Watch a rare launch of SpaceX's massive Falcon Heavy rocket livestreamed on SpaceX's YouTube channel.

"Nearly five years have passed since the massive Falcon Heavy rocket made its successful debut launch in February 2018," writes Ars Technica.

"Since then, however, SpaceX's heavy lift rocket has flown just three additional times." Why? It's partly because there is simply not all that much demand for a heavy lift rocket. Another factor is that SpaceX has increased the performance of its Falcon 9 rocket so much that it can complete a lot of the missions originally manifested on the Falcon Heavy. However the main reason for the low cadence has been due to a lack of readiness of payloads for the new rocket, particularly from the US Department of Defense. But now this trickle of Falcon Heavy launches may turn into a flood. [Sunday's launch is the first of potentially five launches this year]

SpaceX completed a hot fire test of the rocket on Tuesday, and declared that the vehicle was ready for liftoff. The rocket will use a brand new core stage, and side-mounted boosters that have flown into space one time, as side-mounted boosters on the USSF-44 Falcon Heavy mission that launched on November 1 2022.
What's it carrying? Space.com writes: The main payload is a military communications satellite called Continuous Broadcast Augmenting SATCOM 2, which the Falcon Heavy will send to geostationary orbit, about 22,200 miles (35,700 kilometers) above Earth. Also flying Saturday is a rideshare spacecraft called Long Duration Propulsive ESPA (LDPE)-3A, a payload adapter that can hold up to six small satellites, according to EverydayAstronaut.com. LDPE-3A will carry five Space Force payloads on USSF-67. Among them are "two operational prototypes for enhanced situational awareness and an operational prototype crypto/interface encryption payload providing secure space-to-ground communications capability," Space Force officials said in an emailed statement on Friday....

If all goes according to plan, the two side boosters will come back to Earth shortly after liftoff on Sunday, making vertical touchdowns at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, which is next door to NASA's Kennedy Space Center. The central booster will not return, instead ditching into the Atlantic Ocean....

USSF-67 is part of a busy week for SpaceX. The company also plans to launch 51 of its Starlink internet satellites to low Earth orbit atop a Falcon 9 on Thursday, January 19.

Speaking of Google, the company says in a court filing that a case before the Supreme Court challenging the liability shield protecting websites such as YouTube and Facebook could "upend the internet," resulting in both widespread censorship and a proliferation of offensive content. From a report: In a new brief filed with the high court, Google said that scaling back liability protections could lead internet giants to block more potentially offensive content -- including controversial political speech -- while also leading smaller websites to drop their filters to avoid liability that can arise from efforts to screen content. [...] The case was brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in the 2015 Islamic State terrorist attack in Paris. The plaintiffs claim that YouTube, a unit of Google, aided ISIS by recommending the terrorist group's videos to users. The Gonzalez family contends that the liability shield -- enacted by Congress as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 -- has been stretched to cover actions and circumstances never envisioned by lawmakers. The plaintiffs say certain actions by platforms, such as recommending harmful content, shouldn't be protected.

Section 230 generally protects internet platforms such as YouTube, Meta's Facebook and Yelp from being sued for harmful content posted by third parties on their sites. It also gives them broad ability to police their sites without incurring liability. The Supreme Court agreed last year to hear the lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs have contended Section 230 shouldn't protect platforms when they recommend harmful content, such as terrorist videos, even if the shield law protects the platforms in publishing the harmful content. Google contends that Section 230 protects it from any liability for content posted by users on its site. It also argues that there is no way to draw a meaningful distinction between recommendation algorithms and the related algorithms that allow search engines and numerous other crucial ranking systems to work online, and says Section 230 should protect them all.

Downing Street has said it is considering a Tory-backed amendment to the online safety bill that would allow for the imposing of jail sentences on social media bosses who are found not to have protected children's safety. The Guardian reports: No 10 said on Thursday it was open to the proposal, which is backed by at least 36 Conservative MPs including the former home secretary Priti Patel and the former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith. The amendment would give Ofcom, the communications watchdog, the power to prosecute executives at social media companies that are found to have breached the law. If ministers include it in the bill, it will mark the third time the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has bowed to the demands of his backbenchers, after U-turns on planning and onshore windfarms.

The bill is aimed at cracking down on a range of online content that ministers believe is causing serious harm to users and was informed in part by the testimony of Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee who accused the company of repeatedly putting profits ahead of user safety. The bill will force companies to remove any content promoting self-harm, depicting sexual violence or facilitating suicide. It will also require companies to impose and enforce strict age limits and to publish assessments of the risks their platforms pose to young people. As it is currently written, the bill gives Ofcom the power to levy fines on companies of up to 10% of their global turnover for breaches in the law. Ofcom will be able to prosecute executives only if they fail to cooperate with an investigation. This has upset many Conservative MPs, however, who believe the regulator should be given tougher powers.

