185577306
submission
ardiri writes:
Long-time Slashdot reader Aaron Ardiri, whose Palm OS work has appeared here a few times over the years, has revisited a mobile architecture he developed more than 20 years ago after this week's renewed attention on fold-able phones.
MedHand International began developing medical reference software for Palm OS in 2000, eventually supporting Palm OS, Windows Mobile, Windows and Mac OS X. Because medical publishers supplied content in wildly different formats, MedHand developed its own canonical XML representation—“MedHand XML”—and separated structured content from its presentation.
That work resulted in a patent filed in 2005 describing components, containers, a layout manager, hierarchical information and display-dependent presentation. Its diagrams explicitly show the same information hierarchy being presented differently on a mobile phone, PDA and desktop display.
The interesting comparison isn't that MedHand somehow “invented the foldable phone”—it didn't—but that modern foldables create essentially the architectural problem the software was designed to handle: the underlying information remains unchanged while the available display environment changes substantially, requiring the presentation and visible information hierarchy to adapt.
Ardiri has written a retrospective comparing the 2005 architecture with modern adaptive mobile interfaces. There's also an amusing historical circle: MedHand International built its own XML publishing pipeline before EPUB became an industry standard, while Ardiri has just released his autobiography and Inside the Machine as EPUBs—including on Apple Books.
So how many supposedly “new” computing problems are really old architectural problems waiting for the hardware to catch up?
185448301
submission
eqteam writes:
We all saw this coming: "There are now at least 39 publicly documented methods, attack paths, research techniques, and exploitation scenarios involving passkeys and the infrastructure around them. Many already have working proof of concept tools or published research showing exactly how the techniques can be executed. Some are already appearing in real world attack patterns."
According to the above-quoted (sponsored) Bleeping Computer article: "A modern passkey authentication ceremony crosses an extraordinary number of trust boundaries. It can involve the web application, browser, operating system, password manager, cloud synchronization service, mobile device, Bluetooth transport, account recovery system, enrollment process, help desk, and ultimately the human being approving the authentication.
Researchers are attacking almost every one of those layers. Published techniques now include assertion mining, assertion replay, circuit breaker attacks, assertion phishing, browser hooking, assertion capture, challenge injection, detour replay, user verification manipulation, and user presence manipulation."
Furthermore, intrepid users who enable Passkey authentication end up turning it off because they can't figure out how to make it work across devices (thanks to confusing implementations that aren't consistent across platforms and operating systems). Additionally, Passkey adoption is pretty slow, with only 872 websites implementing Passkey authentication per this research paper titled The State of Passkeys: Studying the Adoption and Security of Passkeys on the Web presented at the 2026 USENIX Security Symposium.
With 2FA being deprecated by many large orgs and biometric authentication options proving to look like Swiss cheese, what are we to do besides going back to writing down passwords on paper while we wait for the technology to get better?
185194510
submission
alternative_right writes:
At first what they were telling people is that it was for Kindles, but I just didn't believe that. I instantly was like, I don't think that's how they do it because of publication rights and stuff, copyright and everything. Then I saw it was for AI. I don't like it only because I wish I could take these books. There's so much knowledge and so much stuff in them and some of them look like they might be rare, and I've heard that they order rare books, and that's why I say some of these are so obscure. I definitely don't like the idea that they can't be reused or anything like that afterwards. They're reducing the amount of available copies for other people.
185130368
submission
theodp writes:
In How Big Tech Captured American Schools (alt source), an adapted excerpt of the forthcoming book Coding Kids: Big Tech’s Battle to Remake Public Schools, the New York Times' Natasha Singer begins: "Many parents would likely object if, say, Exxon Mobil wrote their children’s environmental science curriculum. Or if Purdue Pharma trained their children’s biology teachers. Yet, over the last decade, schools have often embraced the technology industry in similar ways with few questions asked. Industry-sponsored teacher training is just one technique that Big Tech companies use to shape schools and promote their worldviews to students. In interviewing more than 100 education and tech industry figures for my book, and reviewing hundreds of school, government and corporate documents, it became clear that a handful of giants have used their money, their might and their mammoth platforms to influence nearly every step of the education supply chain."
"Consumer tech giants provide the essential scaffolding that schools run on. That means laptops and tablets; operating systems and device-tracking software; the apps students use to write essays and analyze data; the messaging platforms that connect students and teachers; and more. Some of these companies, including Google, Microsoft and Apple, have also used their status as classroom tech providers as a springboard to influence how and what schoolchildren learn."
"This story matters whether you want schools to center tech skills or are agnostic, because the recent learn-to-code craze and the growing push for A.I. in schools are not just about learning. Those trends are part of a larger exercise of Silicon Valley power. The public education system, hungry for resources to improve opportunities for students, has become an avenue for multitrillion-dollar companies to enact their agendas."
"This development taps into fundamental questions about education that Americans have been arguing over for more than a century. What is the purpose of public schooling? Is it to raise critical, independent thinkers? Train students in the latest career skills? Help young people discover their passions? Serve the needs of the prevailing industry or emerging ones? Create knowledgeable and active participants in a democracy? Or all of the above?"
