for a criminal case. For example, Lowe’s may have records that I bought a shovel last year, and they may have even sold that info to a company that markets for fence installers. But that doesn’t give the government the right to browse through those data to try to find suspects for a round of recent grave robberies, even if they purchase it from Lowe’s.

And if they are allowed to search your cell phone records, why not your email? Your email is routed to your “voluntary” cell phone, too. Your text messages? All other phone app activity? It’s all being broadcast in the open, from your phone, too, no? (Maybe it is encrypted, but why can’t the government just have an encryption key, too? It’s only going to target criminals, right?)

Re:But we still can’t use cellphone data to find..

By Himmy32 • Score: 5, Informative Thread
The difference with this article is that it comes after the arguments, has a fair amount of information on the questions that different justices asked, and the general feeling for the outcome.

In Mr. Chatrie’s case, the government did obtain a warrant, but one that his legal team said was overly broad, violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. The Justice Department has insisted that a warrant was not needed to sift through anonymous location data. By the end of the Monday’s argument, it seemed likely that a majority of the court would reject that position and find that warrants are generally required for searches of location data. Several justices also suggested they might seek to provide some guidance for ensuring that such warrants are as narrow and specific as possible. It was not immediately clear what that outcome would mean for Mr. Chatrie’s case.

Re:Seems overly broad

By hdyoung • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
I agree that there must be limits to what the gubbermint can do to me, and how it monitors me. I’m not saying that they get free game on everything.

But, let’s take your shovel analogy. When I buy the shovel, my cell phone transmits that data to at least a dozen places, which then sell that info to a hundred other places, which inundate me with ads for other garden tools for the next 5 years. I see this play out on my cell phone constantly.

So, it’s not just one or two companies that know about my shovel purchase. It’s literally every company on the planet that has an interest in me and is willing to spend the 0.000001$ required to buy my info. If the info is that widely available, I would argue that it’s not “unreasonable” for the government to have access as well.

I also understand that this idea could be extended to the point of absurdity, and that there’s a legit societal debate to be had about privacy versus security versus freedom.

However, this guy’s court case is basically “the government isn’t allowed to know I was driving on a public road because my iphone is sacrosanct like my immortal soul”. Sorry, that simply doesn’t pass the sniff test.

GitHub Copilot Is Moving To Usage-Based Billing

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
GitHub said in a blog post today that it is moving Copilot to usage-based billing starting June 1. Base subscription prices will remain the same but premium requests will be replaced with monthly AI Credits that are consumed based on token usage.

“Instead of counting premium requests, every Copilot plan will include a monthly allotment of GitHub AI Credits, with the option for paid plans to purchase additional usage,” the platform said. “Usage will be calculated based on token consumption, including input, output, and cached tokens, using the listed API rates for each model. This change aligns Copilot pricing with actual usage and is an important step toward a sustainable, reliable Copilot business and experience for all users.”

Documentation for individuals, businesses and enterprises, and an FAQ can be found at their respective links.

So zero, then?

By ByTor-2112 • Score: 5, Funny Thread

Sweet, so almost everyone will be charged zero for the thing they aren’t using.

The first hit is always free.

By CubicleZombie • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

They’ve been limiting requests for premium models to 300/month for quite a while now, and gradually removing the free models. The only free model left now is GPT-5 mini, which is nearly useless. I’ve moved on to Cursor AI. It is vastly superior to Github Copilot.

Expect AI to get a lot more expensive as people and companies become dependent on it. This is by design.

Shifting the blame and cost

By devslash0 • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

So they’re asking users to pay for tokens despite a good portion of tokens being consumed for nothing because of the number of attempts it takes to generate anything usable.

It’s like saying “our product is shit but we’ll tell you it’s your fault because the 100 prompts you wrote were not enough to make the statement of your simple task specific enough; and well charge you for all of it”

Re:The first hit is always free.

By thegarbz • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

Expect AI to get a lot more expensive as people and companies become dependent on it. This is by design.

Expect AI to get a lot more expensive as providers realise that sitting around making loss after loss every quarter is not a sustainable business model. Seriously is there a single company whose AI division is currently in the black?

The bait phase is done…

By FrankOVD • Score: 3 Thread

… now comes the switch part. We all knew this would happen.

So did social media, streaming, and everything else. First is great and cheap, then it’s shitty and expensive.

This time at least I had read Cory Doctorow and did learn to host and use open source alternatives from the start.

