Three years ago Strella Biotechnology launched to “try to reduce waste in the U.S. food system — a problem that by some estimates creates as much emissions as 33 million passenger vehicles,” reports the Washington Post. Alternate URL here and here.)

And today the founder’s warehouse-monitoring device — about half the size of a shoebox — watches over about 15% of all the apples grown in America:
Already, agriculture contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions than the total of all the cars, planes, trains and trucks in the world. The pressure to grow more food is leading to deforestation in the Amazon, the drying up of rivers and a greater demand for fossil fuel-based fertilizer. Anything that can be done to reduce waste and increase the productivity of existing agricultural land is a big win for the climate. [Strella CEO and founder] Sizov, 24, wants to eliminate food waste one fruit at a time…

Sizov chanced upon a website that described the climate impact of food waste — up to 4% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to analyses from ReFed, a nonprofit organization that works to reduce food waste… The problem will only intensify as the global population grows, experts say. By 2050, the United Nations expects there will be another 2 billion mouths to feed around the world, an increase of more than 25% in just three decades. And as countries such as China and India grow richer, their populations are gradually changing their eating habits: more meat, more eggs — and a bigger carbon footprint tied to raising all of those animals and clearing off land to grow more food. “If you reduce food loss and waste by 50%, you can save a lot of production emissions, but you can also avoid a heck of a lot of deforestation,” said Tim Searchinger, a senior research scholar at Princeton University’s Center for Policy Research on Energy and the Environment. Searchinger explained that after accounting for the fact that an acre of farmland could otherwise be an acre of forest, the carbon footprint of food skyrockets as trees soak up so much carbon dioxide.

Eliminating waste also happens to be a way to help farmers and grocery stores earn more money, since the more efficiently food makes it to consumers, the more cash ends up with the people who’ve done the selling… [T]hat’s where Strella’s sensors come in. They monitor ethylene, a gas key to the ripening of fruits and vegetables. Apples accelerate their production of ethylene as they grow sweeter inside the storerooms. Once they’re ready, the gas levels off, telling Strella’s monitors that they’re ready to be sent to supermarkets. Wait too long and the apples turn brown or grow mealy. If producers are lucky, they can try to break even by turning those apples into juice or applesauce. If they’re unlucky, the overripe apples end up in compost or landfills.
Ultimately one out of every five apples doesn’t make it from the warehouse to the supermarket, the Post points out (while some others lose their crunch). So Sizov hopes their waste-reducing technology will catch on because it’s also a way to reduce business losses. “There’s a direct alignment of a sustainable goal with a profitability incentive.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Reducing Emissions by Reducing Agricultural Waste – Starting with Apple-Monitoring Tech

MIT’s Technology Review shares data from a Facebook-run tool called CrowdTangle. It shows that by 2018 in the nation of Myanmar (population: 53 million), ” All the engagement had instead gone to fake news and clickbait websites.

“In a country where Facebook is synonymous with the internet, the low-grade content overwhelmed other information sources.”

[T]he sheer volume of fake news and clickbait acted like fuel on the flames of already dangerously high ethnic and religious tensions. It shifted public opinion and escalated the conflict, which ultimately led to the death of 10,000 Rohingya, by conservative estimates, and the displacement of 700,000 more. In 2018, a United Nations investigation determined that the violence against the Rohingya constituted a genocide and that Facebook had played a “determining role” in the atrocities. Months later, Facebook admitted it hadn’t done enough “to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence.” Over the last few weeks, the revelations from the Facebook Papers, a collection of internal documents provided to Congress and a consortium of news organizations by whistleblower Frances Haugen, have reaffirmed what civil society groups have been saying for years: Facebook’s algorithmic amplification of inflammatory content, combined with its failure to prioritize content moderation outside the US and Europe, has fueled the spread of hate speech and misinformation, dangerously destabilizing countries around the world.

But there’s a crucial piece missing from the story. Facebook isn’t just amplifying misinformation.

The company is also funding it.

An MIT Technology Review investigation, based on expert interviews, data analyses, and documents that were not included in the Facebook Papers, has found that Facebook and Google are paying millions of ad dollars to bankroll clickbait actors, fueling the deterioration of information ecosystems around the world.

