Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest
 

Contents

  1. EU To Soon Classify AWS and Azure As Gatekeepers Under DSA
  2. The Korean Telecom Giant At the Center of Anthropic’s Mythos Controversy
  3. Meta Lobbies Congress For Protection From Child-Harm Lawsuits
  4. NASA Picks Eric Schmidt’s Rocket Company For Mars Mission
  5. Rolls-Royce Secures Deal To Build Small Nuclear Reactors For Sweden
  6. Trump Admin Backs Off Plans To Kill Ocean Monitoring
  7. Adobe Adds Its AI Assistant To Premiere, Illustrator and InDesign
  8. California ‘Billionaire Tax’ Makes Ballot Despite Opposition From Tech Moguls
  9. Midjourney Pivots From AI Image Generation To Body Scanning Medical Spa
  10. Bernie Sanders Unveils $7 Trillion Plan To Give Americans Control of AI Industry
  11. Apple Announces Major App Store Changes on iOS in Brazil
  12. Android 17 Drops For Pixel Phones and Watch
  13. Google Told Researcher ‘Nice Catch!’ Then Denied Bug Bounty For Flaw It Still Hasn’t Fixed
  14. Tim Cook Says Apple Price Increases Are ‘Unavoidable’ Due To Memory Costs
  15. You Can No Longer Fly Or Purchase a Drone In Beijing

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.

EU To Soon Classify AWS and Azure As Gatekeepers Under DSA

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
The European Commission is reportedly preparing to provisionally classify Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure as “gatekeepers" under the Digital Markets Act, bringing cloud infrastructure under the law’s stricter competition rules for the first time. The designation could require greater interoperability and data portability, making it easier for customers to switch providers, with a final decision expected by the end of 2026. Heise reports:
This investigation began in November 2025, when the EU targeted the cloud power of US tech giants. The trigger was outages in cloud services with sometimes significant impacts on other internet services. Shortly before, an approximately 15-hour outage of the AWS cloud in the US meant that not only Amazon’s own streaming services but also Atlassian, Docker, Epic Games, and the Signal messenger were unavailable or severely restricted. Shortly thereafter, Microsoft Azure also struggled with an outage, preventing air passengers from checking in and interrupting votes in the Scottish Parliament.

As a result, European antitrust authorities have also scrutinized cloud services under the Digital Markets Act for the first time. The major cloud providers, primarily from the US, have so far evaded the EU’s Digital Markets Act because a large part of their business is handled through corporate contracts. This makes it difficult to determine the number of individual users. However, this is one of the EU’s most important criteria for determining the market power of companies. […] As gatekeepers, AWS and Azure would be obliged to ensure interoperability and data portability. This would, for example, simplify switching cloud providers and allow customers to link other services with AWS or Azure clouds, instead of being limited to AWS and Azure offerings. Significant fines could also be imposed if the cloud services are found to be in violation of existing regulations.

The Korean Telecom Giant At the Center of Anthropic’s Mythos Controversy

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired:
The Trump administration’s move to impose export controls on Anthropic’s most powerful AI technology followed a spat over the company granting South Korean telecom giant SK Telecom access to its Claude Mythos model, according to people familiar with the matter. US officials were concerned about what they alleged were SK Telecom’s ties to China, those people said. Those concerns appear to have compounded when Amazon later flagged vulnerabilities to the White House it identified in Fable 5, a highly safeguarded version of Mythos that Anthropic released to the public on June 9. The Amazon researchers claimed that it was possible to circumvent some of Fable 5’s guardrails and access Mythos’ formidable cybercapabilities, though Anthropic and outside cybersecurity experts have argued these risks are not unique to Claude.

The confluence of events is what ultimately led the White House to determine that it could not trust Anthropic to safeguard its most advanced AI technology, according to a person close to the administration. On Friday, the Trump administration ordered Anthropic to revoke access to Mythos and Fable 5 for all foreign nationals, including immigrants inside the US. Rather than gate access to its technology based on nationality, a process that would be difficult to implement while also preserving privacy, Anthropic decided it was better to disable access to the models entirely. The White House and Anthropic still remain at odds after days of negotiations about bringing Claude Mythos and Fable 5 back online.
SK Telecom was one of roughly 150 organizations granted early access to Anthropic’s vulnerability-detection model Claude Mythos through Project Glasswing, notes Wired. The White House later asked Anthropic to revoke the company’s access, reportedly amid concerns about alleged China ties, and Anthropic immediately complied. There was, however, no mention of the telecom in the government’s formal demand to restrict Mythos and Fable 5 to U.S. nationals.
SK Telecom told a Korean newspaper that the “anonymous insider’s remarks in foreign media lack verified facts, and our company has no ties to China.”

There is no “Controversy” it’s called “HYPE”

By MIPSPro • Score: 3 Thread
Fuck the liars at Anthropic. They said they’d found THOUSANDS of operating systems bugs. They’ve published a few dozen, only a handful have PoC exploits, they published a couple dozen “checksums” they said they’d use as proof “later”, and only one of their discoveries has a been an RCE (in a not-enabled-by-default NFSd package for FreeBSD). Everything else is a boring, easily prevented, and not-really-all-that-interesting local privs escalation. No remote OpenSSL bugs, no remote OpenSSH bugs. YAAAAAAWWWWWWN

Guys.... BIG FUCKING DEAL. There are single programmers like say, Aleph One or Solar Designer who have done more by themselves than “Mythos” has done. They are talking mad shit and can’t really back any of it up. This is all marketing hype to drive up the stock price for their IPO.

Meta Lobbies Congress For Protection From Child-Harm Lawsuits

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from Reuters:
Meta has lobbied the U.S. Congress for legal immunity from child-harm claims tied to social media products such as Instagram, as it faces thousands of lawsuits from young users and their families, according to a source familiar with the matter and proposed legislative language reviewed by Reuters. If adopted by lawmakers and passed into law as part of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) under consideration in the U.S. Senate, such a provision could undermine thousands of lawsuits against Meta and other online platforms over harms to children. Meta and Google’s YouTube face a combined $6 million in damages after they lost the first case at trial early this year. While legislators have given no indication of adopting the language, the lobbying effort shows the kind of legal protections Meta is seeking amid the biggest attempt to regulate online platforms in the U.S. since the 1990s.
Meta has reportedly proposed the language in exchange for dropping its opposition to KOSA. Under the law, platforms would be required to mitigate harms to minors tied to features such as infinite scrolling, notifications, and appearance-altering filters.

How about no?

By dskoll • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Where are the usual “think of the kids!” politicians? I guess accepting kickbacks from Meta…

Re:How about no?

By ArchieBunker • Score: 4, Funny Thread

In related news Meta has agreed to paint the sickly green reflection pond in DC Meta blue. When asked for comment Mark Zuckerberg replied: Suck it plebs, I can buy justice.

When asked for further comment Trump was quoted as saying: Nobody can ace that cognitive test better than me. I was able to circle the giraffe faster than that loser Obama.

Child abuser asks for immunity?

By gurps_npc • Score: 3 Thread

They got immunity for things they published and pushed on people on the grounds that others said it, they were just the promoters and publishers.

We finally figured out how to sue them not for publishing, but for their massive and unethical attempts to push and promote what others said.

So now they ask for immunity.

No.

