I heard about Chia today. Sounds like it's a crypto currency, but what makes it interesting is that Bram Cohen is involved, and he's the guy who brought us BitTorrent, and that works pretty well, and seemed really wild when it first came out.

On the 27th anniversary of Kurt Cobain's death, Engadget reports: Were he still alive today, Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain would be 52 years old. Every February 20th, on the day of his birthday, fans wonder what songs he would write if he hadn't died of suicide nearly 30 years ago. While we'll never know the answer to that question, an AI is attempting to fill the gap. A mental health organization called Over the Bridge used Google's Magenta AI and a generic neural network to examine more than two dozen songs by Nirvana to create a 'new' track from the band. "Drowned in the Sun" opens with reverb-soaked plucking before turning into an assault of distorted power chords. "I don't care/I feel as one, drowned in the sun," Nirvana tribute band frontman Eric Hogan sings in the chorus. In execution, it sounds not all that dissimilar from "You Know You're Right," one of the last songs Nirvana recorded before Cobain's death in 1994. Other than the voice of Hogan, everything you hear in the song was generated by the two AI programs Over the Bridge used. The organization first fed Magenta songs as MIDI files so that the software could learn the specific notes and harmonies that made the band's tunes so iconic. Humorously, Cobain's loose and aggressive guitar playing style gave Magenta some trouble, with the AI mostly outputting a wall of distortion instead of something akin to his signature melodies. "It was a lot of trial and error," Over the Bridge board member Sean O'Connor told Rolling Stone. Once they had some musical and lyrical samples, the creative team picked the best bits to record. Most of the instrumentation you hear are MIDI tracks with different effects layered on top. Some thoughts from The Daily Dot: Rolling Stone also highlighted lyrics like, "The sun shines on you but I don't know how," and what is called "a surprisingly anthemic chorus" including the lines, "I don't care/I feel as one, drowned in the sun," remarking that they "bear evocative, Cobain-esque qualities...." Neil Turkewitz went full Comic Book Guy, opining, "A perfect illustration of the injustice of developing AI through the ingestion of cultural works without the authorization of [its] creator, and how it forces creators to be indentured servants in the production of a future out of their control," adding, "That it's for a good cause is irrelevant."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo quotes a classic article from IEEE Spectrum: A study by a team of Japanese researchers shows that, in certain situations, children are actually horrible little brats^W^W^W may not be as empathetic towards robots as we'd previously thought, with gangs of unsupervised tykes repeatedly punching, kicking, and shaking a robot in a Japanese mall... The Japanese group didn't just document the bullying behavior, though; they wanted to find clever ways of helping the robot avoid the abusive situations. They started by developing a computer simulation and statistical model of the children's abuse towards the robot, showing that it happens primarily when the kids are in groups and no adults are nearby. Next, they designed an abuse-evading algorithm to help the robot avoid situations where tiny humans might gang up on it. Literally tiny humans: the robot is programmed to run away from people who are below a certain height and escape in the direction of taller people. When it encounters a human, the system calculates the probability of abuse based on interaction time, pedestrian density, and the presence of people above or below 1.4 meters (4 feet 6 inches) in height. If the robot is statistically in danger, it changes its course towards a more crowded area or a taller person. This ensures that an adult is there to intervene when one of the little brats decides to pound the robot's head with a bottle (which only happened a couple times).

