SoylentNews

upstart writes:

Bill Gates' 48-year-old Microsoft 6502 BASIC goes open source:

Microsoft has released 'BASIC for 6502 Microprocessor - Version 1.1' on Github, under the MIT license. Now anyone is free to go and download, modify, share, and even resell source code originally crafted by Bill Gates. This is a hugely significant code release, as close derivatives of this BASIC ended up at the heart of several iconic computers, including the best-selling computer of all time, the Commodore 64.

The Microsoft Blog provides a potted history of its BASIC, sharing some important facts. Microsoft BASIC was the firm's first product, and started out as a BASIC language interpreter for the Intel 8080, written by Bill Gates and Paul Allen for the Altair 8800, in 1975.

What we are seeing shared on Github under the MIT license is the BASIC interpreter code ported by Bill Gates and Ric Weiland to the MOS 6502 Microprocessor (hence the name). This was released in 1976.

Something fun to note is the commit date for the m6502.asm file and its related markdown documents. July 27, 1978. Well before Git was even created. An easily done task, all we need to do is amend the commit and pass the date.

Importantly for widespread adoption, and to fuel what would become Microsoft's signature business model, this MOS 6502 assembly code formed the foundation of BASIC interpreters that shipped with the Apple II, Commodore PET, VIC-20 and C64.

Notably, Commodore licensed this 6502 port of Microsoft BASIC for a flat fee of $25,000. On the surface this doesn't sound stellar in terms of Microsoft revenue generation but, as the firm says, the decision put Microsoft software in front of millions of new programmers, who would make their first tentative coding steps by typing:

10 PRINT "HELLO" 20 GOTO 10 RUN

The 1.1 release on GitHub specifically supports the Apple II, Commodore PET, Ohio Scientific (OSI), the MOS Technology KIM-1, and PDP-10 Simulation systems. Microsoft notes that 1.1 includes "fixes to the garbage collector identified by Commodore and jointly implemented in 1978 by Commodore engineer John Feagans and Bill Gates, when Feagans traveled to Microsoft's Bellevue offices."

In total, the release shares 6,955 lines of assembly language code for anyone who is interested to peruse and play with. Microsoft characterizes this BASIC interpreter as one of the most historically significant pieces of software from the early personal computer era.

Microsoft says its BASIC for 6502 Microprocessor - Version 1.1 source code release, which comes with a clear, modern license, builds on its earlier release of GW-BASIC which first shipped in the original IBM PC's ROM, evolved into QBASIC, and later into Visual Basic.

Original Submission

upstart writes:

Jury orders Google to pay $425 million for unlawfully tracking millions of users:

A federal jury in San Francisco has ruled that Google must pay $425 million for unlawfully tracking millions of users who believed they had disabled data collection on their accounts. The verdict concludes a trial in which plaintiffs argued that Google violated its own privacy assurances through the Web & App Activity setting, collecting information from mobile devices over an eight-year period.

The Web & App Activity feature is a central component of Google's privacy controls, designed to let users manage whether their searches, location history, and interactions with Google services or partner websites and apps are stored.

When enabled, the setting can retain details such as search history, activity in Google apps, general location based on device or IP address, and browsing performed while signed into Chrome or Android devices. Users have the option to disable feature, which, according to Google's privacy documentation, should prevent this data from being added to their accounts.

However, the trial revealed that Google continued collecting data even for users who had disabled tracking. Through partnerships with major third-party apps including Uber, Venmo, Instagram, and Facebook, the company's analytics services gathered activity and usage data independently of the user's Web & App Activity settings.

Plaintiffs alleged that this enabled Google to amass vast amounts of behavioral information across its ecosystem even after users supposedly opted out.

The jury found Google liable for two of the three privacy-related claims but rejected the assertion that the company acted maliciously, declining to award additional punitive damages beyond the initial $425 million. The plaintiffs had originally sought damages exceeding $31 billion in the class-action lawsuit.