Facebook pays them for permission to open their content within Facebook’s app (where Facebook controls the advertising) rather than having users clickthrough to the publisher’s own web site, reports Technology Review:
Early on, Facebook performed little quality control on the types of publishers joining the program. The platform’s design also didn’t sufficiently penalize users for posting identical content across Facebook pages — in fact, it rewarded the behavior. Posting the same article on multiple pages could as much as double the number of users who clicked on it and generated ad revenue. Clickbait farms around the world seized on this flaw as a strategy — one they still use today… Clickbait actors cropped up in Myanmar overnight. With the right recipe for producing engaging and evocative content, they could generate thousands of U.S. dollars a month in ad revenue, or 10 times the average monthly salary — paid to them directly by Facebook.

An internal company document, first reported by MIT Technology Review in October, shows that Facebook was aware of the problem as early as 2019… At one point, as many as 60% of the domains enrolled in Instant Articles were using the spammy writing tactics employed by clickbait farms, the report said…

75% of users who were exposed to clickbait content from farms run in Macedonia and Kosovo had never followed any of the pages. Facebook’s content-recommendation system had instead pushed it into their news feeds.

Technology Review notes that Facebook now pays billions of dollars to the publishers in their program. It’s a long and detailed article, which ultimately concludes that the problem “is now happening on a global scale.”

Thousands of clickbait operations have sprung up, primarily in countries where Facebook’s payouts provide a larger and steadier source of income than other forms of available work. Some are teams of people while others are individuals, abetted by cheap automated tools that help them create and distribute articles at mass scale…

Google is also culpable. Its AdSense program fueled the Macedonia- and Kosovo-based farms that targeted American audiences in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. And it’s AdSense that is incentivizing new clickbait actors on YouTube to post outrageous content and viral misinformation.

Reached for comment, a Facebook spokesperson told Technology Review that they’d misunderstood the issue. And the spokesperson also said “we’ve invested in building new expert-driven and scalable solutions to these complex issues for many years, and will continue doing so.”

Google’s spokesperson confirmed examples in the article violated their own policies and removed the content, adding “We work hard to protect viewers from clickbait or misleading content across our platforms and have invested heavily in systems that are designed to elevate authoritative information.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – How Facebook and Google Actually Fund the Creation of Misinformation

Long-time Slashdot reader destinyland writes: This week Marvel released an epic three-minute trailer hyping December’s releases of Spider-Man: No Way Home. “It comes after the initial trailer, which focused on the movie’s multiversal villains, broke YouTube records over the summer,” CNET reported Tuesday (racking up 355.5 million views in its first 24 hours).

But then one more universe collided…

Basically, some internet wise guys re-edited the trailer, splicing its audio over clips from the Fox Kids’ 1994 cartoon series Spider-Man. (Opening credits here.) “This has no right being this good,” argues CNET — especially since the actual movie’s trailer arrived “amidst a ludicrous amount of fanfare and hype.”

But it’s all oddly appropriate, since CNET notes the upcoming movie features five sinister villains from nearly 20 years of Spider-Man movies, reaching back to the Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield era (“likely spurred on by the events of the Disney Plus Loki series.”)
So maybe it’s fitting that it was also invaded by the television cartoon universe…

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – ‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ Trailer Remade With Footage From the 1990’s Cartoon

America’s push to manufacturer more products domestically gets an in-depth look from CNET — including a new Intel chip factory outside of Phoenix.

CNET calls it a fork in the road “after squandering its lead because of a half decade of problems modernizing its manufacturing…”

With “a decade of bad decisions, this doesn’t get fixed overnight,” says Pat Gelsinger, Intel’s new chief executive, in an interview. “But the bottom is behind us and the slope is starting to feel increasingly strong….” More fabs are on the way, too. In an enormous empty patch of dirt at its existing Arizona site, Intel has just begun building fabs 52 and 62 at a total cost of $20 billion, set to make Intel’s most advanced chips, starting in 2024. Later this year, it hopes to announce the U.S. location for its third major manufacturing complex, a 1,000-acre site costing about $100 billion. The spending commitment makes this year’s $3.5 billion upgrade to its New Mexico fab look cheap. The goal is to restore the U.S. share of chip manufacturing, which has slid from 37% in 1990 to 12% today. “Over the decade in front of us, we should be striving to bring the U.S. to 30% of worldwide semiconductor manufacturing,” Gelsinger says…