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

"The creators of Deno have formed the Deno Company, a business venture around the JavaScript/TypeScript runtime and rival to Node.js," reports InfoWorld: In a bulletin on March 29, Deno creator Ryan Dahl and Bert Belder, both of whom also led the development of Node.js, announced the formation of the company and said they had $4.9 million in seed capital, enough to pay for a staff of full-time engineers working to improve Deno... Dahl and Belder said that, while they planned to pursue commercial applications of Demo, Deno itself would remain MIT-licensed, adding that for Deno to be maximally useful it must remain permissively free. "Our business will build on the open source project, not attempt to monetize it directly," they Deno authors said. From their announcement: We find server-side JavaScript hopelessly fragmented, deeply tied to bad infrastructure, and irrevocably ruled by committees without the incentive to innovate. As the browser platform moves forward at a rapid pace, server-side JavaScript has stagnated. Deno is our attempt to breathe new life into this ecosystem... Not every use-case of server-side JavaScript needs to access the file system; our infrastructure makes it possible to compile out unnecessary bindings. This allows us to create custom runtimes for different applications: Electron-style GUIs, Cloudflare Worker-style Serverless Functions, embedded scripting for databases, etc.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A BYTE magazine cover from 1981.

Sometimes it's better to say what you mean instead of trying to be funny.

As you know I've been asking a question pretty persistently -- where did the apps go? Specifically where did the writing tools go? Before the web, there was a deep market for software writing tools, all kinds of word processors, text editors, desktop publishing tools, even spreadsheets and database software were used to write. Yet few of those tools transitioned to the web.

In the early years of the web, we thought it was very innovative for browser-based apps to create and write for public websites, which eventually became blogs, entirely through web forms in the browers. It was such a miracle, look at how easy it is! -- that we overlooked that as a writing tool, the web browser is pretty awful. We know how to do it so much better! Why didn't we? Why don't we do it now?

I've been having an email conversation with Ray Ozzie, a fellow productivity tools developer from the 80s. We never worked together but we worked with people who worked together. He did several products you might be familiar with. Lotus Symphony which was the height of the "integrated software" period in the mid-80s, and the corporate groupware product, Lotus Notes. Since then he has been CTO of Microsoft, and has founded several successful startups. He was recently honored as a fellow of the Computer History Museum. I asked if I could include some of his comments in a blog post here, and he agreed. I didn't do any editing, his words appear exactly as he typed them.

How I kicked it off

There used to be, as you know, a deep market for tools for writers. Highly customizable products, or products with UIs with character, people had something they don't have now -- choice. And that made it competitive.

Now, we don't have choice. If I want to write on Facebook, I have to use their awful buggy editor. If I want a Substack newsletter or a Medium blog, or whatever -- I have to use their editors, which vary in quality, but none of them would have stood a chance in the 80s software market.

We could argue how this happened, but there's no question that it did happen.

Also there should be networked spreadsheets. And since it's 40 years later, there should be products we never imagined in the 80s. They aren't there.

That's the starting point. I'm not saying we should fix it, I don't want to take that on, but I want to focus the tech world on the fact that this happened.

Ray on the lost apps of the 80s

I agree wholeheartedly that there are things that we were incredibly fortunate to have experienced, and they seem to be gone. Seemingly forever.

ThinkTank and outliners in general is one of them. I don’t understand this because I think there are many outliner-type people out there who would enjoy them, but because they never became mainstream they aren’t being given a chance to be mainstream once again.

I also think that there were calendar-centric PIM-centric extensions to the outlining concept that were in Agenda that were worth saving; they’re gone.

Pito Salas’s spreadsheet Improv had incredible things – far more than just the pivot table – and yet the world is now deprived because the world seems comfortable with a simpler concept of a spreadsheet. And yes, networked spreadsheets of one form or another would be amazing – especially given that many real-world spreadsheet scenarios involve periodic consolidation/roll-up involving multiple people and processes.

A VC friend told me several years ago that it was incredible that even though there is now a wave of “low code” tools such as Airtable, that there is nothing out there with the power and usability that Lotus Notes had back-in-the-day. And so we cobble together many tools, ignoring the fact that there was a better answer that we’ve chosen to discard.

As you said, I can’t fix it. I can’t even explain it. I’ve put an incredible amount of energy and love into products that have commercially failed, and it has made me a bit more cautious. I’m fortunate that I don’t tend to descend into cynicism, but it remains perplexing.