Google defended its practices, stating that it plans to contest the verdict and emphasizing that its technology gives users control over their personal data. The company argued that the jury had misunderstood how its products function and stressed that when users turn off personalization, their choices are respected.

During the proceedings, Google asserted that the data collected was nonpersonal, pseudonymous, and stored in secure, encrypted environments not linked to Google accounts or individual identities. Despite these assurances, the scope of data collection – particularly the records captured through third-party applications – played a key role in the jury's decision.

Judge Richard Seeborg certified the case to include approximately 98 million Google users and account for over 174 million devices. The ruling adds to Google's ongoing legal challenges concerning user privacy.

Earlier in 2025, the company agreed to pay nearly $1.4 billion to settle claims with the state of Texas over alleged privacy violations. In another settlement reached in April 2024, Google agreed to destroy billions of records linked to users' private browsing activities, following accusations that it tracked individuals while using Incognito mode and similar features.

Google has announced that it will pursue an appeal.

Original Submission

upstart writes:

China likely to land on Moon before US does again:

A former NASA administrator has told the US Senate Commerce Committee that it is "highly unlikely" the US will return humans to the Moon before a Chinese taikonaut plants a flag on the lunar surface.

The problem, according to Jim Bridenstine, is the architecture NASA selected to return to the Moon, and in particular the choice of SpaceX's Starship to land humans on the regolith.

Bridenstine waved away the issues with NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) – the massive rocket intended to launch humans to the Moon – noting that "it has been expensive, it had overruns, but it's behind us."

Of the Orion capsule, which will be used to transport the crew from Earth and back again, Bridenstine said: "The Orion crew capsule is not only usable today, but ultimately the cost is going down because more and more of it is reusable every time we use the Orion crew capsule. Those two elements are in good shape."

What isn't in good shape is the architecture, including the choice of SpaceX's Starship. The former administrator listed the issues. First, there was the task of getting the Human Landing System (HLS) variant of Starship to the Moon, which would require an unknown number of launches from Earth to refuel it. "By the way," said Bridenstine, "that whole in-space refueling thing has never been tested either."

Then there is human-rating the HLS variant, a process that Bridenstine noted "hasn't even started yet." He continued, noting more issues with NASA's lunar architecture. How long could the HLS variant of Starship loiter in orbit around the Moon before the crew arrived? Was putting a crew on the surface of the Moon with no means of returning to the Orion spacecraft for seven days acceptable?

"The biggest decision in the history of NASA – at least since I've been paying attention – happened in the absence of a NASA administrator, and that decision was instead of buying a moonlander, we're going to buy a big rocket."

Biggest decision? Maybe. Maybe not. Sending Apollo 8 around the Moon on the first crewed launch of a Saturn V would have to be up there, but Bridenstine's passion is undeniable.

"This is an architecture that no NASA administrator that I'm aware of would have selected had they had the choice. But it was a decision that was made in the absence of a NASA administrator. It's a problem. It needs to be solved."

The decision was taken in 2021. As well as SpaceX, Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin threw its hat into the ring alongside US-based Dynetics. At the time, NASA believed that choosing a single partner would reduce costs. Blue Origin later sued NASA over the contract award.

Neither SpaceX nor Blue Origin was present at the hearing. Bridenstine also did not offer a solution to the problem.

Original Submission

upstart writes:

New hollow-core fiber outperforms glass, pushing data closer to light speed:

A Microsoft-backed research team has set a new benchmark for optical fiber performance, developing a hollow-core cable that posts the lowest optical loss ever recorded in the industry, according to findings published in Nature Photonics. The milestone comes after years of effort by Lumenisity, a spinout from the University of Southampton's Optoelectronics Research Center, now operating under Microsoft's wing following an acquisition in 2022.

This novel fiber, utilizing a design known as double-nested antiresonant nodeless fiber (DNANF), exhibits an attenuation of just 0.091 dB/km at the 1,550-nm wavelength. For comparison, today's best silica fibers bottom out at roughly 0.14 dB/km – a figure that has remained relatively unchanged since the 1980s.