In an accompanying LinkedIn post, Singer adds: "Every few years, Silicon Valley has urged American public schools to quickly adopt the latest technology or teach the latest tech subject: Big Data analytics; laptops for every child; algorithm-driven math and reading apps; computer programming; virtual reality. And each time the urgent arguments sounded remarkably similar: if schools just adopted the latest tech tool, or taught the latest tech subject, it would democratize learning for every child and equip students with valuable career skills. The campaign to expand student access to computer science and other efforts had good intentions. But today we know some of those classroom tech drives did not exactly pan out as advertised. Now some of the same companies that urged schools to provide laptops and coding lessons are employing similar arguments to urge schools to quickly adopt A.I. tools. I've spent years covering Chromebooks and student chatbot use. And I'm troubled by our collective amnesia around school tech."
185104486
submission
theodp writes:
"OpenAI announced on Tuesday 'ChatGPT for Teens'", the NY Times reports, "a new mode in which the chatbot automatically limits some conversations to better protect young users, as scrutiny grows over the harmful effects of artificial intelligence." OpenAI added that it's also teaming with tech-backed nonprofit CodeAI to 'prepare the first AI generation', announcing a 'signature partnership' that it says will "give students and educators access to tools and resources that will help them learn how to use and benefit from AI [...] helping teens understand how AI works, direct it, question it, and create with it—with teachers playing a meaningful role in shaping how AI enters the classroom." Separately, CodeAI said it and OpenAI will be "helping students build foundational AI literacy" via the Hour of AI, through which it said "OpenAI and CodeAI will introduce millions of students to the basics of using AI thoughtfully and responsibly."
OpenAI's ChatGPT for Teens announcement came just days after the NY Times reported that Google turned on Gemini AI for K-12 students using its Google Classroom, a learning management system for posting assignments and turning in schoolwork that's used by 150+ million students and teachers worldwide. A new Gemini tab within Classroom will allow students of all ages to seek AI help on math problems and writing assignments. They can also generate course aids like study guides, quizzes and flashcards, as well as produce images. Last September, Google CEO Sundar Pichai briefed the White House on the tech giant's efforts to get Gemini for Education in 'every high school in America', which he noted "includes $3 million to Code.org [since rebranded as CodeAI] to transform its [K-12] curriculum and integrate new AI features." And in December, Google.org kicked off the inaugural 'Hour of AI' by announcing "over $5 million in new Google.org funding to bolster computer science teaching in the age of AI." The 5-day event during CS Education Week saw 13+ million schoolkids take AI tutorials, including Google's AI Quests offering.
The moves by Google and OpenAI in advance of children's return to classrooms for the 2026-27 school year further escalate the race among U.S. tech giants to train students on their AI tools. They also come just ahead of next month's release of NYT journalist Natasha Singer's Coding Kids: Big Tech's Battle to Remake Public Schools, "the inside story of how Big Tech catalyzed, co-opted, and ultimately came to capture computer science and AI education in America."
185019388
submission
alternative_right writes:
Amazon is buying massive quantities of books, scanning them for AI training data, and destroying them in the process.
A 404 Media investigation was able to reveal Amazonâ(TM)s book buying operation, which hasnâ(TM)t been previously reported, by placing a tracking device in a rare book we suspected would be acquired by an AI company for training data, and following it around the country to its final destination.
That final destination was an Amazon warehouse in Las Vegas, Nevada. Amazon employees who work at this location say all they do is receive massive shipments of printed books which they then cut the bindings off in order to scan the books more quickly. The printed book is destroyed in the process. The logo of the Amazon team that works at this warehouse, called VGT3, is a dinosaur, brandishing its teeth and with a book in its hands.
184975591
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
We tend to think of AI changing culture by making it easier to produce things: software, music, books, films, games, images. But the more consequential change may happen on the other side of the transaction. AI will increasingly decide what we see, hear, read and experience.
We already live in the early version of this world. Netflix doesn't simply give us a catalogue; its recommendation system predicts what we are likely to enjoy using our viewing history, behavior, similar users and even contextual signals such as time of day. Recent research using Netflix data has gone further, finding measurable “recommendation-induced engagement” — evidence that recommendations themselves influence what people consume. Now combine that with generative AI.
The emerging “TEMU-fication” of digital goods points towards a world in which the marginal cost of producing another song, film, book, game or piece of software approaches zero. The TEMU-fication of Software, Digital Goods & Services.
When culture becomes effectively infinite, selection becomes more valuable than production. And that is where our new AI curators enter.
Imagine Netflix no longer having to choose which 20,000 films to commission. Instead, it has access to an effectively limitless generative studio. You don't necessarily select a film from a catalogue. You describe a mood, and the system creates or assembles an experience designed specifically for you.
You stopped paying attention after 37 minutes? Next time it adjusts. Millions of people doing this simultaneously would mean something extraordinary: culture stops being a fixed collection of things and becomes a continuously optimized service.
The objective function might be “engagement.” Or retention or satisfaction or revenue. Whatever the metric, the system will get very good at maximizing it. And this is where the problem becomes much bigger than AI-generated “slop.” The machine doesn't merely learn what we like. It learns how to make us like things.
AI recommends culture -> humans consume it -> AI learns from the consumption -> AI generates better-performing culture -> humans adapt to it -> AI learns again.
Eventually, who is curating whom? Humanity will not be assimilated by force. It will be optimized by recommendation. This is the genuinely Borg-like possibility.