They are the problem. They are guilty. Note, they didn’t HAVE to be the problem. They could have promoted things based on truth and value rather than how much attention they got by being outrageous and dishonest.

Hmm …

By fahrbot-bot • Score: 3 Thread

Meta Lobbies Congress For Protection From Child-Harm Lawsuits

Sounds like they’re getting ready to (continue to) harm children.

NASA Picks Eric Schmidt’s Rocket Company For Mars Mission

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
NASA has selected Relativity Space to build and launch Aeolus, a 2028 Mars orbiter that would provide daily global measurements of dust, winds, and atmospheric temperatures to support future robotic and human missions. TechCrunch reports:
The structure of the contract is akin to the deals that NASA made with SpaceX to fly cargo to the International Space Station, or Firefly Aerospace to put a lander on the Moon. The government agency handles the science, while the private company provides low-cost infrastructure. Aeolus, as the mission is dubbed, will contain four instruments to measure and image Mars from orbit, providing what NASA expects to be the first daily, global view of dust, winds, and temperature in its atmosphere. The agency said that data will make it safer for landers and, someday, astronauts, to visit the surface of the Red Planet.

By pairing NASA’s world-class instruments with commercial innovation and investment, we can deliver more science, more often, and reduce the time it takes to get essential data into the hands of researchers preparing for future human missions to Mars,” NASA administrator Jared Isaacman said in statement. The mission is set to launch in 2028 — a rapid pace that will require Relativity to design and build the spacecraft to carry the Aeolus instruments, and finish building the rocket that will carry it to space, all on a tight timeline. NASA did not disclose how much it is paying Relativity for the mission, and Relativity did not respond to questions from TechCrunch.

Relativity was founded in 2015 by two former SpaceX and Blue Origin engineers, with the idea of using 3D printing to its maximum potential as a path to building a cheaper rocket. The company’s first design, Terran-1, launched in March 2023 and failed mid-flight. Relativity doubled down by moving on to a larger design, dubbed the Terran R. Before Relativity could get it to the launch pad, the company ran into fundraising challenges, and Schmidt took a majority stake in the company in it last year, installing himself as CEO. He’s been tight-lipped about the investment but has expressed interest in orbital data centers, and is thought to be using Relativity to launch a space telescope, Lazuili, financed by his family philanthropy, Schmidt Sciences.

Re:Phallic

By JoshuaZ • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Rockets are really cool. They are our one major way of getting off this planet and even without humans involved are the way we send things to space so we can understand the universe around us. You shouldn’t have to like any of the people involved or can even actively dislike them for other reasons, and still get that.

Hmmm, so far....

By zurkeyon • Score: 3 Thread
He has blown one up on the pad, and launched zero successfully. NASA = “Sounds Great! Lets give em a contract!”

Credit where credit is due

By XXongo • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

I hate the headline, which is crediting Relativity Space to Eric Schmidt.

Eric Schmidt did not found the company, nor did he contribute to the technology, He was just the billionaire who stepped in with funding. Tim Ellis and Jordan Noone should be credited with founding the company and developing the technology.

But we Americans treat billionaires as superhuman rock stars; we don’t care who does the actual innovation, we just let the billionaires take credit (and, yes, that applies to Elon Musk as well. From the press, you’d think he’s the only person who invented anything or built anything or does anything at Tesla or SpaceX.)

Don’t Be Evil, Be Reimbursable.

By rocket rancher • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Public-private space partnerships are not inherently bad. NASA buying commercial services can make perfect sense. COTS helped give us SpaceX, and whatever else one thinks of Musk, reusable Falcon launches were not exactly a rounding error in the history of spaceflight.

But transparency is the thin line between public-private partnership and a billionaire infrastructure layaway plan.

So now Eric Schmidt, yes, that Eric Schmidt from Google’s deliciously ironic “Don’t be evil” era, takes control of Relativity Space after it runs into funding trouble, installs himself as CEO, and suddenly Relativity gets picked for a Mars orbiter mission. NASA gets useful atmospheric science out of it, sure. Daily global Martian weather data is real science, not hand-wavy TED-talk vapor. But the interesting part is the scaffolding: Relativity supplies the spacecraft, rocket, and cruise operations, while NASA supplies the instruments and the public purpose.

That is very close to the Elon Musk template. Do useful work for government customers, gain launch heritage, build factories, normalize regulatory access, wrap the whole thing in national destiny and science, then aim the resulting machine at the founder’s private cathedral. In Musk’s case, Mars colonization and DOGE-flavored state capture. In Schmidt’s case, orbital data centers and privately backed space observatories. And look who approved the deal — Jared Issacman, Trump’s hand-picked commercial-space billionaire with deep ties to Musk and SpaceX, now sitting on top of the agency that decides which private space companies get wrapped in the flag, the science mission, and the launch manifest.

Maybe this is a good deal. Maybe NASA is getting a bargain. Maybe Schmidt is putting real private money behind real public science. But Eric…remember the don’t-be-evil days at Google? If that is the case, show the numbers. Under a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contract, the government has explicit data rights and strict oversight. But the Space Act Agreement that this project is authorized under bypasses that transparency.

Who pays whom? Who owns what? What data is public? What infrastructure becomes commercially reusable? What happens if Relativity misses the 2028 launch window? What private projects of yours are going to benefit from NASA-paid mission experience? And why is a “reimbursable” Space Act Agreement being described in the press like NASA hired the company, while the dollar figure remains undisclosed? If the public is funding the operational heritage and validating the hardware platform, does the public own the telemetry? Or is the public merely a tenant in an infrastructure stack you are going to privatize?

This is “go ahead and be evil, if you can hide the bodies” territory. I’m not being cynical or anti-science, here. This is basic hygiene when billionaires start using science as a fig leaf for projects that also happen to build their next monopoly platform.

Rolls-Royce Secures Deal To Build Small Nuclear Reactors For Sweden

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Rolls-Royce SMR has secured a multibillion-pound agreement to build three small modular reactors on Sweden’s west coast, “marking a major step in the British engineering group’s ambition to become a leading supplier of the technology in Europe,” reports Euronews. From the report:
Following a rigorous selection process that started in 2022, UK engineering giant Rolls-Royce’s nuclear division, Rolls-Royce SMR, won the contract to build nuclear reactors for Sweden. As part of the deal, the group, selected by Videberg Kraft as its partner, will deliver three Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to Sweden’s west coast, at the Varo Peninsula. “The Videberg Project will build Sweden’s first new nuclear power plant in more than forty years, supporting industries and households in southern Sweden,” a press statement from Rolls-Royce said. The partnership with utility Vattenfall and developer Karnfull Next is seen as one of the most advanced opportunities for deployment outside of the UK.

[…] The European Commission considers small modular reactors (SMRs) to be a promising low-carbon technology that could help support the bloc’s clean energy and energy security goals. In order to remove regulatory barriers, the EU’s SMR strategy was adopted in March 2026 to accelerate the development and deployment of the technology across Europe. SMRs are smaller than conventional nuclear power plants, typically generating between 20 and 300 megawatts of electricity. At the upper end of that range, a reactor could produce around 7.2 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per day — enough to power hundreds of thousands of homes. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that more than 1,000 small modular reactors could be deployed worldwide by 2050 under a supportive policy scenario, requiring cumulative investment of around $670 billion.