Francesco Poletti, who co-authored the research paper and helped invent the design, told The Register that the development ranks as "one of the most noteworthy improvements in waveguided optical technology for the past 40 years."

The main draw behind hollow-core fiber is the medium: while standard optical fiber guides photons through solid glass, limiting signal speed to just under 200 million meters per second, the hollow variant lets light travel through air, which increases velocity closer to the maximum of 300 million meters per second.

More speed means lower latency – an especially important metric for moving data between cloud datacenters and accelerating mobile network performance. However, earlier hollow-core designs suffered high energy loss (over 1 dB/km), restricting practical use to short and specialized links.

The DNANF fiber counters this by using concentric, micron-thin glass tubes acting as tiny mirrors, bouncing light through an air core while suppressing unwanted transmission modes. Tests conducted on kilometer-scale spools confirmed attenuation below the critical 0.1 dB/km mark using multiple measurement methods, including optical time-domain reflectometry.

The researchers report that loss remained under 0.2 dB/km across a 66-terahertz spectral band – significantly more bandwidth and flexibility than conventional fibers can offer. They also measured chromatic dispersion at levels seven times lower than those of legacy architectures, which could simplify transceiver designs and reduce network energy costs. "So you need to amplify less," Poletti explained. "It can lead to greener networks if this is how you want to exploit it."

Microsoft's acquisition of Lumenisity in 2022 signaled its intention to move hollow-core technology from academic circles into real-world infrastructure. Initial iterations achieved losses of 2.5 dB/km – respectable but uncompetitive with legacy glass fiber. Through ongoing development, Microsoft confirmed to Network World that approximately 1,200 kilometers of the new fiber are already carrying live cloud traffic. At the 2024 Ignite conference, CEO Satya Nadella announced plans to deploy 15,000 kilometers of DNANF fiber across Azure's global backbone within two years, aiming to support the explosive growth in AI workloads.

While the technology promises transmission speeds up to 45 percent faster than current solid-core options and holds the potential for five to ten times wider bandwidth, certain hurdles remain. Scaling production will require new manufacturing tools, and the fiber must undergo international standardization processes before entering mass-market use – a milestone that could take around five years. Still, the latest results mark the first time fiber that carries light through air has outpaced and outperformed the glass it was engineered to replace – a watershed moment for telecom and cloud infrastructure.

Original Submission

upstart writes:

New law emboldens complaints against digital content rentals labled as purchases:

Words have meaning. Proper word selection is integral to strong communication, whether it's about relaying one's feelings to another or explaining the terms of a deal, agreement, or transaction.

Language can be confusing, but typically when something is available to "buy," ownership of that good or access to that service is offered in exchange for money. That's not really the case, though, when it comes to digital content.

Often, streaming services like Amazon Prime Video offer customers the options to "rent" digital content for a few days or to "buy" it. Some might think that picking "buy" means that they can view the content indefinitely. But these purchases are really just long-term licenses to watch the content for as long as the streaming service has the right to distribute it—which could be for years, months, or days after the transaction.

A lawsuit [PDF] recently filed against Prime Video challenges this practice and accuses the streaming service of misleading customers by labeling long-term rentals as purchases. The conclusion of the case could have implications for how streaming services frame digital content.

[...] Despite the dismissal of similar litigation years ago, Reingold's complaint stands a better chance due to a California law that took effect in January banning the selling of a "digital good to a purchaser with the terms 'buy,' 'purchase,' or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good, or alongside an option for a time-limited rental."

There are some instances where the law allows digital content providers to use words like "buy." One example is if, at the time of transaction, the seller receives acknowledgement from the customer that the customer is receiving a license to access the digital content; that they received a complete list of the license's conditions; and that they know that access to the digital content may be "unilaterally revoked."

upstart writes:

AI tech shows promise writing emails or summarizing meetings. Don't bother with anything more complex:

A UK government department's three-month trial of Microsoft's M365 Copilot has revealed no discernible gain in productivity – speeding up some tasks yet making others slower due to lower quality outputs.