As a writer and an analyst, I do think this would be a great topic to explore: why have so many great ideas been discarded? Even if their initial implementation was destined never to withstand the test of time, why do we choose to ignore those aspects that were good? In an internet that was supposed to allow us to have ‘bubbles’ of special interest groups, why haven’t we created a thriving environment that might support the creation and maintenance of bespoke power tools for creativity and productivity?

That's where I'd like to leave it for now, there will be more.

PS: I wrote my side of the conversation in GMail. A pretty standard browser-based text browser and editor. In Chrome on my Mac. I don't know what email app Ray used. ;-)

The moon is just 27% the size of earth. So long-time Slashdot reader fahrbot-bot shares an interesting question from Science Alert. "If you were to hop in a spaceship, don a spacesuit and go on an epic lunar hike, how long would it take to walk all the way around it? " During the Apollo missions, astronauts bounced around the surface at a casual 1.4 mph (2.2 km/h), according to NASA. This slow speed was mainly due to their clunky, pressurized spacesuits that were not designed with mobility in mind. If the "moonwalkers" had sported sleeker suits, they might have found it a lot easier to move and, as a result, picked up the pace... At this new hypothetical max speed, it would take about 91 days to walk the 6,786-mile (10,921 km) circumference of the moon. For context, it would take around 334 days to walk nonstop (i.e., not stopping to sleep or eat) around the 24,901-mile (40,075 km) circumference of Earth at this speed, although it is impossible to do so because of the oceans. Obviously, it's not possible to walk nonstop for 91 days, so the actual walk around the moon would take much longer. Of course, it's not that easy, with ongoing solar radiation, extreme temperatures, and the need to walk around mile-deep craters. Aidan Cowley, a scientific adviser at the European Space Agency, also pointed out to Live Science that you'd need a support vehicle following you with food, water, and oxygen (which could also double as shelter, "kind of like portable mini-bases."). But he also identified another issue: This type of mission would also require a huge amount of endurance training because of the demands of exercising in low gravity on your muscles and cardiovascular system. "You'd have to send an astronaut with ultra-marathon-level fitness to do it," Cowley said. Even then, walking at a top speed would be possible only for around three to four hours a day, Cowley said. So, if a person walked at 3.1 mph (5 km/h) for 4 hours a day, then it would take an estimated 547 days, or nearly 1.5 years to walk the moon's circumference, assuming your route isn't too disrupted by craters and you can deal with the temperature changes and radiation. However, humans won't have the technology or equipment to accomplish such a feat until at least the late 2030s or early 2040s, Cowley said. "You'd never get an agency to support anything like this," Cowley said. "But if some crazy billionaire wants to try it, maybe they can pull it off."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Reuters reports: A Volkswagen joint venture in China has agreed to buy green car credits from Tesla to help meet local environmental rules The deal, the first of its kind to be reported between the two companies in China, highlights the scale of the task Volkswagen faces in transforming its huge petrol carmaking business into a leader in electric vehicles to rival Tesla. Shares in Volkswagen, the world's second-biggest automaker, have soared this year as investors warm to its plans to go electric. But in China, and elsewhere, the German company is still heavily reliant on traditional combustion-engine vehicles. China, the world's biggest auto market where over 25 million vehicles were sold last year, runs a credit system that encourages automakers to work towards a cleaner future by, for example, improving fuel efficiency or making more electric cars. Manufacturers are awarded green credits that can be offset against negative credits for producing more polluting vehicles. The VW-venture's gas-powered SUVs and sedans "have so far proved far more popular in China than their electric vehicles," Reuters notes. MarketWatch adds that "A deal to buy credits from Tesla at a premium represents Volkswagen buoying the margins of one of its fiercest rivals in the electric-vehicle space." According to Swiss bank UBS, Tesla and Volkswagen will be the two global leaders in electric-vehicle sales within the next two years. The analysts expect that Volkswagen will catch up with Tesla in terms of total volume of cars sold as soon as next year, when the two companies could deliver around 1.2 million cars each.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Confronting progressive U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, Amazon officials tweeted "the kind of bad-ittude you rarely see from a major corporation," writes Kara Swisher. "Here's what was more extraordinary — and revealing — to me: One of the most powerful companies in the world could not take criticism from politicians without acting like one of the biggest babies in the world..." But why? [I]t all felt oddly emotional and risky, which is why it was clear that the decision to launch such attacks could have been made only by someone who never suffers when mistakes are made: Mr. Bezos. Why would he take such an approach? I don't think his intention was to influence the union vote in Alabama. Instead, the goal was to goad progressives into proposing legislation around things like data privacy and a $15 federal minimum wage that Mr. Bezos knows cannot pass without being watered down and, thus, made less dangerous to giants like Amazon. After gaining immense power in the pandemic and becoming one of the best-liked brands around, the company is now saying to Washington legislators, who have dragged their feet and held endless and largely useless hearings about how to deal with tech: I dare you to regulate us. For Amazon, weak regulation would certainly be much better than having to talk about the very real human toll that free shipping might have on its workers. It's an attitude that we will see adopted by a lot more tech leaders who are going to try to use the momentum for regulation in their favor, rather than let it run over them. In a recent congressional hearing, for example, Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, sheepishly proposed changes to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which gives platforms broad immunity for content posted on their sites. Many observers felt, though, that Mr. Zuckerberg's proposals were a smoke screen that would ultimately benefit Big Tech companies like Facebook. It's high-risk, but possibly high reward, which has been Mr. Bezos' brand for his entire career, even before he was armed with all this power and money.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