Not from the US

By hcs_$reboot • Score: 4, Interesting Thread
There may also have been some geopolitical considerations. Long-term geopolitical stability and supply chains were among the factors considered. While both finalists were from close allies (the UK and the US), Sweden may have preferred a European-based industrial partnership for a strategic infrastructure project expected to operate for 60 years or more. Thank you, mister President.

Re:In which 3rd world country can we store the was

By test321 • Score: 5, Informative Thread

[blah blah idiocies]

Educate yourself. I can exemplify about France.

Nuclear waste is a very small amount. “As of the most recent inventory, France had roughly 1,850 cubic meters of vitrified high-level waste in storage, a volume that would fit inside a modest single-story house.” https://scienceinsights.org/wh… They are stored in Marcoule and La Hague (a small town in France, not the well-known Dutch city), where the vitrified canisters are produced.

A geological storage, 500 meters below the town of Bure has been constructed and is pending final operation licencing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

For the exhaustive list of every place that owns nuclear waste in France (every power plant, transport site, research center, etc.), you can consult:

* the map provided by the Government https://inventaire.andra.fr/in…
* the map by Greenpeace https://www.greenpeace.fr/cart…

Re:Make it stop

By sometimesblue • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
Chernobyl was the total opposite of a smart and safe design. It was like driving a car by revving the engine to the max, and moderating the speed by pressing the brake only. It exploded because the engineers were testing what would happen if the brake stopped working. Oddly, your comment about windmills and batteries is still spot on.

But will it be …

By mistergrumpy • Score: 3 Thread
… the Rolls Royce of SMRs and come with a walnut burl instrument panel and calf leather seats?

Re:In which 3rd world country can we store the was

By edi_guy • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

France’s nuclear program has been a success for it’s intended goals. They are energy independent**, developed an in-house industry (employment) , met environmental goals, defense goals, and done it all safely. Including the handling of waste, and their uranium/plutonium recycling. The major ding against ASNR is cost, but most nations subsidize to some extent (US -> oil; Germany-> autos; China->…everything) and France chose this. Hard to argue it’s success from a 1970’s perspective.

Where the conversation changes is looking at nuclear from a 2026 perspective where solar/wind+storage is competitive in most (but not all) places. And new, drilled geo-thermal options show promise for larger baseline/continuity. Renewables also have negative externalities which should be part of the discussion.

** Few if any western countries are 100% energy independent mostly due to economics

Trump Admin Backs Off Plans To Kill Ocean Monitoring

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian:
In May, the federal government announced without warning that it would take apart a network of ocean monitoring systems that it had spent over $350 million to build. No reason was given for the decision to shut down the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), but suspicion immediately focused on the network’s role in tracking climate change. But the OOI also provides data that’s useful for weather forecasting and fisheries management, leading to widespread opposition. Today, it appears that the opposition has won, as the government will announce that it’s reversing the decision. The big remaining question is how much damage the OOI took during the intervening month.

[…] The OOI is a federally supported resource that provides ocean data for use by academic researchers, government planners, and private companies. It consists of arrays of monitoring systems in several locations in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans that can track things like currents, salinity, chemical levels, temperatures, and tectonic activity. (There are over 100 individual entries on the page that display the data gathered by the system.) Obviously, there are many potential uses of that data. The fact that it has been gathered continuously for a decade means it can help track changes in how carbon dioxide and heat enter the oceans. This is probably what made it a target for the climate change denialists who helped set the Trump administration’s policy.

Those policymakers are perfectly happy to annoy people with environmental concerns, but they apparently neglected to consider how upset everyone else would be about losing access to the other data. The ensuing public backlash led the Senate on Wednesday to unanimously agree with a measure that would block the government from taking down the OOI. Today’s decision may indicate that the administration recognized it had gotten itself into a fight it knew it was losing.
The National Science Foundation formally announced the decision, stating: “effective immediately, [it] will not proceed with further removal or descoping of equipment from the remaining arrays and will continue operations including planned maintenance.” The agency added that it “appreciates the concerns raised by the range of stakeholders that have informed us they rely on data” from the OOI.

The NSF also said it would “issue a Dear Colleague Letter to collect input from stakeholders and convene an expert panel to assess observational needs, evaluate available data sources, consider responses … and help the agency identify a sustainable path for NSF’s ocean observing systems.”

Re:Wait a minute

By jacks smirking reven • Score: 5, Informative Thread

See the thing to remember is those people is that what they accuse the other side of doing, just blind ideology.

Ocean monitoring is a waste because it might show evidence of climate change, and climate change isn’t real. “It can’t be real because I’ve been told for 40 years it isn’t real. I’ve been told all the evidence is fake. We made fun of Al Gore so much! What’s next? Tax cuts actually don’t really help the poor and middle class? My world is imploding!”

Seriously, climate change denial is pretty close to the top of the list of the stupidest fucking positions conservatives have tied themselves to for no other reason than spiting liberals.

Everything can be framed like this: Republicans get to act like children and the media lets them. Democrats and liberals have to be the adults in the room, it’s the standard they are held to, both by Republicans and themselves.

What’s for dinner?

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 5, Funny Thread
It’s TACO Thursdays!

Re:Wait a minute

By 93 Escort Wagon • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

See the thing to remember is those people is that what they accuse the other side of doing, just blind ideology.

It’s just a variation of the Goebbel’s playbook, which the Trump administration loves to follow - “accuse the other side of the thing you yourself are guilty of”.

- Try to rig the upcoming election while yelling loudly about how the other party consistenly cheats - and without evidence, of course.
- Make up stories about how crooked the Dems are, while actively grifting yourself.

Regardless, it’s nice to see Congress occasionally showing signs of having a spine, finally. It’d be great if they’d also figure out that the revenge dismantlement of NCAR is also going to cost money and lives.

Re:Well, we already got screwworms.

By 93 Escort Wagon • Score: 5, Funny Thread

Must be because of DEI - it gave all the cows Trump Derangement Syndrome.

this sure reminds me of a time

By Gideon Fubar • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Had to look up his name to confirm this actually happened as I remembered it, but this reminds me of that time former Arizona Senator John Shadegg asked during a late 90s tour of a NOAA facility “Why do we need NOAA when I get my weather from the internet?”

Adobe Adds Its AI Assistant To Premiere, Illustrator and InDesign

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Adobe is expanding its Firefly AI assistant into Premiere, Illustrator, InDesign, and Frame.io, where it can automate all sorts of tasks such as organizing clips, renaming assets, adding interview markers, rearranging layers, and finding missing fonts. It’s available starting today as part of a public beta. TechCrunch reports:
Adobe is slowly transforming Firefly to increasingly resemble Canva, at least when it comes to AI features, loading up the app with AI tools that can generate images, videos and storyboards. The company is now adding a new feature called Elements that can save AI-generated characters, objects and locations for later use.

Firefly is also getting a Projects feature that can store existing assets in one place, and share context. This could be useful for teams creating a video series or brand campaigns. Both of these features are currently available in a private beta.

The company said users can now describe a brand and its style, or upload existing collateral, in Firefly to have it generate a brand kit, complete with logos, brand identity and color palettes, or even generate product videos from photos. Users can also create storyboards to create videos.

Adobe’s stock has tanked

By RitchCraft • Score: 5, Funny Thread

Adobe’s stock has tanked over the last year, so it’s AI to the rescue! That will fix everything. AI has been a big hit with Microsoft’s user base.

