Powderhorn

The justices of the US supreme court – even its conservatives – have traditionally valued their institution’s own standing. John Roberts, the current US chief justice, has always been praised – even by liberals – as a staunch advocate of the court’s image as a neutral arbiter. For decades, Americans believed the court soared above the fray of partisan contestation.

No more.

In Donald Trump’s second term, the supreme court’s conservative supermajority has seized the opportunity to empower the nation’s chief executive. In response, public approval of the court has collapsed. The question is what it means for liberals to catch up to this new reality of a court that willingly tanks its own legitimacy. Eager to realize cherished goals of assigning power to the president and arrogating as much for itself, the conservative justices seemingly no longer care what the public or the legal community think of the court’s actions. Too often, though, liberals are responding with nostalgia for a court that cares about its high standing. There is a much better option: to grasp the opportunity to set right the supreme court’s role in US democracy.

I went out to Church Night, and it was a blast.

Thing is, now I'm going to wake up feeling empty. I met some great new people around a fire. We talked tattoos, piercings, and now I'm back in my van.

As I apply for yet another job, I look at the company’s website for context. I’ve now read their “what we do” section four or five times, and I have a problem – I can’t figure out what they do. There are two possibilities here. One: they don’t know what they do. Two: what they do is so pointless and embarrassing that they dare not spell it out in plain English. “We forge marketing systems at the forefront of the online wellness space” translates to something like “we use ChatGPT to sell dodgy supplements”.

But understanding what so many businesses actually do is the least of my worries. I’m currently among the 5% of Brits who are unemployed. In my six months of job hunting, my total lack of success has begun to make me question my own existence. Just like when you repeat a word over and over until it loses all meaning, when you apply repeatedly for jobs in a similar field, the semantics of the entire situation begin to fall apart like a snotty tissue. About one in five of my job applications elicit a rejection email, usually bemoaning the sheer number of “quality applicants” for the position. For the most part, though – nothing. It’s almost like the job never existed in the first place, and it’s possible that it didn’t.

In 2024, 40% of companies posted listings for “ghost jobs”, nonexistent positions advertised to create the illusion that the company is doing well enough to take on new employees. And this seems like an all-too-easy way to lie about your success. Regulation of job ads is mostly the remit of the Advertising Standards Authority, which – in all its might – has the power to … have a misleading job ad taken down. So with no particularly harsh consequences for employers, why not go on a pretend hiring spree? Ethics in the job market seem to have gone out the window, and the idea of wasting the time of thousands of hapless jobseekers doesn’t seem to matter much.

Stories like this make me feel far less special.

The rushed integration of half-cooked automation into the already broken U.S. journalism industry simply isn’t going very well. There have been just countless examples where affluent media owners rushed to embrace automation and LLMs (usually to cut corners and undermine labor) with disastrous impact, resulting in lots of plagiarism, completely false headlines, and a giant, completely avoidable mess.

Earlier this year, we noted how Politico was among the major media companies rushing to embrace AI without really thinking things through or ensuring the technology actually works first. They’ve implemented “AI” systems –without transparently informing staff — that generate articles rife with all sorts of gibberish and falsehoods (this Brian Merchant post is a must read to understand the scope).

Politico management also recently introduced another AI “report builder” for premium Politico PRO subscribers that’s supposed to offer a breakdown of existing Politico reporter analysis of complicated topics. But here too the automation constantly screws up, conflating politicians and generating all sorts of errors that, for some incoherent reason, aren’t competently reviewed by Politico editors.

Don't do this to your pub.

Oh, no! Now how am I going to find 60" of irrelevant content about your grandma just to get a soup recipe?

This past March, when Google began rolling out its AI Mode search capability, it began offering AI-generated recipes. The recipes were not all that intelligent. The AI had taken elements of similar recipes from multiple creators and Frankensteined them into something barely recognizable. In one memorable case, the Google AI failed to distinguish the satirical website the Onion from legitimate recipe sites and advised users to cook with non-toxic glue.

Over the past few years, bloggers who have not secured their sites behind a paywall have seen their carefully developed and tested recipes show up, often without attribution and in a bastardized form, in ChatGPT replies. They have seen dumbed-down versions of their recipes in AI-assembled cookbooks available for digital downloads on Etsy or on AI-built websites that bear a superficial resemblance to an old-school human-written blog. Their photos and videos, meanwhile, are repurposed in Facebook posts and Pinterest pins that link back to this digital slop.

Recipe writers have no legal recourse because recipes generally are not copyrightable. Although copyright protects published or recorded work, they do not cover sets of instructions (although it can apply to the particular wording of those instructions).

The crisis-hit Louvre museum in Paris was closed on Monday as workers began a strike to demand urgent renovations and staffing increases, and protested against a rise in ticket prices for most non-EU visitors, including British and American tourists.

The world’s most-visited museum – which has had a difficult few months after a jewel heist, a damaging water leak and safety fears over a gallery ceiling – could face days of partial or total closure at one of its busiest times of the year if many of its 2,100-strong workforce vote to continue striking this week.

The Louvre is still reeling from the theft on 19 October, when a four-person gang raided the museum during daylight hours, stealing an estimated €88m (£77m) of French crown jewels in seven minutes before fleeing on scooters. Four men have been arrested and placed under formal investigation, but the jewels have not been found.

For those keeping track, I spent Tuesday through Thursday with my ex-wife.

I've already spoken at length about that, and to repeat it would advance nothing.

I'm deliberately avoiding the NSFW tag, because, honestly, it doesn't mean anything. What matters is who we are to each other, and that is safe for work.