HealthITSecurity writes: The patient data from multiple providers appears to have been captured and subsequently leaked on the data repository GitHub Arctic Code Vault by third-party vendor MedData, according to a new collaborative report from security researcher Jelle Ursem and Dissent Doe of DataBreaches.net. Through his research, Ursem detected troves of protected health information tied to a single developer... The databases were taken down on December 17. MedData recently released a notice that detailed the massive patient data breach, which involved information provided to the vendor for processing services... Officials discovered that an employee had saved files to personal folders created on the GitHub repository between December 2018 and September 2019, during their employment... The impacted data included patient names combined with one or more data elements, such as subscriber ID,Social Security numbers, diagnoses, conditions, claims data, dates of services, medical procedure codes, insurance policy numbers, provider names, contact details, and dates of birth. All affected patients will receive free credit monitoring and identity protection services... This is the second report from Ursem and Dissent on GitHub repositories leaking patient data in the last six months. In August, they reported that at least nine GitHub repositories leveraging improper access controls leaked data from more than 150,000 to 200,000 patients. The data belonged to multiple providers. The incidents highlight the importance of vendor management and the need to ensure security policies are aligned. Previous reports have shown about one-third of healthcare databases stored in the cloud, or even locally, are actively leaking data online. What's worse, misconfigured databases can be hacked in about eight hours. DataBreaches.net wonders what happened after Med-Data reached out to GitHub about the vault's logs and removal of the code. Did GitHub provide the logs? If so, what did they show? Is anyone's Protected Health Information in GitHub's Arctic Code Vault? And if so, what happens? Will GitHub remove it...? Or will code just be left there for researchers to explore in 1,000 years so they can wade through the personal and protected health information or other sensitive information of people who trusted others to protect their privacy? In November, 2020, Ursem posed the question to GitHub on Twitter. They never replied.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