Oh great!

By jenningsthecat • Score: 3 Thread

Now Adobe can leverage AI to more effectively steal IP from customers who were pretty much forced into their shitty and scandalous SaaS extortion scheme.

From what I’ve been hearing lately, I think there’s a decent chance that Adobe will soon be an (admittedly lengthy) footnote in the publishing field. People who have used it for years or even decades are finding alternatives. And Adobe paid a billion bucks to Figma after their failed acquisition attempt - thereby hugely expanding the war chest of a company which is possibly their most dangerous competitor.

I didn’t much like Adobe even 15 years ago; now, if they die I’ll probably celebrate by buying a bottle of single-malt Islay whiskey and sharing it with some like-minded friends. Death to Adobe!

Adobe stock is tanking

By sdinfoserv • Score: 4, Interesting Thread
Adobe stock is down 48%+ over the past year.
They’re absolutely scrambling for anything. So they’re jumping on the AI meme.
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-…

Re:Oh great!

By Nebulo • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

You’ll have plenty of time to save your pennies for that bottle, I think. It’s true that some of the entry-level market is being threatened by small competitors – Pixelmator, acquired by Apple a while ago, was really starting to look like a credible threat to Photoshop. And the various Affinity apps are certainly competent at what they do in the various graphics arts niches they serve.

However, the reason I’m skeptical is that these alternatives have a long way to go in terms of the proven track record that the Adobe ecosystem has in the prepress field. The Adobe apps work together really well: files from one app seamlessly integrate into documents of another app; color settings sync across the entire platform; there’s a uniform predictability to it all, which is exactly what you want in prepress; fewer surprises. And the preference for Adobe in the prepress field feeds back into the layout artists, production artists, designers, photographers, etc. who eventually send their files for output. When your client’s output house says they want InDesign files, you provide them InDesign files.

Now, there’s a gaping hole in this theory: online content, where prepress isn’t a thing and open, flexible display frameworks accept a wide variety of standard files (JPG, SVG, that sort of thing). Any app that can blurt out a JPG can integrate into a system like this, and the stakes are a lot lower; ain’t no embedded fonts in a JPG, and nobody cares as much about color accuracy online because it’s fundamentally a lot less achievable than it is in print. So now you’ve knocked down several of Adobe’s key advantages and these alternative tools are suddenly looking more viable.

And then you start to get customers who are new to the branding game, working on a shorter timescale with a less developed strategy, who just need their thing printed – and you can get away with certain compromises in terms of quality and accuracy – and now you’re just sending a rando PDF to a web form to get it printed on some poorly maintained digital duplicator and it’s Good Enough®, and who cares where the PDF came from because it will never get used again. Maybe the customer eventually changes course and seeks out better quality output and ends up back in the Adobe sphere, and maybe they don’t.

In the end, the real danger to Adobe’s dominance really is Good Enough®: when accuracy, quality, and wider compatibility aren’t important factors, an adequate tool will be a better value proposition than the comprehensive battle-tested tool, and the adequate tool has nowhere to go but get better over time. However, Adobe has at least a decade’s lead on these tools and untold amounts of buy-in from their userbase, and despite evidence to the contrary, Adobe is not a stupid company. There’s good odds they will maintain their market position for the foreseeable future.

California ‘Billionaire Tax’ Makes Ballot Despite Opposition From Tech Moguls

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
California’s proposed “billionaire tax” has gathered enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, setting up a major fight between labor unions and some of Silicon Valley’s richest figures. From the report:
The California Billionaire Tax Act, colloquially known as the billionaire tax, would levy a one-time 5% tax on any California resident worth more than $1bn. The proposal is backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West as a means of funding California’s strained healthcare and education programs. The proposal has become one of the state’s biggest political flashpoints as it gained momentum throughout the year, with prominent billionaires, such as the Google co-founder Larry Page, making moves to cut ties with the state and Newsom vowing to block it from going to a vote. Although it has gained enough signatures for the ballot, the groups backing the measure have until June 25 to decide whether to move forward or potentially strike a deal with the state.

While unions backing the group have framed the proposal as a way of getting the ultra-rich to pay their fair share, many of the state’s tech elites have condemned the tax and spent millions attempting to crush it. The Google co-founder Sergey Brin has spent $82m alone on efforts to fight the tax, while joining other Silicon Valley billionaires in declaring he will leave California if it goes through. The Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, crypto billionaire Chris Larsen and Ring founder James Siminoff are among the other tech moguls who have made huge political donations to groups opposing the tax. California has the most billionaires out of any state, many of whom have increased their wealth in recent years amid the AI boom.

Re:taxing unrealized gains is problematic

By jacks smirking reven • Score: 5, Informative Thread

We don’t, because government is the WORST allocator or capital imaginable. By far, and it’s so bad I’m not even going to argue with anyone who thinks otherwise, because you might as well argue that stars are fireflies stuck in the sky.

Just because you’ve heard this repeated again on talk radio and conservative media just does not make it true, sorry. I know Republicans have moved past the idea of fact and truth but the rest of us still have to live in reality.

So why did DOGE, an office given unprecedented access, sometimes even illegal access to every government agencies records and information failed to find anything. They basically only “fed USAID into a woodchipper” and killed a few hundred thousand people and then fucked off having found close to nothing mounting to the billions or trillions of waste and fraud I’ve been told by people like you my entire life.

You have all 3 branches, you had them in 2016, you had them in 2003, 2005, 2015. So where is it? Let me guess. “Uniparty”. “Deep State”. “Other unknowable unprofitable enemy”. It’s so so boring at this point.

Texas, here they come!

By nospam007 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Wealth taxes sound logical but fail in practice for reasons that are structural, not incidental.

Modern billionaire wealth is not a pool of cash but unrealized appreciation in stock, private equity, and assets held inside foundations, trusts, and holding companies that never die and never sell.

The wealth is real in terms of power and influence but does not exist in any form that is liquid, personally owned, or straightforwardly valued.

Asking someone to pay 5% annually on a private company stake or a foundation’s art collection requires first agreeing what it is worth, then finding the cash to pay the bill, neither of which has a clean answer.

Europe ran this experiment for decades. Sweden, Germany, France, Austria, Finland, Denmark and others all introduced wealth taxes and most have abolished them, citing capital flight, administrative chaos, and the fundamental impossibility of consistent valuation across asset classes.
France’s ISF drove thousands of wealthy residents abroad before Macron scrapped it in 2017 explicitly because it cost more than it raised. Germany’s was ruled unconstitutional in 1995 on valuation grounds alone.

The deeper problem is that the effective tax rate on a correctly structured fortune is already close to zero before any wealth tax is contemplated. You borrow against your portfolio to live, generating no income.

Everything is owned by immortal entities that never trigger a realization event. The rate on zero is always zero, and a wealth tax on assets that are not personally owned, cannot be objectively valued, and cannot be liquidated without market disruption is not a revenue solution. It is a political statement.

Re: taxing unrealized gains is problematic

By ahoffer0 • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Taxing unrealized gains is problematic. We’ve reached the point where not taxing unrealized gains is also problematic.

The very wealthy have pondered the question, “How can I enjoy my wealth without paying for realized gains?” They finally cracked the problem. The tax system now needs to adjust.

