Popular genetics tests can’t tell you much about your dog’s personality, according to a recent study.

A team of geneticists recently found no connection between simple genetic variants and behavioral traits in more than 3,200 dogs, even though previous studies suggested that hundreds of genes might predict aspects of a dog’s behavior and personality. That’s despite the popularity of at-home genetic tests that claim they can tell you whether your dog’s genes contain the recipe for anxiety or a fondness for cuddles.

This is Max, and no single genetic variant can explain why he is the way he is.
Credit:
Kiona Smith

Gattaca for dogs, except it doesn’t work

University of Massachusetts genomicist Kathryn Lord and her colleagues compared DNA sequences and behavioral surveys from more than 3,000 dogs whose humans had enrolled them in the Darwin’s Ark project (and filled out the surveys). “Genetic tests for behavioral and personality traits in dogs are now being marketed to pet owners, but their predictive accuracy has not been validated,” wrote Lord and her colleagues in their recent paper.

Read full article

Comments

Wired published an article by California-based writer/programmer Sheon Han arguing that Ruby “is not a serious programming language.”

Han believes that the world of programming has “moved on”, and “everything Ruby does, another language now does better, leaving it without a distinct niche.

Ruby is easy on the eyes. Its syntax is simple, free of semicolons or brackets. More so even thanPython — a language known for its readability — Ruby reads almost like plain English… Ruby, you might’ve guessed, is dynamically typed. Python and JavaScript are too, but over the years, those communities have developed sophisticated tools to make them behave more responsibly. None of Ruby’s current solutions are on par with those. It’s far too conducive to what programmers call “footguns,” features that make it all too easy to shoot yourself in the foot.

Critically, Ruby’s performance profile consistently ranks near the bottom (read: slowest) among major languages. You may remember Twitter’s infamous “fail whale,” the error screen with a whale lifted by birds that appeared whenever the service went down. You could say that Ruby was largely to blame. Twitter’s collapse during the 2010 World Cup served as a wake-up call, and the company resolved to migrate its backend to Scala, a more robust language.

The move paid off: By the 2014 World Cup, Twitter handled a record 32 million tweets during the final match without an outage. Its new Scala-based backend could process up to 100 times faster than Ruby. In the 2010s, a wave of companies replaced much of their Ruby infrastructure, and when legacy Ruby code remained, new services were written in higher-performance languages.

You may wonderwhy people are still using Ruby in 2025. It survives because of its parasitic relationship with Ruby on Rails, the web framework that enabled Ruby’s widespread adoption and continues to anchor its relevance…. Rails was the framework of choice for a new generation of startups. The main code bases of Airbnb, GitHub, Twitter, Shopify, and Stripe were built on it.

He points out on Stack Overflow’s annual developer survey, Ruby has slipped from a top-10 technology in 2013 to #18 this year — “behind evenAssembly” — calling Ruby “a kind of professional comfort object, sustained by the inertia of legacy code bases and the loyalty of those who first imprinted upon it.” But the article drew some criticism on X.com. (“You should do your next piece about how Vim isn’t a serious editor and continue building your career around nerd sniping developers.”)

Other reactions…

“Maybe WIRED is just not a serious medium…”
“FWIW — Ruby powered Shopify through another Black Friday / Cyber Monday — breaking last year’s record.”
“Maybe you should have taken a look at TypeScript…”

Wired’s subheading argues that Ruby “survives on affection, not utility. Let’s move on.” Are they right? Share your own thoughts and experiences in the comments.

Is Ruby still a ‘serious’ programming language?

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank calls himself “a highly creative hypochondriac” — who just paid for an expensive MRI scan to locate abnormal spots as tiny as 2 millimeters.

He discusses the pros and cons of its “diffusion-weighted imaging” technology combined with the pattern recognition of AI, which theoretically “has the potential to save our lives by revealing budding cancers, silent aneurysms and other hidden would-be killers before they become deadly. ”

But the scans cost $2,500 a pop and insurance won’t pay. Worse, for every cancer these MRIs find, they produce a slightly greater number of false positives that require a biopsy, with the potential for infection and bleeding and emotional distress. Even when the scans don’t produce a false positive, they almost always come up with some vague and disconcerting abnormality…. Will we feel better after viewing our insides? Or will we become anxious about things we hadn’t even thought to worry about?

