Log in
Look it's the only test with no false negatives.
I'm doomed
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Ocean waves crashing on the world's shores emit more PFAS into the air than the world's industrial polluters, new research has found, raising concerns about environmental contamination and human exposure along coastlines. The study measured levels of PFAS released from the bubbles that burst when waves crash, spraying aerosols into the air. It found sea spray levels were hundreds of thousands times higher than levels in the water. The contaminated spray likely affects groundwater, surface water, vegetation, and agricultural products near coastlines that are far from industrial sources of PFAS, said Ian Cousins, a Stockholm University researcher and the study's lead author. "There is evidence that the ocean can be an important source [of PFAS air emissions]," Cousins said. "It is definitely impacting the coastline."
The Stockholm researchers several years ago found that PFAS from ocean waves crashing are released into the air around shorelines, then can travel thousands of kilometers through the atmosphere before the chemicals return to land. The new research looked at levels in the sea spray as waves crash by testing ocean samples between Southampton in the UK and Chile. The chemicals' levels were higher in the northern hemisphere in general because it is more industrialized and there is not much mixing of water across the equator, Cousins said. It is unclear what the findings mean for human exposure. Inhalation of PFAS is an issue, but how much of the chemicals are breathed in, and air concentrations further from the waves, is still unknown.
The Stockholm researchers several years ago found that PFAS from ocean waves crashing are released into the air around shorelines, then can travel thousands of kilometers through the atmosphere before the chemicals return to land. The new research looked at levels in the sea spray as waves crash by testing ocean samples between Southampton in the UK and Chile. The chemicals' levels were higher in the northern hemisphere in general because it is more industrialized and there is not much mixing of water across the equator, Cousins said. It is unclear what the findings mean for human exposure. Inhalation of PFAS is an issue, but how much of the chemicals are breathed in, and air concentrations further from the waves, is still unknown.
the ocean that has PFASs from .. industrial polluters, right?
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
There’s treasures hidden in old technology, and you deserve to be able to revive it. Whether it’s old personal computer platforms, vending machines, robot arms, or educational kits based on retro platforms, you will need to work with parallel EEPROM chips at some point. [Anders Nielsen] was about to do just that, when he found out that a TL866, a commonly used programmer kit for such ROMs, would cost entire $70 – significantly raising the budget of any parallel ROM-involving hacking. After months of work, he is happy to bring us a project – the Relatively Universal ROM Programmer, an open-source parallel ROM programmer board that you can easily assemble or buy.
Designed in the Arduino shield format, there’s a lot of care and love put into making this board as universal as reasonably possible, so that it fits any of the old flash chips you might want to flash – whether it’s an old UV-erasable ROM that wants a voltage up to 30 V to be written, or the newer 5 V-friendly chips. You can use ICs with pin count from 24 to 32 pins, it’s straightforward to use a ZIF socket with this board, there’s LED indication and silkscreen markings so that you can see and tweak the programming process, and it’s masterfully optimized for automated assembly.
You can breadboard this programmer platform as we’ve previously covered, you can assemble our own boards using the open-source files, and if you don’t want to do either, you can buy the assembled boards from [Anders Nielsen] too! The software is currently work in progress, since that’s part of the secret sauce that makes the $70 programmers tick. You do need to adjust the programming voltage manually, but that can be later improved with a small hardware fix. In total, if you just want to program a few ROM chips, this board saves you a fair bit of money.
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an order against BloomTech and its CEO, Austen Allred, for deceiving students about the cost of loans and making false claims about graduates’ hiring rates. The CFPB found that BloomTech and Allred falsely told students the school’s “income share” agreement contracts were not loans, when in fact the agreements were loans carrying an average finance charge of around $4,000. BloomTech and Allred lured prospective enrollees with inflated promises of job-placement rates as high as 86 percent, when the company’s internal metrics showed placement rates closer to 50 percent and in some cases as low as 30 percent. The order permanently bans BloomTech from all consumer-lending activities and bans Allred from any student-lending activities for ten years. The CFPB is also ordering BloomTech and Allred to cease collecting payments on income share loans for graduates who did not have a qualifying job, eliminate finance changes for certain agreements, and allow students the option to withdraw without penalty. BloomTech and Allred must also pay over $164,000 in civil penalties, which will be deposited in the CFPB’s victims relief fund.
“BloomTech and its CEO sought to drive students toward income share loans that were marketed as risk-free, but in fact carried significant finance charges and many of the same risks as other credit products,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Today’s action underscores our increased focus on investigating individual executives and, when appropriate, charging them with breaking the law.”
BloomTech is a for-profit vocational school that is headquartered in San Francisco and owned primarily by Allred and various Silicon Valley venture-capital funds. Allred founded the company as the Lambda School in 2017, and rebranded it as BloomTech or the Bloom Institute of Technology in 2022.
BloomTech operates short-term, typically six-to-nine-month training programs in areas such as web development, data science, and backend engineering. Since 2017, BloomTech originated at least 11,000 income share loans, with most of BloomTech students funding their tuition with these loans. Under almost all these loans, students who earn more than $50,000 in a related field are required to pay BloomTech 17 percent of their pre-tax income each month until they make 24 payments or hit a “cap” of $30,000 in total payments.