The amendment, which has been signed by 37 MPs overall, would allow Ofcom to prosecute individual executives if they were proved to have connived with or consented to breaking the elements of the bill designed to protect children's safety. Judges would be allowed to impose prison sentences of up to two years. [...] Other changes to the bill, which has its report and third reading stage in the House of Commons next week, include altering earlier plans to tackle content seen by adults that is harmful but falls below the threshold of criminality, such as cyberbullying and sexist and racist material. Tech companies will be required to state clearly in their terms and conditions how they will moderate such content. Users will also be given the option of asking to have such content screened out when they are on social media platforms. A Downing Street spokesperson said on Thursday: "Our aim is to hold to account social media platforms for harmful content, while also ensuring the UK remains a great place to invest and grow a tech business. We are confident we can achieve both of these things. We will carefully consider all the proposed amendments to the online safety bill and set out the position when report stage continues."

The US Federal Communications Commission is continuing its battle against illegal robocalls. In its latest move, the agency on Wednesday issued cease-and-desist warnings to two more companies. From a report: The warning letters indicate that voice service providers SIPphony and Vultik must "end their apparent support of illegal robocall traffic or face serious consequences," according to an FCC announcement. The FCC says its investigations show that Vultik and SIPphony have allowed illegal robocalls to originate from their networks. Each provider must take immediate action and inform the FCC of the active steps it's taking to mitigate illegal robocalls. If either fails to comply with steps and rules outlined in the letters, its call traffic may be permanently blocked.

Congress can find common ground on the protection of privacy, competition and American children, says U.S. President Joe Biden. In an op-ed at Wall Street Journal, he shares why he has pushed for legislation to hold Big Tech accountable. From the start of his administration, says Biden, he has embraced three broad principles for reform: First, we need serious federal protections for Americans' privacy. That means clear limits on how companies can collect, use and share highly personal data -- your internet history, your personal communications, your location, and your health, genetic and biometric data. It's not enough for companies to disclose what data they're collecting. Much of that data shouldn't be collected in the first place. These protections should be even stronger for young people, who are especially vulnerable online. We should limit targeted advertising and ban it altogether for children.

Second, we need Big Tech companies to take responsibility for the content they spread and the algorithms they use. That's why I've long said we must fundamentally reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies from legal responsibility for content posted on their sites. We also need far more transparency about the algorithms Big Tech is using to stop them from discriminating, keeping opportunities away from equally qualified women and minorities, or pushing content to children that threatens their mental health and safety.

Third, we need to bring more competition back to the tech sector. My administration has made strong progress in promoting competition throughout the economy, consistent with my July 2021 executive order. But there is more we can do. When tech platforms get big enough, many find ways to promote their own products while excluding or disadvantaging competitors -- or charge competitors a fortune to sell on their platform. My vision for our economy is one in which everyone -- small and midsized businesses, mom-and-pop shops, entrepreneurs -- can compete on a level playing field with the biggest companies. To realize that vision, and to make sure American tech keeps leading the world in cutting-edge innovation, we need fairer rules of the road. The next generation of great American companies shouldn't be smothered by the dominant incumbents before they have a chance to get off the ground.

Are today's rudimentary quantum computers already on the verge of significant feats beyond the reach of traditional computers? Or have their capabilities been exaggerated, as practical uses for the technology recede into the future? From a report: These questions have been thrown into sharp relief in recent days by a claim from a group of Chinese researchers to have come up with a way to break the RSA encryption that underpins much of today's online communications. The likelihood that quantum computers would be able to crack online encryption was widely believed a danger that could lie a decade or more in the future. But the 24 researchers, from a number of China's top universities and government-backed laboratories, said their research showed it could be possible using quantum technology that is already available.

The quantum bits, or qubits, used in today's machines are highly unstable and only hold their quantum states for extremely short periods, creating "noise." As a result, "errors accumulate in the computer and after around 100 operations there are so many errors the computation fails," said Steve Brierley, chief executive of quantum software company Riverlane. That has led to a search for more stable qubits as well as error-correction techniques to overcome the "noise," pushing back the date when quantum computers are likely to reach their full potential by many years.