The legislature can get out in front of the issue and address it sanely. Or they can do nothing and wait for crack-pot citizen initiatives to fill the vacuum

Re:Spend everything collected and cry for more

By Dixie_Flatline • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Yeah, those are the doctors and lawyers and actors and all the people that WORK for a living. None of them are billionaires.

See, you’re conflating the top 1% of income earners—the key word there is INCOME earners, not dirtbag CEOs that pay themselves $1 salary a year and take the rest in stock—with the ultra wealthy. The 0.1% and the 0.01%.

I’m all for lowering taxes on the top 1% too, if you start taxing the people that are hoarding the wealth. $10 million in assets? Whatever. Not even worth our time.

$100 million? Yeah, now we’re talking. 1% of assets a year, minimum. They’ll make that back so quickly they wouldn’t even notice it. You could make it 2% or 3% and they’d never feel it. Man, we’re paying 30% of our INCOMES, and somehow it’s a hard sell to get 3-5%—TEN TIMES LESS—of a billionaire’s wealth.

You’re looking at the wrong numbers, the wrong population. Nobody cares about the working 1%, they’re not relevant here. We’re trying to get money out of people that don’t pay income tax AT ALL.

I don’t want billionaires to pay their fair share

By rsilvergun • Score: 5, Informative Thread
I want them to stop existing. No one should have that much money. It’s not even money anymore it’s power and no single individual should have that much power. You shouldn’t want them to have that much power either. It’s just common fucking sense that you don’t give that much money and power to a single person. Hero worship should have its limits.

You can’t eliminate the loopholes. Because they will always just buy more. That’s what happens when you give someone unlimited money and therefore unlimited power. It’s only by the blunt application of direct democracy that you can short-circuit that process.

Remember billionaires don’t use loopholes. Instead because they are the ruling class they are allowed to borrow money at below market rates against their assets without any risk of those assets ever being claimed. Imagine for example if you could mortgage your house at 3% and if you didn’t pay the loan you got to keep your house. And because it’s a loan you never pay taxes on it. That is how a billionaire does it. That is only available to them because they have power. It’s not about money it’s about power.

That’s not a loophole that is a fundamental breakdown in our economic system because they exist outside of our economic system. You shouldn’t be able to borrow money below market rates but they can. And you shouldn’t be able to put your assets up for a loan with zero risk but they can. They are completely outside the economic system you live in.

Midjourney Pivots From AI Image Generation To Body Scanning Medical Spa

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Midjourney is expanding beyond AI image generation with plans for a medical-imaging business built around a water-based, full-body ultrasound scanner that uses hundreds of thousands of sensors and AI to reconstruct MRI-like images. “As you descend into the water, hundreds of thousands of tiny elements take turns, sending out waves, listening together, compressing and then streaming data to a massive cluster where thousands of computers split the task,” Midjourney explained in the announcement. “By looking at how the shapes of all the waves change, we reconstruct a detailed map or ‘image’ which basically lets us figure out what’s in there.” The company hopes to open a San Francisco scanning “spa” in late 2027, with 50,000 or more deployed around the world by 2031. The Register reports:
It’s not clear how fast the process is with the prototype unit, but Midjourney said its goal is for the whole thing to take around a minute. “We think it’s completely possible that with enough early imaging in the future, the world could avoid 30% of all deaths and 50% of all healthcare costs,” the company added.

According to a “technical” video included in the announcement, there’s a ring of 40 scanners included in the prototype unit the company has built. That ring of 40 elements contains 358,000 ultrasonic elements made up of tiny transducers that create ultrasound waves in water while listening for how they change when they slap the body of whoever is in Midjourney’s dunk tank up to a thousand times a second.

[…] Midjourney said that it’s planning to open its first ultrasound scanner spa at the end of 2027, but it has another hurdle to jump: FDA approval. Beyond improving its tech so that the second-generation scanner is ready for its 2027 spa date, “regulation is the next limit,” the company said. “Normally, for every diagnostic medical capability you need FDA approval,” Midjourney explained. “We’re starting by just giving you detailed body composition maps — and we’ll be submitting regular test results to the FDA for increased capabilities.”

Midjourney also fails to mention how it will store and secure those scans, whether it will use said scans to train its body composition-detection algorithms, and how it’s ensuring those algorithms get things right that it usually take a human a few years of education and training to learn.

Burning other peoples money until?

By oldgraybeard • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
The money runs out or they get lucky and trip over an actual business model.

0.5 mm resolution

By backslashdot • Score: 5, Informative Thread

0.5 resolution is what a standard MRI provides. If it can do that and differentiate hard and soft tissue I will be impressed. The demo images they showed looked nowhere near the required accuracy. They still have a year to get it working I guess. Ultrasonic is very difficult given blood flow and all the associated movement with heart beating and all that. Also, they claim it is safe due to lack of radiation. But ultrasonic can fuck shit up too. I mean ultrasonic is currently used to break up kidney stones, shear and fragment DNA (for NGS prep).

If they master body composition, they’ll prosper!!

By Somervillain • Score: 3 Thread
It’s weird people are shitting on a company for attempting to do cheap, fast body imaging. This is a holy grail. People pay lots of money out of pocket for Dexa Scans now and they’re pretty meh on accuracy. We desperately need a cheap way of measuring bodyfat and muscle composition. If you can accurately measure these, fitness enthusiasts will pay a fortune out of pocket and many doctors will order this for a variety of conditions. If you can get these for $100 a piece…which it sounds reasonable given they ask you to stand in a ring in a pool and wait a minute....it will revolutionize medicine and fitness.

I am losing weight through diet and exercise. The scale is scientifically accurate, but when I lost 1.7lbs this week…was it fat? muscle? bone? Was it shit? (literally) piss? was I dehydrated because it was a warm day today and I enjoy my morning coffee? I don’t know if that 1.7 lbs in this week’s weigh in was me keeping muscle and losing fat or did I have to take a huge dump before last week’s weigh in?

MANY MANY MANY would pay $100 to walk into an area in their gym and get measured very precisely as to their progress. That’s just for deterministicly repeatable muscle/fat ratios.

Now if this thing is safe and can detect major medical issues? They’ve got a fucking goldmine. People will get these every week or 2 just to monitor their health? Uh oh…got a scary mass?....see your doctor and get a real medical test, like the MRI or CT scan or biopsy to take action…but you caught it nice an early.

If the hype is real, this could revolutionize health and medicine…detect diseases effortlessly and early....determine if your fitness routine is helping or hurting…oh you changed up your cardio to strength training ratios last week?…well, let’s see if that helped....not to mention various medications for diabetes and weight loss…that a scan like this can measure efficacy for…or tracking cardiac blockage, etc, etc.

The premise is…what if detecting major diseases was as easy as detecting cavities?

We still remember Theranos

By _merlin • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Almost every time a company makes promises that seem too good to be true, it turns out too good to be true. Sometimes they even get prosecuted for it. Pivoting from AI slop factory to medical imaging, where being correct actually matters, doesn’t inspire confidence.

Bernie Sanders Unveils $7 Trillion Plan To Give Americans Control of AI Industry

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press:
As artificial intelligence companies reshape the economy and race toward trillion-dollar valuations, Sen. Bernie Sanders is proposing a sweeping transfer of wealth and power from the industry to the American public. The legislation, shown first to The Associated Press, would create a sovereign wealth fund overseen by an independent commission and financed through a one-time 50% tax on the stock of the largest AI companies. Sanders estimates that the tax would create a nearly $7 trillion fund that would generate hundreds of billions of dollars annually in direct payments to Americans and programs such as health care, education and housing.