The CFPB found that BloomTech students were lured with false promises and deceptive marketing. BloomTech and Allred:
- Hid the cost and true nature of students’ debt: BloomTech falsely claimed its “income share” agreements were not loans, did not create debt, did not carry a finance charge, and were “risk free.” In fact, the agreements are loans with an average finance charge of $4,000. The loans carry substantial risk, as a single missed payment triggers a default and the remainder of the $30,000 “cap” becomes due immediately. BloomTech further hid the cost and nature of the “income share” loans by not disclosing key terms like the finance charge and annual percentage rate, as required by law.
- Tricked prospective students with inflated job-placement rates: BloomTech advertised on its website that 71 to 86 percent of students were placed in jobs within six months of graduation, when its non-public reporting to investors consistently showed placement rates closer to 50 percent. Allred tweeted that the school achieved a 100 percent job-placement rate in one of its cohorts, and later acknowledged in a private message that the sample size was just one student.
- Misrepresented their financial interests by selling loans to investors: BloomTech’s marketing represented that its own interests were aligned with students, through claims such as “We don’t get paid until you do,” and “Because we invest in you, instead of the other way around, we only make money when you do.” In fact, the company was selling many “income share” loans to investors and thus often got paid long before a student finished the program and started earning a salary.
- Engaged in illegal contract practices: BloomTech violated a federal consumer protection known as the Holder Rule, by failing to include a required provision making any owner of the loan subject to the legal claims and defenses that students could assert against BloomTech. Students were therefore deprived of rights they should have had when their “income share” loan was sold to an investor.
Enforcement Action
Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions violating consumer financial laws, including engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB found that BloomTech and Allred used deceptive statements and took unreasonable advantage of consumers’ reasonable reliance on BloomTech to act in their interests.
Under the CFPB’s order, BloomTech and Allred must:
- Cease collecting payments on certain graduates: BloomTech must not collect any additional payments on “income share” loans for graduates who did not have a qualifying job in the past year.
- Amends “income share” loan contracts: The order reforms “income share” loan terms to eliminate the finance charge for consumers who graduated the program more than 18 months ago and obtained a qualifying job making $70,000 or less.
- Allow students to withdraw without penalty: Current students will have the option to withdraw from the program and cancel their “income share” loans or continue in the program with a third-party loan.
- Pay over $164,000 in penalties: BloomTech will pay over $64,000 and Allred will pay $100,000 in penalties to the CFPB’s victims relief fund.
Consumers can also submit complaints about financial products or services by visiting the CFPB’s website or by calling (855) 411-CFPB (2372).
Employees of companies who they believe their company has violated federal consumer financial laws are encouraged to send information about what they know to whistleblower@cfpb.gov.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that implements and enforces Federal consumer financial law and ensures that markets for consumer financial products are fair, transparent, and competitive. For more information, visit www.consumerfinance.gov.
> Allred tweeted that the school achieved a 100 percent job-placement rate in one of its cohorts, and later acknowledged in a private message that the sample size was just one student.
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
Washington, DC
Today Boston Dynamics announced the retirement of their Atlas robot. Boston Dynamics shared this video on Youtube!
For almost a decade, Atlas has sparked our imagination, inspired the next generations of roboticists, and leapt over technical barriers in the field. Now it’s time for our hydraulic Atlas robot to kick back and relax. Take a look back at everything we’ve accomplished with the Atlas platform to date.
I LIKE BOX
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
I’ve been hearing and reading a lot about AI agents lately.
Ezra Klein has been discussing them all month on his podcast, in a pretty excellent interview series. WIRED’s Will Knight wrote a newsletter last month with the headline “The Age of AI Agents Is Fast Approaching.” The general consensus seems to be that this is where we’re headed.
I have my doubts.
As background, an AI agent is a piece of software that can complete tasks on your behalf. Ezra provides a clarifying example in his most recent interview:
“The example I always use in my head is, when can I tell an A.I., my son is turning five. He loves dragons. We live in Brooklyn. Give me some options for planning his birthday party. And then, when I choose between them, can you just do it all for me? Order the cake, reserve the room, send out the invitations, whatever it might be.”
That’s a tight and evocative description. You can immediately see the appeal, right? It is, broadly speaking, rich-people-shit. One of the (many) advantages that the wealthy have over the rest of us is that they can afford a personal staff that takes care of everyday-life time sinks. Planning a kid’s birthday, figuring out travel logistics, submitting paperwork, etc. Our normal daily lives include an inordinate number of tasks that consume time and mental energy. Rich people can hire someone to handle all that stuff. The rest of us just grin and bear it.
The promise of software agents is that sometime, in the not-too-distant future, the trappings of rich-people-shit could become available to the rest of us.
I’d love to believe in that promise. I am, amongst other things, a perpetually-overwhelmed parent. If technology could reliably help me manage the day-to-day life churn, I would be thrilled.