Microsoft To Stop Sharing Revenue With OpenAI

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Bloomberg reports that Microsoft is ending revenue-sharing payments to OpenAI (paywalled; alternative source) and making the partnership non-exclusive. “The rapid pace of innovation requires us to continue to evolve our partnership to benefit our customers and both companies,” Microsoft said Monday in a blog post. Bloomberg reports:
The revised deal is meant to simplify a complicated relationship between two partners that has been foundational to OpenAI’s rise and the broader AI boom. OpenAI has since pursued partnerships with multiple cloud providers, including Microsoft rival Amazon.com Inc., to meet its growing computing needs to build and service AI software to a wider audience. As part of OpenAI’s restructuring last year as a for-profit business, Microsoft received a 27% ownership stake in the AI startup.

Re:Oh no, anyway

By bill_mcgonigle • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

Noticings:

Sora shutting down.
Musk lawsuit back in the news.
Altman asked to step aside.
Whistleblower ‘suicide’ case being reexamined.
Actual suicide lawsuits, encouraged by chatbot, allegedly.
Memory wafer deal off?
Stargate collapsing, rumors Oracle could be caught in the wake.
Anthropic bails on selling murder services to DoW, OAI jumps in. …
Microsoft creating distance.

Alone it probably doesn’t mean much but this thing has real Sun Microsystems vibes in aggregate.

And here I thought the circular financing deals alone were disqualifying.

Good luck to the investors.

can’t share what you don’t have

By awwshit • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Microsoft could share profits on AI if it had any. OpenAI is still waiting for its part of Microsoft’s nothing burger.

Re:Oh no, anyway

By thegarbz • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Alone it probably doesn’t mean much but this thing has real Sun Microsystems vibes in aggregate.

Sun Microsystems was a profit making business before it entered in a death spiral. I think this has more to do with a reflection that we were in fact in a bubble, and that bubble just got hit by a needle.

Re:Oh no, anyway

By Junta • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Sam Altman’s leadership style is tuned for maximum grift over short term with long-term problems.

No matter how bullish one may be on LLM in general, I think folks *have* to at least concede that OpenAI itself is in it deep.

Maybe if they had kept Altman ousted, they could have proceeded in a more viable way, but I suspect OpenAI lwon’t fare well in the coming months.

They aren’t the best nor the cheapest at what they do. They don’t have “hooks” into the user experience (e.g. Google can force Gemini by control of phone and browsers, Microsoft can force whatever solution they like via the OS and VSCode, OpenAI is). It is *widely* reported that Altman doesn’t actually understand this stuff but acts like he does anyway. This could even be forgiven mostly except they made crazy financial commitments way beyond even the most bullish scenario…

California’s Billionaire Tax Has the Signatures to Make the Ballot

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
California’s proposed billionaire tax appears headed for the November ballot after backers said they gathered more than 1.5 million signatures, well above the threshold needed to qualify. SF Standard reports:
Backers of the initiative announced this weekend that more than 1.5 million people signed a petition to bring the one-time, 5% wealth tax to a statewide vote come November. That’s well beyond the 875,000 names needed to qualify the measure, and likely sufficient to account for illegible or invalid signatures. The Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West, a union representing more than 120,000 healthcare workers, pitched the tax to make up for federal spending cuts that threaten to shutter hospitals(opens in new tab) and kick millions of people off medical insurance.

Proponents of California’s wealth tax estimate it would raise $100 billion in one-time revenue, even if some billionaires leave because of the measure. The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office forecasts tens of billions in upfront revenue, but cautioned that the tax could cost hundreds of millions or more a year if some billionaires move out of state. The proposal, which needs a simple majority to pass, would apply to assets of people with net worth of $1 billion or more who lived in California as of Jan. 1 this year. That means it would affect about 200 people, according to the SEIU-UHW.

Technical Problems…

By nealric • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

There a lot of technical problems associated with valuation in a tax like this. The website says:

“The initiative uses standard valuation methods already applied in federal estate and tax law. These are well-established and routinely enforced by the state of California.”

But that’s a huge oversimplification. Yes, it’s possible to value closely-held shares, but there are a variety of methods for different scenarios. Closely held shares can be very volatile - especially in California start up land. You can easily have a startup worth $1 billion at the end of the year and next to nothing by the end.

One of the most common ways you see start-ups valued is based on funding valuation. If a company buys 5% of the equity for $50 million, then you say the company is worth $1 billion. But that can produce absurd results. I could form a shell company today that does absolutely nothing, get my friend to pay $1,000 for a .0001% share, and have a company “worth” $1 billion. Other methods of valuing closely held shares such as discounted cash flow or book value of assets rarely work well for startups.