"AMD and Intel have both proposed better ways of doing interrupt and exception handling the last few months," reports LinuxReviews.org. Then they share this analysis Linus Torvalds posted on the Real World Technologies forum: "The AMD version is essentially "Fix known bugs in the exception handling definition". The Intel version is basically "Yeah, the protected mode 80286 exception handling was bad, then 386 made it odder with the 32-bit extensions, and then syscall/sysenter made everything worse, and then the x86-64 extensions introduced even more problems. So let's add a mode bit where all the crap goes away". In contrast, the AMD one is basically a minimal effort to fix actual fundamental problems with all that legacy-induced crap that are nasty to work around and that have caused issues... Both are valid on their own, and they are actually fairly independent. Honestly, the AMD paper looks like a quick "we haven't even finished thinking all the details through, but we know these parts were broken, so we might as well release this". I don't know how long it has been brewing, but judging by the "TBD" things in that paper, I think it's a "early rough draft"." In the article (shared by long-time Slashdot reader xiando), LinuxReviews.org summarizes the state of the conversation today: Torvalds went on to say that while AMD's proposed "quick fix" would be easier to implement for him and others operating system vendors, it's not ideal in the long run. Intel's proposal throws the entire existing interrupt descriptor table (IDT) delivery system under the bus so it can be replaced with what they call a new "FRED event delivery" system. Torvalds believes this is a better long-term solution... While the pros and cons of Intel and AMD's respective proposals for interrupt and event handling in future processors are worthy of discussion, it's in reality mostly up to Intel. They are the bigger and more powerful corporation. It is more likely than not that future processors from Intel will use their proposed Flexible Return and Event Delivery system. Their next generation processors won't, it will take years not months before consumer CPUs have the FRED technology. Remember, the above-mentioned technical document was published earlier this month [in March]. Things do not magically go from the drawing-board to store-shelves overnight. Intel isn't going to just hand the FRED technology over to AMD and help them implement it. We will likely see both move forward with their own proposals. Intel will have FRED and AMD will have Supervisor Entry Extensions until AMD, inevitably, adopts FRED or some form of it years down the line. They also note that Torvalds took issue with a poster arguing that microkernels are more secure than monolithic kernels like Linux. "Bah, you're just parroting the usual party line that had absolutely no basis in reality and when you look into the details, doesn't actually hold up. It's all theory and handwaving and just repeating the same old FUD that was never actually really relevant."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The New York Times tells the story of the Baikal-Gigaton Volume Detector, the largest neutrino telescope in the Northern Hemisphere and one of the world's biggest underwater space telescopes, now submerged in the world's deepest lake in Siberia. The Times includes a quote from 80-year-old Russian physicist Grigori V. Domogatski, who has actually "led the quest" for this underwater telescope for 40 years. "If you take on a project, you must understand that you have to realize it in any conditions that come up," Dr. Domogatski said, banging on his desk for emphasis. "Otherwise, there's no point in even starting." [T]his hunt for neutrinos from the far reaches of the cosmos, spanning eras in geopolitics and in astrophysics, sheds light on how Russia has managed to preserve some of the scientific prowess that characterized the Soviet Union — as well as the limitations of that legacy... In the 1970s, despite the Cold War, the Americans and the Soviets were working together to plan a first deep water neutrino detector off the coast of Hawaii. But after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the Soviets were kicked out of the project. So, in 1980, the Institute for Nuclear Research in Moscow started its own neutrino-telescope effort, led by Dr. Domogatski. The place to try seemed obvious, although it was about 2,500 miles away: Baikal. The project did not get far beyond planning and design before the Soviet Union collapsed, throwing many of the country's scientists into poverty and their efforts into disarray. But an institute outside Berlin, which soon became part of Germany's DESY particle research center, joined the Baikal effort.... By the mid 1990s, the Russian team had managed to identify "atmospheric" neutrinos — those produced by collisions in Earth's atmosphere — but not ones arriving from outer space. It would need a bigger detector for that. As Russia started to reinvest in science in the 2000s under President Vladimir V. Putin, Dr. Domogatski managed to secure more than $30 million in funding to build a new Baikal telescope... Construction began in 2015, and a first phase encompassing 2,304 light-detecting