The Chinese claim, by contrast, appeared to be an endorsement of today's "noisy" systems, while also prompting a flurry of concern in the cyber security world over a potentially imminent threat to online security. By late last week, a number of researchers at the intersection of advanced mathematics and quantum mechanics had thrown cold water on the claim. Brierley at Riverlane said it "can't possibly work" because the Chinese researchers had assumed that a quantum computer would be able to simply run a vast number of computations simultaneously, rather than trying to gain an advantage through applying the system's quantum properties.

New medicines need not be tested in animals to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, according to legislation signed by President Joe Biden in late December 2022. Science Magazine reports: "This is huge," says Tamara Drake, director of research and regulatory policy at the Center for a Humane Economy, a nonprofit animal welfare organization and key driver of the legislation. "It's a win for industry. It's a win for patients in need of cures." In place of the 1938 stipulation that potential drugs be tested for safety and efficacy in animals, the law allows FDA to promote a drug or biologic -- a larger molecule such as an antibody -- to human trials after either animal or nonanimal tests. Drake's group and the nonprofit Animal Wellness Action, among others that pushed for changes, argue that in clearing drugs for human trials the agency should rely more heavily on computer modeling, "organ chips," and other nonanimal methods that have been developed over the past 10 to 15 years.

But pro-research groups are downplaying the law, saying it signals a slow turning of the tide -- not a tsunami that will remake the drug approval process overnight. Jim Newman, communications director at Americans for Medical Progress, which advocates for animal research, argues non-animal technologies are still "in their infancy" and won't be able to replace animal models for "many, many years." FDA still retains tremendous discretion to require animal tests, he notes, and he doesn't expect the agency to change tack anytime soon. In order for a drug to be approved in the United States, FDA typically requires toxicity tests on one rodent species such as a mouse or rat and one nonrodent species such as a monkey or dog. Companies use tens of thousands of animals for such tests each year. Yet more than nine in 10 drugs that enter human clinical trials fail because they are unsafe or ineffective, providing grist to those who argue that animal experiments are a waste of time, money, and lives. [...]

Now, that requirement is gone. In eliminating it, Congress seems to have responded to the emergence of nonanimal methods and growing public sentiment against animal research. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), who both call animal research inefficient and inhumane, introduced the changes, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent in September 2022. In December, Biden signed them into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which funds the government through this fiscal year. [...] Still, it remains unclear just how much the new law will change things at FDA. Although the legislation allows the agency to clear a drug for human trials without animal testing, it doesn't require that it do so. What's more, FDA's toxicologists are famously conservative, preferring animal tests in part because they allow examination of a potential drug's toxic effects in every organ after the animal is euthanized.

Republicans in the House plan to scrutinize communications between the Biden administration and big technology and social-media companies to probe whether they amounted to the censorship of legitimate viewpoints on issues such as Covid-19 that ran counter to White House policy. WSJ: House Republicans are expected as soon as Tuesday to launch the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. The panel is expected to seek to illuminate what some Republicans say have been efforts by the Biden administration to influence content hosted by companies such as Facebook parent Meta Platforms and Alphabet, owner of YouTube and Google.

The panel will examine, among other things, how the executive branch works with the private sector, nonprofit entities or other government agencies to "facilitate action against American citizens," such as alleged violations of their free-speech rights, according to a draft resolution to establish it. A White House spokesman dismissed the effort. "House Republicans continue to focus on launching partisan political stunts," said spokesman Ian Sams, "instead of joining the president to tackle the issues the American people care about most like inflation."

US aviation safety regulators intend to require passenger and cargo aircraft to meet requirements by early next year for navigation gear to deal with potentially unsafe interference from 5G mobile-phone signals. Bloomberg reports: The equipment is needed because the newer wireless signals are on frequencies near those used by planes' radio altimeters, which determine altitude over ground and can cause them to malfunction, the Federal Aviation Administration has found. Wireless companies are eager for a solution because they paid the government more than $80 billion for the new airwaves. The changes would need to be made by Feb. 1, 2024, the agency said in a notice (PDF) Monday.

The FAA said it couldn't rule out interference from 5G signals for about 100 incidents of aircraft navigation equipment issuing erroneous data. Such situations will increase as telecommunications providers expand 5G coverage throughout the US, the FAA said. [...] The FAA estimates that out of 7,993 US-registered aircraft that would need revisions, approximately 180 would require radio altimeter replacements and 820 would require the addition of filters to comply with the proposed order, at an estimated cost of as much as $26 million.