The Department for Business and Trade received 1,000 licenses for use between October and December 2024, with the majority of these allocated to volunteers and 30 percent to randomly selected participants. Some 300 of these people consented to their data being analyzed.

An evaluation of time savings, quality assurance, and productivity was then calculated in the assessment.

Overall, 72 percent of users were satisfied or very satisfied with their digital assistant and voiced disappointment when the test ended. However, the reality of productivity gains was more nuanced than Microsoft's marketing materials might suggest.

Around two-thirds of the employees in the trial used M365 at least once a week, and 30 percent used it at least once a day – which doesn't sound like great value for money.

In the UK, commercial prices range from £4.90 per user per month to £18.10, depending on business plan. This means that across a government department, those expenses could quickly mount up.

According to the M365 Copilot monitoring dashboard made available in the trial, an average of 72 M365 Copilot actions were taken per user.

"Based on there being 63 working days during the pilot, this is an average of 1.14 M365 Copilot actions taken per user per day," the study says. Word, Teams, and Outlook were the most used, and Loop and OneNote usage rates were described as "very low," less than 1 percent and 3 percent per day, respectively.

"PowerPoint and Excel were slightly more popular; both experienced peak activity of 7 percent of license holders using M365 Copilot in a single day within those applications," the study states.

The three most popular tasks involved transcribing or summarizing a meeting, writing an email, and summarizing written comms. These also had the highest satisfaction levels, we're told.

upstart writes:

'Doomer science fiction': Nvidia blasts proposed US bill that would force it to give American buyers 'first option' in AI GPU purchases before selling chips to other countries, including allies:

"The AI Diffusion Rule was a self-defeating policy, based on doomer science fiction, and should not be revived. Our sales to customers worldwide do not deprive U.S. customers of anything — and in fact expand the market for many U.S. businesses and industries. The pundits feeding fake news to Congress about chip supply are attempting to overturn President Trump's AI Action Plan and surrender America's chance to lead in AI and computing worldwide."

Original Article

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday unveiled a preliminary version of the annual defense policy package that includes a requirement for American developers of AI processors to prioritize domestic orders for high-performance AI processors before supplying them to overseas buyers and explicitly calls to deny exports of highest-end AI GPUs. The legislators call their initiative the Guaranteeing Access and Innovation for National Artificial Intelligence Act of 2025 (GAIN AI Act) and their goal is to ensure that American 'small businesses, start-ups, and universities' can lay their hands on the latest AI GPUs from AMD, Nvidia, etc before clients in other countries. However, if the bill becomes a law, it will hit American companies hard.

"Advanced AI chips are the jet engine that is going to enable the U.S. AI industry to lead for the next decade," said Brad Carson, president of Americans for Responsible Innovation (ARI). "Globally, these chips are currently supply-constrained, which means that every advanced chip sold abroad is a chip the U.S. cannot use to accelerate American R&D and economic growth. As we compete to lead on this dual-use technology, including the GAIN AI Act in the NDAA would be a major win for U.S. economic competitiveness and national security."

This GAIN AI Act demands developers of AI processors, such as AMD or Nvidia, to give U.S. buyers first opportunity to purchase advanced AI hardware before selling to foreign nations, including allied nations like European countries or the U.K. and adversaries like China. To do so, the Act proposes to establish export controls on all 'advanced' GPUs (more on this later) to be shipped outside of the U.S. and deny export licenses on the 'most powerful chips.'

To get the export license, the exporter must confirm to certain conditions:

• U.S. customers received a right to decline first;
• There is no backlog of pending U.S. orders;
• The intended export will not cause stock delays or reduce manufacturing capacity for U.S. purchasers;
• Pricing or contract terms being offered do not favor foreign recipients over U.S. customers;
• The export will not be used by foreign entities to undercut U.S. competitors outside of their domestic market.

If one of the certifications is missing, the export request must be denied, according to the proposal.

upstart writes:

Ice generates electricity when it gets stressed in a very specific way, new research suggests:

Don't mess with ice. When it's stressed, ice can get seriously sparky.