Part of living has always been in the mystery, in not knowing what tomorrow will bring. Now, because of sophisticated imaging, genome sequencing and other revolutionary screening tools, we can have predictability, or at least the illusion of it. But do we want that? The American College of Radiology says we do not. Its still-current 2023 statement says there is not “sufficient evidence” to recommend full-body screening, cautioning that the scan could lead to needless testing and expense. But David Larson, chair of ACR’s Commission on Quality and Safety, told me that could change as more data comes in. “When people ask me, ‘Would you recommend it?’ I would say it depends on your tolerance for ambiguity,” he said, giving the example of somebody found to have a borderline aortic aneurysm who is advised to wait and monitor it. If “that won’t keep you up at night, then I wouldn’t necessarily recommend against it….”

About 1 in 20 gets that dreaded call. A study Prenuvo presented earlier this year of 1,011 participants found that 4.9 percent of scans required a follow-up biopsy. Of those, 2.2 percent were actually cancer, and the other 2.7 percent were false positives. Of the 22 cancers the scans caught, 86 percent of patients had no specific symptoms. But if finding something truly awful is rare, finding something abnormal is almost guaranteed. [Vikash Modi, Prenuvo’s senior medical director of preventative medicine] said only 1 in 20 scans come back completely clean. The vast majority of patients wind up in the ambiguous realm where something may look suspicious but doesn’t require urgent follow-up.
He opted for the cheaper $1,000 torso scan, which the senior medical director calls “our bread-and-butter area,” since 17 of the 22 cancers detected in one Prenuvo study were in that area and is where they often find cancers that wouldn’t be discovered until they were incurable like “that scary pancreatic stuff….”

Milbank’s scan found 12 “abnormalities” included “a 2.5 mm pulmonary nodule in the right lower lobe” and “a 4.6 mm intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm in the pancreatic tail” — but with 10 abnormalities labeled “minor” (and six being musculoskeletal wear-and-tear problems “I already knew about from the usual aches and pains”.)
Even the two “moderate” findings didn’t sound that grim when I read on. The “indeterminant lesion” in my lung requires no follow-up, while the thing in my pancreas is “low-risk.”… The “most interesting” finding was the pancreatic cyst, because, at this size and location, there’s a 3 percent chance it will become cancerous in the next five years. But if annual follow-up scans of my pancreas (covered by insurance) show it’s getting bigger, the cyst can be removed before it becomes cancer. For me, this made the MRI worthwhile. Sure, there was a 97 percent likelihood the cyst never would develop into a problem even if I hadn’t learned about it. But now, with minimal inconvenience, I can eliminate that 3 percent risk of getting pancreatic cancer, the most lethal of major malignancies.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

“First the penny. Next, paper checks?” asks CNN:

When the U.S. Mint stopped making pennies last month for the first time in 238 years, it drew a lot of attention. But there have been quiet moves to stop using paper checks as well. The government stopped sending out most paper checks to recipients as of the end of September, part of an effort to fully modernize federal benefits payments. And on Thursday the Federal Reserve put out a notice that suggested it is considering — but only considering — the “winding down” of checking services it now provides for banks.

The central bank’s statement said that as an alternative to winding down those services, it is mulling more investment in its check processing services, but noted that would come at a higher cost. But it is also considering not making any such investments, in order to keep costs roughly unchanged. That would lead to reduced reliability of those services going forward. “Over time, check use has steadily declined, digital payment methods have grown in availability and use, and check fraud has risen,” said the notice from the Fed. “Also, the Reserve Banks will need to make substantial investments in their check infrastructure to continue providing the same level of check services going forward.”