[…] The 50% tax would apply to AI companies that reach $200 million in annual AI sales. Any new AI company that reaches that benchmark would also be subject to the tax. It would create a sovereign wealth fund — similar to those used by countries around the world and some U.S. states — that Sanders estimates would be worth around $7 trillion. Unlike a traditional tax, the proposal would require companies to transfer stock rather than cash, effectively making the American public a major shareholder in the country’s largest AI firms.

A seven-person independent commission — nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate — would manage the fund and use its voting shares “to block decisions that hurt the American people and to push for policies that help them,” the bill summary says. Sanders proposes that a 5% annual dividend from the fund would provide direct payments of more than $1,000 to every American. If companies grow, the gains would be used for public goods such as education, housing and health care. Sanders argues taxpayers would not bear the losses if AI company valuations decline. “We’re not going to lose any money, even if there is a bust in the bubble,” Sanders said. The commission would be directed to “to block decisions that hurt the American people and to push for policies that help them,” according to the summary.
“The benefits cannot simply go to the handful of wealthy corporations. They will be shared by the American people,” the independent Vermont senator said in an interview Wednesday. “The public has got to have a significant seat at the table to make sure that terrible things do not happen to ordinary people, and that in fact, AI benefits ordinary people, not hurts them,” Sanders said.

Re:Lack of fiscal faith

By tippen • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
You don’t have objections to the government straight up confiscating 50% of a corporation? Really? You ok when they come and take 50% of your company?

Re:Fox News Headline Alternative

By znrt • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

i have news for you: there is no left in america, let alone radical. there is only right, extreme right and fanatical right.

bernie knows prefectly well this is doa, he’s just trying to get some attention.

Re: No thanks

By ArmoredDragon • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Well let’s examine it in more detail then:

Socialism is defined simply as government owned means of production. Go ahead and pull out a dictionary. Some argue “collective”, “community”, or some other doublespeak term, but if you look at what they intend that term to mean, it looks like a government and quacks like a government. That said:

Here you have a proposal where 50% of all revenue from sales (not profit) has to be turned over to the government in shares. The only realistic way to do that is by diluting existing shares by having the company issue new ones.

That means existing shares lose some of their value, because their slice of that pie gets reduced, while the government gets a slice. But remember, this goes on in perpetuity. Each time the tax is assessed, you repeat: Investors lose more of the company, government gets more of it.

This means: Government’s ownership stake approaches 100% and private ownership approaches 0% as time approaches infinity. Sure, it never all goes to the government, but eventually private ownership becomes de-minimus, or effectively zero.

So there’s two ways of looking at it: For those who understand the reality of how this is supposed to work, it’s socialism. For those who don’t, it’s lipstick on a socialism.

Bernie also appears to contradict himself here by saying that if the valuation decreases, then the government doesn’t lose anything, but actually it does: If this is supposed to be a “sovereign wealth fund”, and the valuation decreases to zero, then what exactly is held by this fund? Some worthless shares?

Keep in mind too that Bernie was openly in favor of Soviet style command economy until the USSR eventually fell, then he “changed his mind”, but every now and then, he makes public statements that suggests he still wants to cease the means of production, effectively pushing us in that direction, usually (but not always) with a “think of the children” argument in tow. This is simply the latest one.

Having said that, if you don’t believe this is an attempt at socialism, do explain why.

Re: No thanks

By getuid() • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

It did.

Whose money did you think those bailouts, handouts, stimuli etc were?

Re:No thanks

By gurps_npc • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Wow, have we gotten tot he point where people are stupid enough to think a tax is socialism?

Or is it the proposed uses for the money? How DARE the government provide for it’s people?

Socialism is the government controlling business, not charging taxes or providing services.

Get your head out of the plutocrat’s ass and realize that capitalism is not defined as ‘screw the poor, help the rich’.

You would not recognize capitalism if it came up and paid you a million bucks.

Apple Announces Major App Store Changes on iOS in Brazil

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Apple is allowing iPhone developers in Brazil to distribute apps through authorized alternative marketplaces and use third-party payment systems following action by the country’s competition regulator. “In other words, developers in Brazil will be able to circumvent the App Store and Apple’s in-app purchase system, but there are still fees,” reports MacRumors. Apple will collect commissions ranging from 5% on externally distributed apps to as much as 26% for some App Store transactions using its payment system. From the report:
Alternative app marketplaces will have to be authorized by Apple and will need to meet ongoing requirements. For apps that are still distributed through the App Store, developers will be able to include an alternative payment processing method in their app and/or link users to a website to complete a transaction. These changes are available on iOS 26.5 and later, and they are the result of regulatory action from Brazil’s competition regulator. Apple has added a new page on its website with additional details for developers in Brazil.

Apple said these changes introduce privacy and security risks for users, including children. The company has introduced safeguards to mitigate these risks, including a notarization process for iOS apps, an authorization process for app marketplaces, and limitations on external links and alternative payments for users under the age of 18. Apple has already allowed alternative app stores and/or third-party payment systems on iOS in the EU, Japan, and South Korea, and it will likely be forced to do so in the UK and Australia too, due to similar regulations in those countries.

No, but you see, I don’t want any commission…

By dgatwood • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

No, but you see, I don’t want any commission on apps that aren’t sold by Apple, for which Apple has no role in the creation or distribution of the app. They’re not doing anything to earn that money.

The cost of developing the OS is paid for by the people buying hardware. After all, you can’t sell hardware without the OS.

And while you could argue that the cost of developing the developer tools should be borne by developers (including Apple, who use those tools to building the OS, of course), Apple’s rules mandating the use of their tools makes doing so problematic from an antitrust perspective. And either way, a software license that effectively takes a cut of sales on anything developed with that software is problematic at multiple levels. Nobody in their right minds would choose a product under those terms, absent some sort of monopolistic restrictions that compel such a choice.

The correct percentage is zero, with, at absolute most, some small fixed annual fee for program participation to compensate Apple for the limited overhead incurred in signing developers’ keys. Any higher cost is effectively holding users’ devices hostage, and is fundamentally unjust from a consumer protection perspective.

The only question is how long it takes for various countries’ governments to come to the same conclusion and demand that mobile devices be liberated from compulsory profit-sharing done under the guise of “security”.

Typical Apple being Apple

By fred6666 • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Imagine if Toyota tried to charge 5% fee on all gas purchases not even sold by Toyota.