Scientists have discovered that ordinary ice—the same substance found in iced coffee or the frosty sprinkle on mountaintops—is imbued with remarkable electromechanical properties. Ice is flexoelectric, so when it's bent, stretched, or twisted, it can generate electricity, according to a Nature Physics paper published August 27. What's more, ice's peculiar electric properties appear to change with temperature, leading researchers to wonder what else it's hiding.

[...] An unsolved mystery in molecular chemistry is why the structure of ice prevents it from being piezoelectric. By piezoelectricity, scientists refer to the generation of an electric charge when mechanical stress changes a solid's overall polarity, or electric dipole moment.

The water molecules that make up an ice crystal are polarized. But when these individual molecules organize into a hexagonal crystal, the geometric arrangement randomly orients the dipoles of these water molecules. As a result, the final system can't generate any piezoelectricity.

However, it's well known that ice can naturally generate electricity, an example being how lightning strikes emerge from the collisions between charged ice particles. Because ice doesn't appear to be piezoelectric, scientists were confused as to how the ice particles became charged in the first place.

"Despite the ongoing interest and large body of knowledge on ice, new phases and anomalous properties continue to be discovered," the researchers noted in the paper, adding that this unsatisfactory knowledge gap suggests "our understanding of this ubiquitous material is incomplete."

upstart writes:

Google's penalty for being a search monopoly does not include selling Chrome:

Google has avoided the worst-case scenario in the pivotal search antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice. DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that Google doesn't have to give up the Chrome browser to mitigate its illegal monopoly in online search. The court will only require a handful of modest behavioral remedies, forcing Google to release some search data to competitors and limit its ability to make exclusive distribution deals.

More than a year ago, the Department of Justice (DOJ) secured a major victory when Google was found to have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The remedy phase took place earlier this year, with the DOJ calling for Google to divest the market-leading Chrome browser. That was the most notable element of the government's proposed remedies, but it also wanted to explore a spin-off of Android, force Google to share search technology, and severely limit the distribution deals Google is permitted to sign.

Mehta has decided on a much narrower set of remedies. While there will be some changes to search distribution, Google gets to hold onto Chrome. The government contended that Google's dominance in Chrome was key to its search lock-in, but Google claimed no other company could hope to operate Chrome and Chromium like it does. Mehta has decided that Google's use of Chrome as a vehicle for search is not illegal in itself, though. "Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture (sic) of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints," the ruling reads.

Google's proposed remedies were, unsurprisingly, much more modest. Google fully opposed the government's Chrome penalties, but it was willing to accept some limits to its search deals and allow Android OEMs to choose app preloads. That's essentially what Mehta has ruled. Under the court's ruling, Google will still be permitted to pay for search placement—those multi-billion-dollar arrangements with Apple and Mozilla can continue. However, Google cannot require any of its partners to distribute Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini. That means Google cannot, for example, make access to the Play Store contingent on bundling its other apps on phones.

upstart writes:

But TSMC vows to continue making chips on the mainland:

The U.S. has decided to revoke its special allowance for TSMC to export advanced chipmaking tools from the U.S. to its Fab 16 in Nanjing, China, by the end of the year. The decision will force the company's American suppliers to get individual government approvals for future shipments. If approvals are not granted on time, this could could affect the plant's operations.

Until now, TSMC benefited from a general approval system — enabled by its validated end-user (VEU) status with the U.S. government — that allowed routine shipments of tools produced by American companies like Applied Materials, KLA, and LAM Research without delay. Once the rule change takes effect, any covered tool, spare part, or chemical sent to the site will need to pass a separate U.S. export review, which will be made with a presumption of denial.

"TSMC has received notification from the U.S. government that our VEU authorization for TSMC Nanjing will be revoked effective December 31, 2025," a statement by TSMC sent to Tom's Hardware reads. "While we are evaluating the situation and taking appropriate measures, including communicating with the U.S. government, we remain fully committed to ensuring the uninterrupted operation of TSMC Nanjing."