orbs suspended in the depths is scheduled to be completed by the time the ice melts in April. (The orbs remain suspended in the water year-round, watching for neutrinos and sending data to the scientists' lakeshore base by underwater cable....) The Baikal telescope looks down, through the entire planet, out the other side, toward the center of our galaxy and beyond, essentially using Earth as a giant sieve. For the most part, larger particles hitting the opposite side of the planet eventually collide with atoms. But almost all neutrinos — 100 billion of which pass through your fingertip every second — continue, essentially, on a straight line. Yet when a neutrino, exceedingly rarely, hits an atomic nucleus in the water, it produces a cone of blue light called Cherenkov radiation. The effect was discovered by the Soviet physicist Pavel A. Cherenkov, one of Dr. Domogatski's former colleagues down the hall at his institute in Moscow. If you spend years monitoring a billion tons of deep water for unimaginably tiny flashes of Cherenkov light, many physicists believe, you will eventually find neutrinos that can be traced back to cosmic conflagrations that emitted them billions of light-years away. The orientation of the blue cones even reveals the precise direction from which the neutrinos that caused them came. Business Insider notes it's run by an international team of researchers from the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Russia, and Slovakia — and according to Russian news agency TASS cost nearly $34 million. 80-year-old Dr. Domogatski tells the Times, "You should never miss the chance to ask nature any question."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The Washington Post explains exactly how the new infrastructure plan of U.S President Joe Biden would "turbocharge" America's transition away from fossil fuels: The linchpin of Biden's plan, which he detailed in a speech Wednesday in Pittsburgh, is the creation of a national standard requiring utilities to use a specific amount of solar, wind and other renewable energy to power American homes, businesses and factories... [Including hydropower and nuclear energy.] Biden has said he wants a carbon-free electricity grid by 2035, so the proposed standard will probably be large... He also plans to ask Congress to provide $174 billion to boost the U.S. market share of electric vehicles and their supply chains, from raw materials to retooled factories. He reiterated that he wants to establish 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations by 2030 and electrify 20 percent of the nation's yellow school buses. Biden also requested $10 billion for a new Civilian Climate Corps, a name designed to echo President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps. Biden's version would hire an army of young people to work on projects that conserve and restore public lands and waters, increase reforestation, increase carbon sequestration through agriculture, protect biodiversity, improve access to recreation, and build resilience to climate change... Biden is also asking for $16 billion to put "hundreds of thousands" of people to work plugging hundreds of thousands of "orphan" oil and natural gas wells that were largely abandoned after their useful life but which now leak methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. The plan also calls for tax credits for solar panels -- and for companies researching carbon-capture technologies -- as well as new funding tools for power transmission lines. But it also seeks $35 billion to pursue a breakthrough technology (as well as $15 billion for climate-related demonstration projects. This offers a way to commercialize and scale up today's already-existing innovations for clean energy, an official at the Bill Gates-founded Breakthrough Energy told the Post. He suggested the government's purchasing power could ultimately be crucial in lowering the cost of clean technologies like carbon capture and sustainable aviation fuel, and even the cost of producing hydrogen fuel by splitting water molecules. Slashdot reader DanDrollette also adds this note from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: The Biden administration announced what the Washington Post calls "an ambitious plan to expand wind farms along the East Coast and jump-start the country's nascent offshore wind industry," with enough windmills to be built that they could power more than 10 million US homes, and cut 78 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions... The Biden administration said it will invest in associated research and development, provide $3 billion in low-interest loans to the offshore wind industry, and fund $230 million in changes to US ports to accommodate the expected influx of shipping and construction... While offshore wind is probably one of the fastest-growing sectors in renewable energy, the United States is still far behind Europe, where windmills are a common sight off the coast and the technology is widely accepted...

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Dilbert readers - Please visit Dilbert.com to read this feature. Due to changes with our feeds, we are now making this RSS feed a link to Dilbert.com.