Technology

I really like this community, and thank everyone for posting always interesting pieces and news. I have a "meta-question".

The community description says "A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.". What about technology satire, or funny pieces about technology? Does the description above implicitly disallow them?

Cheers!

After what were surely some very intense negotiations with himself, Elon Musk has decided to merge his rocket company SpaceX with his AI and social-media company xAI in what amounts to a $1.25 trillion tie-up. Combining two of his companies into a new mega-corp supposedly worth more than the sum of its overvalued parts is a classic Musk move. His last self-merging coup came last year when he combined X and xAI. Along with frequent capital raises, Musk’s vertically integrated takeovers of his own properties allow him to continue to pump up the values of his start-ups. In December, SpaceX was valued at $800 billion. Less than two months later, for the purposes of this deal, it was valued at $1 trillion, with xAI considered to be worth $250 billion.

SpaceX sealed the deal by issuing $250 billion in new shares that it handed to xAI’s shareholders. The move effectively diluted the holdings of existing SpaceX shareholders. The New York Times summed up the parlous bargain: “SpaceX’s longtime backers were forced to shrink their ownership in the company drastically, as a percentage, to pay for the acquisition.”

That would infuriate most investors, but thanks to the circular nature of Musk’s corporate economy—otherwise known as the Muskonomy—and his frequent reliance on the same group of financiers, some of SpaceX’s investors were already xAI investors. (SpaceX is also expected to raise at least $50 billion in a public offering this summer.) Minting new SpaceX shares is supposed to buoy the entire enterprise while saving Musk the trouble of pursuing more conventional ownership models that involve real dollars.

For years, we watched Silicon Valley executives perform elaborate corporate theater about “values” and “belonging” and “bringing your whole self to work.” If you were skeptical that any of that was real, well, congrats.

Aaron Zamost, a longtime tech communications exec, has a piece in the NY Times that should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the tech industry’s sudden, conspicuous rightward lurch. His argument is refreshingly blunt: this isn’t about ideology. It never was. It’s about leverage.

There are many theories about Silicon Valley’s swift, and very conspicuous, rightward turn. Tech leaders course-corrected from an overly permissive era. The Trump administration demands fealty in exchange for critical regulatory favors. Mr. Trump’s re-election reshaped the national climate and reoriented the values of tech leadership.

Each of these explanations is convenient, but none are correct. I’ve worked in tech for 20 years, across both Big Tech and venture-backed start-ups, and I can tell you the truth is much more mundane. Silicon Valley’s chief executives have always been driven by economics, not ideology. As Michael Corleone put it: It’s not personal — it’s strictly business.

The problem with AI isn't that it's not been clearly explained. The problem is, it sucks.

Update: Adobe Animate is in maintenance mode.

https://helpx.adobe.com/animate/kb/maintenance-mode.html

https://archive.ph/hEkJp

Video description : Subscription services exist for nearly everything consumers buy. Many, like Netflix or Spotify, start out affordable, but the cost adds up over time. And while signing up is effortless, cancelling can be difficult. Companies such as Adobe and Amazon have even been accused by the Federal Trade Commission of using dark patterns to trap consumers in subscriptions.

But rising costs are only part of the problem. The subscription model is eroding consumer’s opportunity to own what they buy. So how did we get to the point where practically everything is a subscription? And why is owning nothing making everything so expensive?

00:00 - Intro 01:58 - Why subscriptions are everywhere 06:26 - Companies love subscriptions 09:13 - Subscriptions are sneaky 10:29 - Cancelling is difficult 13:39 - Own nothing economy 16:52 - Consumers fight back 22:56 - The future of subscriptions 24:24 - Credits

Were Epstein and Bannon really building a crypto-funded far-right coalition of pro-Russian dictators across Europe? Or were they just LARPing as kingmakers with each other over email? And does the distinction even matter if other powerful figures seemed to believe in their project?