TSMC currently operates two fabs in China: a 200-mm Fab 10 in Shanghai, and a 300-mm Fab 16 in Nanjing. The 200-mm fab produces chips on legacy process technologies (such as 150nm and less advanced) and flies below the U.S. government's radar. By contrast, the 300-mm semiconductor production facility makes a variety of chips (e.g., automotive chips, 5G RF components, consumer SoCs, etc.) on TSMC's 12nm FinFET, 16nm FinFET, and 28nm-class production nodes and logic technologies of 16nm and below are restricted by the U.S. government even though they debuted about 10 years ago.

[...] One of the ways for TSMC to keep its Fab 16 in Nanjing running without U.S. equipment is to replace some of the tools it imports from the U.S. with similar equipment produced in China. However, it is unclear whether it is possible, particularly for lithography.

[...] In a normal situation, TSMC would likely resist such disruption, especially for legacy nodes meant to be cost-effective, but it may be forced to switch at least some of its tools even despite the fact that it cannot fully replace American and European tools at its Fab 16 in China.

[...] If TSMC is forced to halt or drastically reduce output at its Nanjing Fab 16, the ripple effects would be favorable to Chinese foundries like SMIC and Hua Hong as China-based customers will have to reallocate their production to SMIC (which offers 14nm and 28nm) or HuaHong (which has a 28nm node), which will boost their utilization and balance sheet (assuming of course they have enough capacity).

Furthermore, a forced TSMC slowdown in China will validate People's Republic's push for semiconductor self-sufficiency, which could mean increased subsidies for chipmakers and tool makers.

Original Submission

upstart writes:

Think twice before you put anything in a form—even if it looks legit:

One of the lesser-known apps in the Google Drive online suite is Google Forms. It's an easy, intuitive way to create a web form for other people to enter information into. You can use it for employee surveys, for organizing social gatherings, for giving people a way to contact you, and much more. But Google Forms can also be used for malicious purposes.

These forms can be created in minutes, with clean and clear formatting, official-looking images and video, and—most importantly of all—a genuine Google Docs URL that your web browser will see no problem with. Scammers can then use these authentic-looking forms to ask for payment details or login information.

It's a type of scam that continues to spread, with Google itself issuing a warning about the issue in February. Students and staff at Stanford University were among those targeted with a Google Forms link that asked for login details for the academic portal there, and the attack beat standard email malware protection.

These scams can take a variety of guises, but they'll typically start with a phishing email that will try to trick you into believing it's an official and genuine communication. It might be designed to look like it's from a colleague, an administrator, or someone from a reputable organization.

[...] Even worse, the instigating email might actually come from a legitimate email address, if someone in your social circle, family, or office has had their account hijacked. In this case you wouldn't be able to run the usual checks on the sender identity and email address, because everything would look genuine—though the wording and style would be off.

This email (or perhaps a direct message on social media) will be used to deliver a Google Forms link, which is the second half of the scam. This form will most often be set up to look genuine, and may be trying to spoof a recognized site like your place of work or your bank. The form might prompt you for sensitive information, offer up a link to malware, or feature a phone number or email address to lead you into further trouble.

canopic jug writes:

Andrew Eikum has updated his blog post on passkeys. The revised title, Passkeys are incompatible with open-source software (was: "Passkey marketing is lying to you"), says it all.

Update: After reading more of the spec authors’ comments on open-source Passkey implementations, I cannot support this tech. In addition to what I covered at the bottom of this blog post, I found more instances where the spec authors have expressed positions that are incompatible with open-source software and user freedom:

When required, the authenticator must perform user verification (PIN, biometric, or some other unlock mechanism). If this is not possible, the authenticator should not handle the request.

This implementation is not spec compliant and has the potential to be blocked by relying parties.

Then you should require its use when passkeys are enabled … [You may be blocked because] you have a passkey provider that is known to not be spec compliant.

I suspect we’ll see [biometrics] required by regulation in some geo-regions.