But returning Intel to its glory days — and anchoring a resurgent U.S. electronics business in the process — is much easier said than done. Making chips profitably means running fabs at maximum capacity to pay off the gargantuan investments required to stay at the leading edge. A company that can’t keep pace gets squeezed out, like IBM in 2014 or Global Foundries in 2018. To catch up after its delays, Intel now plans to upgrade its manufacturing five times in the next four years, a breakneck pace by industry standards. “This new roadmap that they announced is really aggressive,” says Linley Group analyst Linley Gwennap. “I don’t have any idea how they are going to accomplish all of that….”

Gelsinger has a tech-first recovery plan. He’s pledged to accelerate manufacturing upgrades to match the technology of TSMC and Samsung by 2024 and surpass them in 2025. He’s opening Intel’s fabs to other companies that need chips built through its new Intel Foundry Services (IFS). And he’s relying on other foundries, including TSMC, for about a quarter of Intel’s near-term chipmaking needs to keep its chips more competitive during the upgrades. This three-pronged strategy is called IDM (integrated design and manufacturing) 2.0. That’s a new take on Intel’s philosophy of both designing and making chips. It’s more ambitious than the future some had expected, in which Intel would sell its factories and join the ranks of “fabless” chip designers like Nvidia, AMD and Qualcomm that rely on others for manufacturing…

Shareholders may not like Gelsinger’s spending-heavy strategy, but one community really does: Intel’s engineers… Gelsigner told the board that Intel is done with stock buybacks, a financial move in which a company uses its cash to buy stock and thereby increase its price. “We’re investing in factories,” he told me. “That’s going to be the use of our cash….”

“We cannot recall the last time Intel put so many stakes in the ground,” said BMO Capital Markets analyst Ambrish Srivastava in a July research report after Intel announced its schedule.

Intel will even outpace Moore’s law, Gelsinger tells CNET — more than doubling the transistor count on processors every two years. “I believe that you’re going to see from 2025 to 2035 a very healthy period for Moore’s Law-like behavior.”

Although that still brings some risk to Intel’s investments if they have to pass the costs on to customer, a Linley Group analyst points out to CNET. “Moore’s Law is not going to end when we can’t build smaller transistors. It’s going to end when somebody says I don’t want to pay for smaller transistors.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Intel’s Expensive New Plan to Upgrade Its Chip Technology – and US Manufacturing

Cryptographers are upset that “crypto” sometimes now refers to cryptocurrency, reports the Guardian:

This lexical shift has weighed heavily on cryptographers, who, over the past few years, have repeated the rallying cry “Crypto means cryptography” on social media. T-shirts and hoodies trumpet the phrase and variations on it; there’s a website dedicated solely to clarifying the issue. “‘Crypto’ for decades has been used as shorthand and as a prefix for things related to cryptography,” said Amie Stepanovich, executive director of Silicon Flatirons Center at the University of Colorado Law School and creator of the pro-cryptography T-shirts, which have become a hit at conferences. “In fact, in the term cryptocurrency, the prefix crypto refers back to cryptography….”

[T]here remains an internecine feud among the tech savvy about the word. As Parker Higgins of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, who has spent years involved in cryptography activism, pointed out, the cryptography crowd is by nature deeply invested in precision — after all, designing and cracking codes is an endeavor in which, if you get things “a little wrong, it can blow the whole thing up….”

“Strong cryptography is a cornerstone of the way that people talk about privacy and security, and it has been under attack for decades” by governments, law enforcement, and “all sorts of bad actors”, Higgins said. For its defenders, confusion over terminology creates yet another challenge.

Stepanovich acknowledged the challenge of opposing the trend, but said the weight of history is on her side. “The study of crypto has been around for ever,” she said. “The most famous code is known as the Caesar cipher, referring to Julius Caesar. This is not new.” Cryptocurrency, on the other hand, is a relatively recent development, and she is not ready to concede to “a concept that may or may not survive government regulation”.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Cryptographers Aren’t Happy With How You’re Using the Word ‘Crypto’