For all those reasons, it’s not always possible to borrow against the shares. It may not be possible to sell 5% either. So you could end up with “billionaires” who are being taxed on fictive value with no ability to pay. This problem is particularly acute in California due to startup culture. The state could drive away that whole industry with a tax like this. The biggest risk isn’t driving away current billionaires- it’s driving away the industry that mints them.

Re:Cue up

By roman_mir • Score: 5, Informative Thread

This is just property confiscation, I understand that poorer people do not care about wealthier people paying anything, that’s how taxes and subsidies are pushed through in the first place. However call it what it is - it is confiscation of private property. As a side note, the so called ‘income tax’ also started as a wealthy people’s tax. It was 1% and it was only applicable to a small fraction of the population who were earning over 3000 dollars a year or so and 6% of additional tax on incomes above 500,000USD, which was a tiny number of a small fraction of people.

You can go ahead and figure out what happened to that idea of only taxing 1% of a tiny number of people over the last 113 years without my help.

Re:And the Death Spiral

By AmiMoJo • Score: 5, Informative Thread

The UK recently did this, and it worked really well. Raised £30 billion so far. Strangely, despite dire warnings and threats, all the ultra wealthy did not in fact move to Dubai or have their superhuman accountants avoid paying anything.

Turns out we aren’t just a convenient tax jurisdiction after all. There are other reasons for the mega rich to stay in the UK. To be fair I wouldn’t, but some people seem to like it.

Re:Cue up

By AmiMoJo • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Yeah, yeah. Tax is theft, we know.

In the real world we did try ultra low taxation, and even no taxation. We tried flat taxes where everyone pays the same. We tried just not having a government. All of it is far worse than a progressive tax system.

Look at the best places to live in the world, in terms of health, happiness, and quality of life. They are all high tax jurisdictions.

The problem is that Americans see the government as the enemy, and were conned into believing that if the government just got out of their way everything would be great. In reality, if that happened they would quickly be enslaved by billionaires. Literally enslaved. As it is, the US is getting damn close to that, it just preserves enough of the illusion of freedom and agency to stop people building guillotines.

Re:Cue up

By Powercntrl • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

This specific sort of taxation is punitive, though. I’m all for taxing an individual’s earnings in proportion to how well the whole capitalism thing is working out for them, but changing the rules after-the-fact on income they’ve already been taxed on just feels too much like theft.

Yes, the billionaire class should’ve paid more taxes, but ideally you address that by updating the tax code going forward.

DeepSeek V4 Arrives With Near State-of-the-Art Intelligence At 1/6th the Cost

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from VentureBeat:
The whale has resurfaced. DeepSeek, the Chinese AI startup offshoot of High-Flyer Capital Management quantitative analysis firm, became a near-overnight sensation globally in January 2025 with the release of its open source R1 model that matched proprietary U.S. giants. It’s been an epoch in AI since then, and while DeepSeek has released several updates to that model and its other V3 series, the international AI and business community has been largely waiting with baited breath for the follow-up to the R1 moment.

Now it’s arrived with last night’s release of DeepSeek-V4, a 1.6-trillion-parameter Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model available free under commercially-friendly open source MIT License, which nears — and on some benchmarks, surpasses — the performance of the world’s most advanced closed-source systems at approximately 1/6th the cost over the application programming interface (API).

This release — which DeepSeek AI researcher Deli Chen described on X as a “labor of love” 484 days after the launch of V3 — is being hailed as the “second DeepSeek moment.” As Chen noted in his post, “AGI belongs to everyone”. It’s available now on AI code sharing community Hugging Face and through DeepSeek’s API.
The new DeepSeek-V4-Pro model delivers “near-frontier performance” at a much lower price, costing $5.22 for 1 million input and 1 million output tokens compared with $35 for GPT-5.5 and $30 for Claude Opus 4.7. That makes it roughly 1/7th the cost of GPT-5.5 and 1/6th the cost of Claude Opus 4.7, reinforcing VentureBeat’s point that DeepSeek is “compressing advanced model economics into a much lower band.”
While GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 still lead on most benchmarks, DeepSeek-V4-Pro gets close enough that its lower cost could “force a major rethink of the economics of advanced AI deployment.”

It can’t answer basic questions factually…

By daveschroeder • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

…like “Tell me about Tiananmen Square” or “Tell me about Xinjiang”.

Is this what you want for the future?

My thoughts back when R1 came out:

https://www.afcea.org/signal-m…

“Baited” breath?

By jenningsthecat • Score: 5, Informative Thread

C’mon VentureBeat - hire some editors with deeper knowledge of English! “Baited breath”? Really? Your breath is all set to catch a fish?