I've been back in my van for a couple of days, and I guess someone would like this, but what a fucking masochistic starting point.

My ex is, in fact, a masochist. I branded her ... twice. When someone asks politely, I'm inclined to be a submissive bitch. (I'm serious, here. 50 Shades hadn't come out yet, so we didn't even yet have a terrible rendition of BDSM that was about to spring forth.)

To call my ex-wife difficult is to ignore that you don't want to be with me. We are equally difficult, and that's why we work. You don't really notice this when it starts, as you're a bit too busy fucking.

We were both exactly what the other needed, at exactly the right time. All of the foreplay was negated by "oh fuck, you're mine." You don't really recover from that.

This said, we can't talk right now, as we skated so close to the edge of reality that one of us may have fallen off the cliff. Neither of us would ever admit that, which is unuseful.

I have completely cut off trying to meet others as a result. I'd been fucking around on Reddit, but, honestly, I don't want someone else. I'm not going to do better, and so to try is folly.

She owns me, I own her, and this just works. I don't know I'd feel comfortable owning someone else.

Over the past four years, I've significantly reduced my social media footprint. There are countless reasons for this, all of which are beyond the scope of this article, but the point I want to make is this: despite my growing apathy and downright hostility towards social platforms, I've found YouTube to be an oasis of sorts.

I am not going to pretend that YouTube hasn't played its part in the global disinformation epidemic or that it has somehow escaped the claws of enshittification. What I will say is that unlike other social platforms, its feed (unlike those of its competitors) are maleable using browser-based plugins (tools such as subscription managers). It is one of my primary learning platforms; without its vast array of tutorials, there is no way that I, a non-programmer, would have learnt Linux as fast or become as comfortable in a FOSS-based computing environment, as I have since the pandemic.

But enshittification is, like death and taxes, a certainty now. Which brings us to the subject of this column: AI moderation on YouTube.

After decades of research and development, humanity finally has a data storage medium that will outlast us.

The 5D Memory Crystal stores data by using tiny voxels – 3D pixels – in fused silica glass, etched by femtosecond laser pulses. These voxels possess "birefringence," meaning that their light refraction characteristics vary depending upon the polarization and direction of incoming light.

That difference in light orientation and strength can be read in conjunction with the voxel's location (x, y, z coordinates), allowing data to be encoded in five dimensional space.

And because the medium is silica crystal, similar to optical cable, it's highly durable. It's also capacious: The technology can store up to 360 TB of data on a 5-inch glass platter.

In a small room in San Diego last week, a man in a black leather jacket explained to me how to save the world from destruction by AI. Max Tegmark, a notable figure in the AI-safety movement, believes that “artificial general intelligence,” or AGI, could precipitate the end of human life. I was in town for NeurIPS, one of the largest AI-research conferences, and Tegmark had invited me, along with five other journalists, to a briefing on an AI-safety index that he would release the next day. No company scored better than a C+.

The threat of technological superintelligence is the stuff of science fiction, yet it has become a topic of serious discussion in the past few years. Despite the lack of clear definition—even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has called AGI a “weakly defined term”—the idea that powerful AI contains an inherent threat to humanity has gained acceptance among respected cultural critics.

Granted, generative AI is a powerful technology that has already had a massive impact on our work and culture. But superintelligence has become one of several questionable narratives promoted by the AI industry, along with the ideas that AI learns like a human, that it has “emergent” capabilities, that “reasoning models” are actually reasoning, and that the technology will eventually improve itself.

I traveled to NeurIPS, held at the waterfront fortress that is the San Diego Convention Center, partly to understand how seriously these narratives are taken within the AI industry. Do AGI aspirations guide research and product development? When I asked Tegmark about this, he told me that the major AI companies were sincerely trying to build AGI, but his reasoning was unconvincing. “I know their founders,” he said. “And they’ve said so publicly.”

SYDNEY (AP) — Two gunmen attacked a Hannukah celebration on a Sydney beach Sunday, killing at least 11 people in what Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called an act of antisemitism and terrorism.

The massacre at one of Australia’s most popular and iconic beaches followed a wave of antisemitic attacks that have roiled the country over the past year, although the authorities didn’t suggest those episodes and Sunday’s shooting were connected. It is the deadliest shooting for almost three decades in a country with strict gun control laws.

One gunman was fatally shot by police and the second, who was arrested, was in critical condition, authorities said. Police said one of the gunmen was known to the security services, but that there had been no specific threat.

At least 29 people were confirmed wounded, including two police officers, said Mal Lanyon, the police commissioner for New South Wales state, where Sydney is located.

This will no doubt have zero long-term ramifications.

The “yellow line” that divides Gaza under Donald Trump’s ceasefire plan is a “new border” for Israel, the country’s military chief told soldiers deployed in the territory.

The chief of the general staff, Eyal Zamir, said Israel would hold on to its current military positions. These give Israel control of more than half of Gaza, including most agricultural land and the border crossing with Egypt.

“The ‘yellow line’ is a new border line, serving as a forward defensive line for our communities and a line of operational activity,” Zamir said during a visit to meet Israeli reservists in northern Gaza, where he also visited the ruins of the Palestinian towns of Beit Hanoun and Jabaliya.

“We have operational control over extensive parts of the Gaza Strip and we will remain on those defence lines,” Zamir said, according to an English-language transcript of his remarks provided by a military spokesperson.

Palestinians were forced out of this eastern portion of Gaza by Israeli attacks and evacuation orders. Almost all the surviving population, over 2 million people, are now crowded into a narrow zone of coastal sand dunes that is smaller than Washington DC.