I’ll leave the rest of the blog post as it was below, but I no longer think Passkeys are an acceptable technology. The spec authors’ statements, refusal to have a public discussion about the issues, and Passkey’s marketing, have all shown this tech is intended to support lock-in to proprietary software. While open source implementations are allowed for now, attestation provides a backdoor to lock the protocol down only to blessed implementations.

So long as the Passkey spec provides the attestation anti-feature, Passkeys are not an acceptable authentication mechanism. As a result, I’ve deleted the Passkeys I set up below in order to avoid increasing their adoption statistics.

Passkeys are cryptographic credentials marketed as operating through locally executed programs to provide authentication for remote systems and services. They are sometimes additionally tied to biometrics or hardware tokens. The jury is still out as to whether they actually improve security, or will merely continue as another vehicle for vendor lock-in. It's looking more like the latter.

Previously:
(2024) Why Passwords Still Rock

Original Submission

Snotnose writes:

People of a certain age remember when artificial blood was all the rage. Only problem was, it's recipients kept dying at a pesky rate. But now the Department of Defense is taking it seriously.

Blood runs through every human body. And yet there's still not enough of it. For one, not enough people are donating it. But it's also really hard to store, and it takes very special conditions to keep it healthy.

But there's a potential solution: an artificial version that wouldn't need to be treated quite as gently or refrigerated. The Department of Defense recently granted $46 million to the group responsible for the development of a synthetic blood called ErythroMer.

"If this synthetic blood substitute works, it could be absolutely game-changing because it can be freeze-dried, it can be reconstituted on demand, and it's universal," journalist Nicola Twilley says. It would save many lives: As she reported for the New Yorker, 30,000 preventable deaths occur each year because people didn't get blood in time.

See also: Japanese Scientists Develop Artificial Blood

Original Submission

upstart writes:

TechSpot published an interesting article about NVIDIA revenue:

While Nvidia's soaring revenues continue to command attention, its heavy reliance on a small group of clients introduces both opportunity and uncertainty. Market observers remain watchful for greater clarity around customer composition and future cloud spending, as these factors increasingly shape forecasts for the chipmaker's next phase of growth.

A new financial filing from Nvidia revealed that just two customers were responsible for 39 percent of the company's revenue during its July quarter – a concentration that is drawing renewed scrutiny from analysts and investors alike. According to documents submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, "Customer A" accounted for 23 percent of Nvidia's total revenue, while "Customer B" represented 16 percent.

This level of revenue concentration is significantly higher than in the same period one year ago, when Nvidia's top two customers contributed 14 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

Nvidia routinely discloses its leading customers on a quarterly basis. However, these latest numbers have prompted a fresh discussion about whether Nvidia's growth trajectory is heavily dependent on a small group of enormous buyers, particularly large cloud service providers.

Original Submission

hubie writes:

People who believe in conspiracy theories process information differently at the neural level:

A new brain imaging study published in Scientific Reports provides evidence that conspiracy beliefs are linked to distinct patterns of brain activity when people evaluate information. The research indicates that people who score high on conspiracy belief scales tend to engage different cognitive systems when reading conspiracy-related statements compared to factual ones. These individuals relied more heavily on regions associated with subjective value and belief uncertainty.

"Our motivation for this study came from a striking gap in the literature. While conspiracy theories have a profound impact on society—from shaping political engagement to influencing health decisions—we still know very little about how the brain processes such beliefs," said study author Shuguang Zhao of the Research Center of Journalism and Social Development at Renmin University of China.

"Previous research has focused on general belief processing, but the specific neural mechanisms that sustain conspiracy thinking remained unclear. The COVID-19 pandemic made this gap even more urgent. During this global crisis, conspiracy theories about the virus—whether it was deliberately created, or that vaccines were part of hidden agendas—spread rapidly across digital platforms."

"Such crises tend to heighten uncertainty and fear, creating fertile ground for conspiracy narratives," Zhao continued. "Observing how these beliefs flourished in real time underscored the importance of understanding not just what people believe, but how their brains evaluate and sustain these beliefs when confronted with threatening or ambiguous information."