Android 17 Drops For Pixel Phones and Watch

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Google has begun rolling out Android 17, the June Pixel Feature Drop, and Wear OS 7 simultaneously across supported Pixel phones and watches. Highlights include floating app bubbles, improved foldable multitasking and gaming, tighter location and contact permissions, stronger lost-device protections, new Pixel AI tools, and up to 10% better Pixel Watch battery life. PhoneArena reports:
Pixel owners are the clear winners, since everything here reaches Pixel first and a lot of it goes back to the Pixel 6. Fold owners get the most toys, with the Bubble Bar and foldable gaming mode built for the big screen. Watch wearers get the quietly important upgrade. Better battery and Live Updates make an everyday wearable easier to rely on, especially if you keep it on overnight.
Google’s latest Pixel Drop combines several AI-powered tools with a broader slate of Android 17 upgrades. Pixel owners gain Lyria 3 for generating music from text or images, Gemini Omni for creating custom video clips, enhanced call translation and screening, AirDrop-compatible Quick Share, expanded Magic Cue support, and conversational photo editing.
Android 17 builds on those additions with floating app Bubbles, selfie-camera Screen Reactions, and a split-screen gaming mode for foldables, while also strengthening privacy and security with more granular location and contact permissions, improved lost-device protection, tighter PIN-guessing limits, and enhanced threat detection.

Other additions include expanded parental controls, separate assistant volume and app memory settings, and an option to hide app names for greater privacy.

You can read more about everything new in Android 17 in Google’s blog post.

Re:What I would like

By dgatwood • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

One example is when I want to switch from Bluetooth to speaker that it just accept my choice and not switch back.

iOS does the same thing. Constantly. A Bluetooth device goes out of range and the back in, and the iPhone is like “Squirrel!” and switches. But on iOS, it is even more obnoxious. I have a home phone system that can take calls from your cell phone, but only if you pick up the handset and answer the call. Otherwise, when it tries to send the call over to that Bluetooth “speaker”, the handset rejects the connection request and the audio switches back to the device. But worse, it switches OFF the speakerphone mode and switches back to phone-to-the-ear mode. So not only do you completely lose five seconds of audio during the failed handshake, but you also end up not being able to hear afterwards until you manually turn the speakerphone mode back on.

I filed a bug about this at least five years ago and Apple still hasn’t fixed it. And it pisses me off so much that if I had more free time, I’d develop my own whole f**king mobile OS just so that I could have full manual control over when the device switches sound outputs. The number of times I have wanted my device to switch automatically to Bluetooth is EXACTLY zero, because the device has no idea if earbuds are actually in my ears or headphones are on my head. It has no idea whether I’m actually in the same room as the speaker or ten feet away. It has no idea if I want to use the earbuds with my Mac or my iPhone. It has no idea if I want my device to connect to the sound system in our rehearsal room, or if one of my colleagues is about to use it with her phone. The phone should not be in control. The user should.

How hard is it to just have a f**king headphones icon at the top of the screen that the user can tap to switch to a different audio input/output, and make that button show a list of sources, including silently discovered (but not connected) Bluetooth sources, and automatically connect to the Bluetooth device in the background when you select it, and wait to change audio over to that Bluetooth device until after it has successfully connected and verified that it can actually pass audio to the device?

Hell, at this point, I’d settle for a setting that disables automatic connection to a specific Bluetooth device. We can turn off automatic association for WiFi. Why the h*** don’t we have that for Bluetooth? What a**hole thought to himself, “This Bluetooth device is suddenly just barely within range; let’s switch to it and see if we can make the user so angry that he throws his phone across the room so we can sell him a new phone?”

Seriously, this is something that should have been 100% solved twenty-five years ago, and sure as h*** should have been solved before companies started ripping the headphone jacks off of devices, and instead, the entire f**king industry has a user experience that can only be described as absolute garbage because nobody at any of these companies who is making bug prioritization decisions apparently has any Bluetooth gear that is paired with more than one f**king device. How is this simple and obvious design pattern still so badly broken across every major mobile platform? Why do users tolerate such actively user-hostile behavior from their devices? And why isn’t fixing this s**tshow a P1/P0 bug?

I just don’t get it.

Google Told Researcher ‘Nice Catch!’ Then Denied Bug Bounty For Flaw It Still Hasn’t Fixed

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Security researcher Justin O’Leary says Google initially accepted his Config Connector privilege-escalation report as a high-priority, high-severity bug, then denied a bounty by declaring the behavior “working as intended.” According to The Register, a Google rep initially praised O’Leary’s report with a “Nice catch!” before the cloud giant reversed course, declaring that no vulnerability existed and therefore no fix or reward was warranted. “The bug report, however, is still marked high-priority and accepted,” the publication notes. The alleged flaw, dubbed ConfigConfusion, could let a Kubernetes namespace user exploit an overprivileged service account to become a GCP organization owner with only a few lines of YAML and little apparent audit visibility. O’Leary details the incident in a blog post. The Register reports:
According to O’Leary, Config Connector doesn’t perform an authorization check, and this allows any Config Connector service account with org-level permissions to bypass Identity and Access Management (IAM) authorization and gain the highest level of control (roles/owner) to an entire GCP Organization — the root node of all of a company’s resources within Google Cloud. On March 27, a Google security engineer accepted O’Leary’s report and told him: “Nice catch!” The employee said that they filed a bug based on O’Leary’s report with the relevant product team and assured him the Chocolate Factory’s security squad would work with relevant Google Cloud people to fix the flaw. “We’ll work with the product team to ensure this issue is address. We’ll let you know when the issue was fixed,” the engineer said. “In the meantime, review the payment option selected in your bughunters.google.com profile.”

Google assigned the bug P1 priority and S1 severity, signifying a flaw worthy of urgent repair because it affects a large percentage of users and can disrupt core organizational functions. “I figured that was the end of that,” O’Leary said in a phone interview with The Register. Eleven days later, on April 7, he received a new message from a Google Security Bot reversing the earlier decision. The Reg viewed the email, and O’Leary included a screenshot in his Thursday writeup. The message said that the Cloud Vulnerability Reward Program panel decided that the “security impact of this issue does not meet the criteria to qualify for a reward.”

After reviewing the bug report, Google determined the software “is working as intended,” the message continued. It also noted that the program’s decision not to pay a bounty “does not mean that the product team won’t fix the issue.” Nearly three months later, the case remains P1/S1 with the status “in progress (accepted).” Google hasn’t assigned a CVE or issued a fix. O’Leary didn’t receive any reward for his research. […] “This is a pattern,” O’Leary told [The Register]. “This is just how these trillion-dollar companies deal with people like me. In my day job, we use GKE, and it’s incredibly frustrating on my end, when I find a critical vulnerability in the system that’s being widely used, and I can’t even get the vendor to patch their own stuff.”
A Google spokesperson told The Register: “The issue reported does not qualify for a reward because the GCP IAM authorization bypass is only exploitable if an attacker has access to a Config Connector Service Account that’s been granted the Organization Admin role by the organization (i.e., it is privileged). Additionally, an attacker would first need to gain entry to an organization’s environment (e.g., an exposed container) in order to leverage the privileged Config Connector instance and execute commands with administrative authority, such as the IAM bypass. Granting this level of access to the Config Connector Service Account goes against Google Cloud’s publicly shared best practices and the principle of least privilege.”

Well then

By nasch • Score: 4, Funny Thread

You know what to do, security researchers. Next time you find an exploit just publish it, because Google obviously doesn’t want your feedback.

This is why “responsible disclosure” isn’t

By Arrogant-Bastard • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
This isn’t the first, or the tenth, or the hundredth time this has happened to some security researcher dealing with some company. And even when their research is properly acknowledged and credited, the payouts are pitifully small. The entire concept of “responsible disclosure” is to guilt people who don’t work for companies into free labor for them, donating it, and then receiving neither credit nor fair compensation.