It is nearly impossible to not get pulled deeper down the rabbit hole while reading through Epstein’s emails. Because, whether or not he did directly influence elections across the globe, he was trying to. And he had the means and the access to believe he could. But even if we stick to what we know from previous investigations and what can see in his newly-released emails, the reality, stated plainly, is, frankly, insane. But these are the facts:

Epstein, possibly the most prolific sex trafficker in human history, spent the last decade of his life investing in technology that would help Russia, as he wrote in a 2013 email, “leapfrog the global community by reinventing the financial system of the 21st century.” He was fascinated by websites like 4chan and technology like Bitcoin and was personally invested in the success of far-right politicians in the US and Europe. He believed he was months away from ushering in a new world order that would allow him to continue with his monstrous passion projects, like creating a super-race of children with his own DNA and building fascist nation states to manage overpopulation and climate collapse. And he wined and dined the world’s most powerful men (none of whom seemed to have an issue with these ideas), inviting them to his island and his ranch, and made sure they were surrounded by an endless supply of young girls. And I’m just not sure what we’re supposed to do with that knowledge.

They will still remain available via API, for now.

As if AI weren't enough of a security concern, now researchers have discovered that open-source AI deployments may be an even bigger problem than those from commercial providers.

Threat researchers at SentinelLABS teamed up with internet mappers from Censys to take a look at the footprint of Ollama deployments exposed to the internet, and what they found was a global network of largely homogenous, open-source AI deployments just waiting for the right zero-day to come along.

175,108 unique Ollama hosts in 130 countries were found exposed to the public internet, with the vast majority of instances found to be running Llama, Qwen2, and Gemma2 models, most of those relying on the same compression choices and packaging regimes. That, says the pair, suggests open-source AI deployments have become a monoculture ripe for exploitation.

It was challenging to figure out where to put this. It's also environment, and it turns sharply political for Act III.

If you're already familiar with renewables, there's not a lot to learn here but the comparisons with fossil fuels and ethanol. Given that I've been on solar since 2023, I appreciated what he was saying to the uninitiated.

Get yourself some Act II if you plan on making it all the way through ... it's an hour and a half.

Within hours of the deal for TikTok’s U.S. operations being announced last week, Issam Hijazi noticed a big uptick in users to his social media platform UpScrolled. That stream of disgruntled users fleeing TikTok over censorship concerns turned into a flood this week, crashing UpScrolled’s servers.

UpScrolled, launched last July, supports text posts, photos, short-form videos, stories and other features. It claims to be a platform with “no censorship” and “no shadowbans.” On Monday, it ranked among the top 10 free apps on Apple’s App Store, and No. 2 among social network apps. It hit more than 1 million users from just 40,000.

“You all showed up so fast our servers tapped out,” UpScrolled said in an Instagram post on Monday. “We’re a tiny team building an alternative to the platforms that stopped listening to you. Right now, we’re scaling and running on caffeine to keep up with what YOU started. Bear with us. We’re on it.”

UpScrolled is backed by the Tech for Palestine incubator, an advocacy project that helps fund tech initiatives to support the Palestinian cause. Hijazi, a Palestinian-Australian, spoke to Rest of World on the sidelines of a conference on Saturday.

People familiar with Microsoft's plans say that the company moving to streamline or remove certain Copilot integrations across in-box apps like Notepad and Paint in 2026, after pushback from users.

PLEASE NOTE: It is worth reading the entire article.

https://archive.is/zUnaX

Long before generative AI, copyright holders warned that new technologies for reading and analyzing information would destroy creativity. Internet search engines, they argued, were infringement machines—tools that copied copyrighted works at scale without permission. As they had with earlier information technologies like the photocopier and the VCR, copyright owners sued.

Courts disagreed. They recognized that copying works in order to understand, index, and locate information is a classic fair use—and a necessary condition for a free and open internet.

Today, the same argument is being recycled against AI. It’s whether copyright owners should be allowed to control how others analyze, reuse, and build on existing works.