And Klein’s reasoning is facially quite strong: A whole lot of very well-funded businesses are working quite hard to build software agents right now. The technical hurdles are comparatively small. They have (much of) the necessary technology. They have the funding. They (likely) have (some) market demand. This is not an absurd belief for Ezra to have arrived at.
But I keep being troubled by the ghosts of digital futures’ past. These promises are not new. Nicholas Negroponte and the MIT Media Lab folks were insisting that the age of software agents was imminent in the early ‘90s. Douglas Adams wrote and performed Hyperland, a “documentary of the future,” for the BBC in 1990. it featured Tom Baker as the personified software agent, dressed up as a literal butler.
Instead of software agents acting as personalized digital butlers, we ended up with algorithmic feeds and the infinite scroll.
Facebook’s algorithm is personalized, sure, but it is designed to maximize value for Facebook by keeping you within the company’s walled garden. Amazon’s algorithm is optimized to sell you the most products.
These are not digital butlers. They are digital sales associates.
And, with the benefit of hindsight, we can generalize this phenomenon: the trajectory of any new technology bends toward money.
We could have developed software agents 10, 20, 30 years ago. Software engineers were working quite hard on it. They started companies and obtained funding. The technical hurdles were comparatively small. But there was little money in it. And, in a VC-dominated marketplace, we do not get products that would be useful to the end-user unless they hold the promise of phenomenal financial returns to the investors.
We didn’t get free (or cheap) digital-butlers-for-everyone, because there was no money it.
That’s why the current wave of enthusiasm seems like a hype bubble to me. I am seeing a lot of very smart, normally insightful people being taken in by the idea of “AI personal assistants for the masses,” without asking what the revenue model is meant to resemble.
And let’s be clear: Dario Amodei is casually dropping numbers like “$5 or $10 billion” to train the next-generation models that are supposed to make these AI agents possible. That’s the financial hole these AI agents are somehow meant to fill. And that’s just for starters.
The promise of personalization in internet-futures-past went unfufilled, because the money wasn’t in personalizing to your interests. The money was in keeping you on-site, seeing targeted ads. And, again, the trajectory of the future bends toward money.
Sam Altman says we’ll have agents. Sam Altman says a lot of things. Most of what he says is tuned to what he senses people want to hear at any given juncture. But what is the revenue model for personalized agents? In particular, what is the revenue model that might convince investors over the longer term that it could go to infinity.
(Side note: a number of tech critics have been arguing that AI hype is nearly over, because it’s becoming obvious that the tech companies are spending billions to make millions. I want to gently suggest that these critics are not yet jaundiced enough. The companies are spending billions on a loss-leading product that juices their stock price and makes them worth paper-trillions. The OpenAI investment doesn’t need to generate more sales than MSFT spends on it. It just needs to keep the share price absurdly high. It’s ridiculous, and further evidence that our entire economy is just derivative financial products at this point. But that’s the absurd state of things right now.)
Agents, if they are developed at all, are going to be a bespoke, luxury good. They’ll be for discerning customers with money to spend on personalization. The business class lounge set. The rest of us will get info-sludge and degraded public services. That’s the status quo ante, at least. It’s what will happen if we don’t resist, and collectively demand a better future.
I’d like it to be otherwise. And I plan to keep a close eye on this, since it sort of represents a hard test of my broader thesis about how technologies develop.
A lot of companies are trying to build AI agents right now. They are well funded. There is supply.
The appeal of AI agents, if a smooth and trustworthy product can be brought to market, is undeniable. …Holy hell would it be nice if AI could make the trappings of rich-people-shit available to the rest of us, just this once.
But we are still living in the free trial period of these technologies. The trajectory of the future bends toward money.
So, either a market is going to develop for subsidizing these tools (packaging and reselling all of our behavioral and personal data, for instance), or the products will be rendered unaffordable to the mass public.
If you want to know where social technologies are headed, don’t focus on what the technology might be used for under ideal conditions.
Focus on the direction that currently-existing market forces will channel it.
And if that direction looks bad, exert pressure on public officials accordingly.
Maybe I’ll be wrong. Maybe I’ll revisit this post in 2029 and, with the benefit of all the time made available by my digital personal assistant, compose a thoughtful mea culpa.
But, for the time being, I would urge you to be skeptical of the promise of AI agents.
Until someone can explain how we’re going to pay these digital butlers, I’m going to assume they aren’t ever going to be available to the masses. That’s not their purpose in this story. Their purpose is to get us excited about the promise of AI, to place our faith in these tech firms (old and new) under the assumption that the benefits will be broadly distributed sometime later.
"If you want to know where social technologies are headed, don’t focus on what the technology might be used for under ideal conditions.
Focus on the direction that currently-existing market forces will channel it.
And if that direction looks bad, exert pressure on public officials accordingly."
Focus on the direction that currently-existing market forces will channel it.
And if that direction looks bad, exert pressure on public officials accordingly."
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
"Until someone can explain how we’re going to pay these digital butlers, I’m going to assume they aren’t ever going to be available to the masses. That’s not their purpose in this story. Their purpose is to get us excited about the promise of AI, to place our faith in these tech firms (old and new) under the assumption that the benefits will be broadly distributed sometime later."
Berlin/Germany
Next Page of Stories