It’s time to discard not just the practice, but the entire concept, because the industry has proven that it concocted this nonsense as a one-sided deal, and that it will screw anyone/everyone at every possible opportunity. It’s time for researchers to abandon any attempt to collaborate with companies, because it doesn’t work.

What should they do instead? Just drop the vulnerabilites and let the companies deal with the fallout. They’re too cheap, too lazy, and in too much of a hurry to make sure their products/services are secure before they start selling them, so they deserve what they get. Let them burn.

Seems defensible.

By Petersko • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

From their bounty program page at https://bughunters.google.com/… :

“Insecure customer configurations (such as unconditionally injecting shared secrets or misconfiguring security-related settings) rather than a product vulnerability.}

If their published standards indicate that giving the connector that level of admin permissions is excessive, and the access needed to exploit this is as clearly a set of poor security management as the last paragraph of the summary implies, then, “Yes, it should be corrected, and no, it’s not bounty worthy” seems a reasonable stance to take. It sits right in the zone of that definition.

You could have the argument, but it’s not clear to me that Google has it wrong.

Nightmare Eclipse

By bill_mcgonigle • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Pay the bounty.

The two other possible outcomes are Nightmare Eclipse (she’s really on a roll!) or 0day sales on DNM’s.

It doesn’t even matter whether a decision to fix is made.

Gosh, you’d think $GOOG was broke.

Re:Seems defensible.

By Arrogant-Bastard • Score: 4, Interesting Thread
How would it have damaged Google to (a) give credit where it’s due and (b) cut a $50,000 check?

Answer: not at all.

In fact, it would help them, because it’d go a little way toward repairing the reputation they’ve spent the past several years damaging. And it’d be a far better choice — in every possible way — than trying to weasel out of it as they’ve done in this case.

What Google (and Microsoft, and others) have done by abusing the good faith and trust of security researchers has convinced a lot of them that they’re better off just selling information to anyone who can/will pay. It’s less aggravating and it has a higher payout. This isn’t good for anyone, and 100% of the blame lies with these enormously wealthy corporations — who could easily afford the expense, but are too greedy and too short-sighted to understand the damage they’re doing.

Tim Cook Says Apple Price Increases Are ‘Unavoidable’ Due To Memory Costs

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MacRumors:
Apple is raising its prices to offset the high cost of memory and storage, CEO Tim Cook told The Wall Street Journal. Apple is no longer able to absorb the increased prices and will need to pass some of the cost on to consumers. “Unfortunately, price increases are unavoidable,” said Cook. “We’re doing our best to mitigate the huge increases that are being passed to us, and we’ve been trying to shield our customers from the increases, but the situation has become unsustainable.”

Growing demand for memory and storage chips from AI companies has led to chip shortages and higher costs. The Wall Street Journal suggests Apple will need to increase device costs “substantially” to maintain its current profit margins given the cost of memory chips and SSDs. Research firm TechInsights claims Apple will need to make the iPhone 18 Pro around $270 more expensive to keep its existing profit margin.

Apple is struggling more with memory chips, but storage chips are also an issue. “There’s less supply at a time when consumers want devices and the memory guys are passing along huge price increases,” Cook told The Wall Street Journal. Cook said Apple will use its cash to increase memory supply, but he did not give details on what that means. Apple does not plan to create its own memory and storage factories. “We can’t do everything,” Cook said. “We know what we’re good at.”
Cook likened the memory shortages to a hundred-year flood. “I’ve never seen anything like it in any area in over 40 years,” he said.
Further reading: Smartphone Market To Shrink 15% This Year Due To Memory Crisis

Re:Wow

By smooth wombat • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

I remember reading somewhere that Apple kind of foresaw this coming and purchased extra memory so they wouldn’t have to raise prices as long as possible.

It looks like they’ve reached the end of their extra supply.

Re:No surprise

By UnknowingFool • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Perhaps it’s because Apple have a $1 Trillion cash flow sitting in the bank and not wanting to off set a bit to cover the temp price hikes, so got to fleece the Apple customers some more.

I think you are confusing that Apple stock is over $1T with Apple having $1T in cash in the bank. They do not. According to their annual report dated September 25, 2025, they had about $35B in cash.

Small Violin

By ebonum • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

A lot of factories run on a 10% or less Net Profit. These guys have to raise prices or go under. Apple is going from an obscene profit to a profit that 99% of the world can only dream about.

Apple could easily eat the cost increase, but when pure greed drives every business decision....

Re:Wow

By UnknowingFool • Score: 4, Informative Thread

Apple has enough money to invest in additional production capacity.

I don’t know if you’ve checked recently but Apple does not make RAM. They don’t actually manufacture chips. They contract TSMC to make their CPUs. They buy commodity chips like RAM.

No one wants to dump billions investing in new manufacturing capacity that will take at least a year to come online and may only start producing when the market returns to normal though.

Yes that’s why the RAM manufacturers (which are not Apple) are charging lots of money now for RAM.

Apple certainly can afford to take that risk and if the memory market continues like it is for the next few years then Apple would make an absolute killing with such a move.

1) There is a difference between having lots of money and having the resources to do something. Apple does not manufacture RAM. 2) How would Apple “make a killing” again? Apple does not sell components to anyone. Apple will certainly do everything they can to secure supply of components; they do not sell components like RAM, CPUs, etc.

Re:No surprise

By nikkipolya • Score: 4, Informative Thread

they had about $35B in cash.

They also have Marketable securities worth $18.763 billion and stuff. And long-term assets. But then they also have current and long-term liabilities. The difference between total assets and liabilities, ignoring PPE, comes to about $24 billion. Their income after tax for the financial year was $112.010 billion. So where did all that money go?

“Common stock repurchased” $90.052 billion and $15.413 billion in dividends.

Turns out, the bulk of the profits are going into stock repurchase programs.

You Can No Longer Fly Or Purchase a Drone In Beijing

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot
Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from PetaPixel:
China dominates the consumer drone market, so it is perhaps surprising that it is no longer possible to fly or even purchase a drone in Beijing. The new law that passed last month makes it illegal to buy, rent, or fly a drone without prior approval from the authorities. Users must also complete an online training session and pass a test on drone regulations. Under the new rules, drone users are also not allowed to repair or replace their drones in Beijing. Not only that, but a drone in a repair shop must be picked up in-person, rather than sent back by delivery.

The BBC reports that drones must now be registered before being brought into and out of the Chinese capital. “I have to apply for permission for each flight, which is very inconvenient,” drone enthusiast Steven Wang tells CNN. “And starting this year, the wait time is getting longer, and the reasons for rejection are becoming more vague.” Despite China being the birthplace of the consumer drone industry, it is increasingly difficult for hobbyists to fly there. Beijing authorities say that the rules are made to “strengthen the management of unmanned aerial vehicles” and “safeguard the security of the capital.”

Dictators

By phantomfive • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Dictators are always afraid of their population.

And for good reasons.

Clickbait

By ArchieBunker • Score: 3 Thread

Drones now require training and a permit. Sounds accurate for a densely populated city. Next talk about motor vehicles.

Restrictions

By JBMcB • Score: 4, Informative Thread
The restrictions are about the same as NYC and for the same reasons. DC is covered by the flight paths for two extremely busy airports, along with all the random military aircraft flying around DC in particular. Our main airport is next to a small suburban town, and you can’t fly a drone there, either.