The correct phrase is “bated breath”; it’s a contraction of “abated breath” in which Shakespeare saw fit to omit the apostrophe which would otherwise have replaced the initial letter “a”.

There’s no shade on you for not knowing the etymology. But not knowing the correct spelling definitely puts you in the dark. Bad editor!

This is a good thing

By MpVpRb • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

AI needs an open source competitor

Re:“Baited” breath?

By bensafrickingenius • Score: 4, Funny Thread
Here, here! /s

Re:Thanks for the propaganda Slashdot

By SoftwareArtist • Score: 4, Informative Thread

That is incorrect. Read the paper and see for yourself. The relevant section is B.4.4. Here, I’ll quote it for you so you don’t have to even click a link.

Regarding our research on DeepSeek-R1, we utilized the A100 GPUs to prepare for the ex-
periments with a smaller model (30B parameters). The results from this smaller model have
been promising, which has allowed us to confidently scale up to 660B R1-Zero and R1. For
the training of DeepSeek-R1-Zero, we employed 64*8 H800 GPUs, and the process required
approximately 198 hours. Additionally, during the training phase of DeepSeek-R1, we utilized
the same 64*8 H800 GPUs, completing the process in about 4 days, or roughly 80 hours. To
create the SFT datasets, we use 5K GPU hours. The details are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 translates that into a cost assuming a rental price of $2 per GPU hour. And that’s it. That’s all they claim. No claims about how much they actually spent, nothing about the cost of their own hardware. Just a precisely worded statement of how many GPU hours the training phase took, and an estimate of how much that many GPU hours would cost at current prices. Anything beyond that is you imagining they said things they didn’t say.

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.

Speaking of Amazon and books…

By NobleNobbler • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Does anyone else just not trust Amazon anymore for, ironically, books?

The place went from a great bargain book seller to a place that sells horrible reprints.

Statistics are fun

By Registered Coward v2 • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
70% is impressive until you realize it’s ~130 new stores and total stores are still less than half of the stores before Amazon was founded. It will be interesting to see if the trend continues and how long new stores stay in business.

E-Commerce or Brick and Mortar stores?

By Ronin Developer • Score: 3 Thread

The article seems to read that more independent shops are selling online. You only need an inventory and a couple of people (or robots) to fill e-commerce orders.

I’d rather see it be a 70% increase in real brick and mortar stores with corresponding staff. I miss the days of Borders Bookstores and the local bookstore like we had in my old hometown. Barnes and Noble doesn’t even come close to Borders back in the day.

Re:Speaking of Amazon and books…

By swillden • Score: 4, Informative Thread

I’m finding that a lot of printed books today are horribly edited. It use to be rare I would find a misprint in a book.

I’m finding that a lot of printed books today are horribly edited. It use to be rare I would find a misprint in a book.

A lot of new fiction today is essentially self-published. In some ways, this is great. It’s easier for new authors to get their books in print, rather than dealing with endless rejection letters, and those that are successful keep more of their money. On the other hand, it means that readers can no longer rely on publishers to act as quality filters. This shows up both in an increase in slop (AI and otherwise) on the market and in a significant reduction in professional editing. Often there is no professional editing at all.

I find that this is (one of many) good reasons to consume fiction primarily in audio form. The cost and complexity of getting a talented voice actor to read your books serves as a quality filter, and the narrators generally fix the most severe editing problems. They won’t do structural editing, of course (e.g. deleting useless paragraphs), but typos are naturally not relevant and they also often fix erroneous word choices, incorrect names, etc., when it’s obvious what the text should say. For example, I enjoy Terry Mancour’s “Spellmonger” series quite a bit, but I absolutely cannot stand reading it in print. So many annoying mistakes that even a light editing pass would fix. But John Lee, the narrator Terry uses, does an outstanding job of cleaning all that up as well as of bringing the characters and the stories to life. There are several other recent book series like this, which I find unreadable in print but quite enjoyable in audio form.

Of course audiobooks also have their downsides. They cost more, sometimes narrators are lousy — even to the point of making a good book unlistenable — plus they have their own annoying “editorial” problems, such as different narrators reading stories in the same world using different pronunciations of names and concepts. Drawing on the Mancour example, his world had a time when it was ruled by mages, a time that is called “The Magocracy”. Logically, this should be pronounced with a soft “g”, as in “mage”, and John Lee does this. But some side novels are narrated by Fiona Hardingham, who insists on saying it with a hard “g”, as well as pronouncing a lot of names differently. Minor, but grating.

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.

When I hear Climate Tech

By oldgraybeard • Score: 3 Thread
I think of expensive tech that is not viable in the real world for the foreseeable future. Not sure about the geothermal(does it scale outside of special cases?), but I don’t include nuclear in this group.