A report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in June found that as of last year, more than 90% of surveyed consumers said they prefer to use something other than a check for paying bills, and just 6% paid by check. That’s a sharp drop from the 18% of bills paid by checks as recently as 2017. Consumers also reported they view checks as second-worst for convenience and speed of payment, ahead of only money orders. And they’re ranked as the least secure form of any payment other than cash.

But even if it’s true that options such as direct deposit, automatic bill paying and electronic payment systems such as Venmo, PayPal and Zelle have all reduced the need for traditional checks, paper checks are still an important part of the payment system. They make up about 5% of transactions and represent 21% of the value of all those payments, according to a statement from Michelle Bowman, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, who dissented from the Fed’s Thursday statement.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Bloomberg reports that Google “must renegotiate any contract to make its search engine or artificial intelligence app the default for smartphones and other devices every year, a federal judge ruled.”

Judge Amit Mehta in Washington sided with the US Justice Department on the one year limitation in his final ruling on what changes the search giant must make in the wake of a landmark ruling that the company illegally monopolized online search. The yearly renegotiation will give rivals — particularly those in the burgeoning generative AI field — a chance to compete for key placements.

The final judgment will still allow Google to offer its products to Apple Inc. for use in its popular iPhone and pay other electronics makers like Samsung Electronics Co. for default placement. But the judge said those contracts must be renegotiated annually. Mehta noted in his ruling that both Google and the US government said they could work with the one-year limitation on default contracts. As such, “the court holds that a hard-and-fast termination requirement after one year would best carry out the purpose of the injunctive relief.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

“Woman Hailed as Hero for Smashing Man’s Meta Smart Glasses on Subway,” reads the headline at Futurism:

As Daily Dot reports, a New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses. “She just broke my Meta glasses,” said the TikTok user, who goes by eth8n, in a video that has since garnered millions of views.

“You’re going to be famous on the internet!” he shouted at her through the window after getting off the train. The accused woman, however, peered back at him completely unfazed, as if to say that he had it coming.

“I was making a funny noise people were honestly crying laughing at,” he claimed in the caption of a followup video. “She was the only person annoyed…” But instead of coming to his support, the internet wholeheartedly rallied behind the alleged perpetrator, celebrating the woman as a folk hero — and perfectly highlighting how the public feels about gadgets like Meta’s smart glasses.

“Good, people are tired of being filmed by strangers,” one user commented.
“The fact that no one else on the train is defending him is telling,” another wrote…
Others accused the man of fabricating details of the incident. “‘People were crying laughing’ — I’ve never heard a less plausible NYC subway story,” one user wrote.

In a comment on TikTok, the man acknowledges he’d filmed her on the subway — it looks like he even zoomed in. The man says then her other options were “asking nicely to not post it or blur my face”.

He also warns that she could get arrested for breaking his glasses if he “felt like it”. (And if he sees her again.) “I filed a claim with the police and it’s a misdemeanor charge.” A subsequent video’s captions describe him unboxing new Meta smartglasses “and I’m about to do my thing again… no crazy lady can stop me now.”

I’m imagining being mugged — and then telling the mugger “You’re going to be internet famous!”
But maybe that just shows how easy it is to weaponize smartglasses and their potential for vast public exposure.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A federal judge has expanded on the remedies decided for the Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google, ruling in favor of putting a one-year limit on the contracts that make Google’s search and AI services the default on devices, Bloomberg reports. Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling on Friday means Google will have to renegotiate these contacts every year, which would create a fairer playing field for its competitors. The new details come after Mehta ruled in September that Google would not have to sell off Chrome, as the DOJ proposed at the end of 2024. 

This all follows the ruling last fall that Google illegally maintained an internet search monopoly through actions including paying companies such as Apple to make its search engine the default on their devices and making exclusive deals around the distribution of services such as Search, Chrome and Gemini. Mehta’s September ruling put an end to these exclusive agreements and stipulates that Google will have to share some of its search data with rivals to “narrow the scale gap” its actions have created. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/judge-puts-a-one-year-limit-on-googles-contracts-for-default-search-placement-215549614.html?src=rss