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 !!

Re:Let’s heat the world!

By Smidge204 • Score: 4, Informative Thread

Couple things here.

First; The amount of heat rejected to the atmosphere for all of human production would be a fraction of a fraction of a percent of what is already reaching the Earth from the sun; over 170,000 Tera-watt hours of energy in the form of sunlight per hour, which is roughly how much energy all of humanity consumes per year. All of human energy use is ~0.01% of the energy the Earth receives from the sun.

Second, we’re already adding that energy to the atmosphere. How do yo think coal, oil, gas, and nuclear power work? Even solar and wind capture energy and turn it into heat. The point is to not produce CO2 in the process, because;

Third, the heat gain is more than offset by the reduction in greenhouse gasses that keep that heat from radiating back out into space, which is what causes the warming in the first place.
=Smidge=

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: 5, Insightful Thread
Look at their actions and their interests.

Re:Beware also “proponents” co-opting shifting tid

By burtosis • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
This is a primary push behind banning 3D printers and CNC equipment becoming cheap and affordable. Companies that charge hundreds of dollars for cheap plastic parts are very concerned when you can just print it instead for a dollar of filament.

Re:But they might wreck it.....

By burtosis • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
People have been allowed to work on multi ton vehicles that reach speeds of a hundred miles an hour with far more kinetic energy than any bullet for a century now without any real issue. The push to make repair illegal is the same as the push to make everything a subscription, unbridled corporate greed and the erosion of rights that brings.

Re:Different states

By unrtst • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

In theory I am not opposed to this, but 50 states stitching their own cobweb of laws together on this is going to be impossible to navigate. Only the lawyers will win.

This should be part of the UCC.

You’re right, in that only the lawyers win now. However, this may be the only viable path to getting such in place federally.

I happen to disagree strongly with the Texas version, which excludes medical equipment, farm, and game consoles. It’s blatantly obvious what is keeping those locked down, and it’s not safety (game console excluded, but you can mod your car at home?). And what happens when my implanted medical device suddenly loses all support due to tariff reactions or a foreign company going belly up etc. etc..? Codifying that now will give it a foothold that will be hard to break.

HOWEVER, since that’s a state law, other states will hopefully have different requirements. If others include farm equipment in right to repair (which, IMO, is one of the biggest and most obvious targets for such action), it would be increasingly difficult for John Deere to maintain their lockdown in neighboring states. That helps push the industry towards more universal rules that may not be as heavily laden with exceptions.

A cobweb of laws may encourage companies to find the common denominator and meet that level in all states. For example, some states have strict laws about how quickly employees must be paid after their payroll cycle ends. This forces large companies to meet those deadlines for employees in those states. In doing so, the company processes all align to get paychecks out the door faster. Another example - employee lunch break rules. Many states require that employees be offered 30min unpaid lunch, and if an employee takes less than that (let’s say they only take 20min), then the employer must pay for that time (because that’s just a break, not a lunch). That encourages company policies that benefit those across all states, because it’s too much damned worked to do them state-by-state, let alone the risk of edge cases where an employee lives in one state and works in another state just across the state line, or those working from home in other states. Cobwebs can be good :-)

Buy = right to do what you want with it.

By gurps_npc • Score: 3 Thread

If I buy something, that means I can do what I want with it, not just what the people that sold it want me to do with it.

That includes ripping it apart and that includes putting it back together - with or without the same parts.

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

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot
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.

The lesson here kids

By Slashythenkilly • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Dont take your cellphone when out committing crimes.

Wait! What?

By PPH • Score: 5, Interesting 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.

You are misreading the article

By rsilvergun • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
So the problem isn’t an individual security camera.

The problem is that the police are pulling security camera data for blocks and blocks of the city.

That’s the analogy. The problem here is that they are casting a ridiculously wide net. They aren’t allowed to go on fishing expeditions. Warrants are required to be specific and limited in order to prevent the police from using them to harass the public.

Part of this is because we understand that just the accusation of a crime can cause serious damage even the innocent people. Part of this is because we recognize that everybody does something mildly illegal from time to time but that doesn’t really bother the general public…

But the other big reason why we control the police is because we know damn well that they periodically abuse power to get fake convictions. It’s not hard to find video evidence of this but I recommend looking up any one of the many videos John Oliver has done on the subject of police interrogations or police in general.

Basically the courts know that we don’t really trust the police and so we limit the scope of their actions to limit the potential abuses.

Kind of a silly way to prevent abuses but it’s how we do things