Seattle public schools have sued the tech giants behind TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat, accusing them of creating a "mental health crisis among America's Youth." Engadget reports: The 91-page lawsuit (PDF) filed in a US district court states that tech giants exploit the addictive nature of social media, leading to rising anxiety, depression and thoughts of self-harm. "Defendants' growth is a product of choices they made to design and operate their platforms in ways that exploit the psychology and neurophysiology of their users into spending more and more time on their platforms," the complaint states. "[They] have successfully exploited the vulnerable brains of youth, hooking tens of millions of students across the country into positive feedback loops of excessive use and abuse of Defendants' social media platforms."

Harmful content pushed to users includes extreme diet plants, encouragement of self-harm and more, according to the complaint. That has led to a 30 percent increase between 2009 and 2019 of students who report feeling "so sad or hopeless... for two weeks or more in a row that [they] stopped doing some usual activities." That in turn leads to a drop in performance in their studies, making them "less likely to attend school, more likely to engage in substance use, and to act out, all of which directly affects Seattle Public Schools' ability to fulfill its educational mission." Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act means that online platforms aren't responsible for content posted by third parties. However, the lawsuit claims that the provision doesn't protect social media companies for recommending, distributing and promoting content "in a way that causes harm."

House Republicans plan to launch a new investigative panel this week that will demand copies of White House emails, memos and other communications with Big Tech companies, Axios reported Monday, citing sources. From the report: Speaker Kevin McCarthy plans a quick spate of red-meat actions and announcements to reward hardliners who backed him through his harrowing fight for the gavel. The new panel, the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, is partly a response to revelations from Elon Musk in the internal documents he branded the "Twitter Files."

The subcommittee will be chaired by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan -- a close McCarthy ally, and a favorite of the hard right. The probe into communications between tech giants and President Biden's aides will look for government pressure that could have resulted in censorship or harassment of conservatives -- or squelching of debate on polarizing policies, including the CDC on COVID. The request for documents will be followed by "compulsory processes," including subpoenas if needed, a GOP source tells Axios. In December, Jordan wrote letters to top tech platforms asking for information about "'collusion' with the Biden administration to censor conservatives on their platforms."

The Federal Communications Commission isn't done dragging data breach policy into the modern era. From a report: The agency has proposed rules that would improve reporting for breaches at carriers. Most notably, the move would scrap a mandatory wait of seven business days before a telecom can warn customers about a security incident. Hackers would have a shorter window of opportunity to abuse your data without your knowledge, to put it another way.

The proposal would also clarify that carriers must notify the FCC, FBI and Secret Service of any reportable data breaches. Providers would likewise have to alert customers to inadvertent breaches, such as leaving account info exposed. The Commission is simultaneously asking for public input on whether or not breach alerts should include specific information to help people take action. such as the nature of the compromised data.

Qualcomm has announced that its new processors and modems will allow phones to communicate with the Iridium satellite network, letting users send and receive messages even in areas without cell coverage. The Verge reports: The feature, called Snapdragon Satellite, will be available in phones that have both Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 processor and its X70 Modem system, along with some additional radios. Phones that support it should be "launched in select regions starting in the second half of 2023," according to the company's press release, and there are several manufacturers working on designs, according to Francesco Grilli, a Qualcomm spokesperson who helped conduct a briefing for journalists. For now, the feature will likely only be available in flagship Android phones, as Qualcomm's only including the tech in its premium chips. Companies that want to add it to their phones will work directly with Qualcomm to figure out the software and hardware, but they shouldn't have to build new relationships with Iridium, according to Grilli. To the satellites, phones with the tech will look like any other Iridium-enabled devices. As for who will pay for the messages, "the cost of the satellite-based messaging service and dependent services will depend on OEMs and service providers and how they choose to offer the service," according to Grilli.

At first, Snapdragon Satellite will be limited to use in emergency situations, letting you contact someone for help even if you're in a remote area without cell service. According to Grilli, "Snapdragon Satellite leverages Garmin Response." When you send an SOS, "response coordinators immediately see the customer's Latitude/Longitude in their proprietary mapping and response coordination software to determine the appropriate agency to coordinate the rescue." Qualcomm says that, eventually, it'll support "premium messaging," which will likely cost extra and will have to be implemented by OEMs, cell carriers, or other over-the-top service providers. So far, this isn't something Apple offers; you can only send texts via satellite using its SOS feature.

While Qualcomm says the emergency service will be free or very cheap, it hasn't provided details yet on how much it'll cost you if you just want to be able to text your friends from remote areas, like a hiking trail, ski lift, or even a boat in the middle of the ocean. Once that service becomes available, however, Qualcomm says you'll be able to use it with your regular phone number. (That likely won't be the case for emergency use, but it matters less there.) [...] While details are sparse on what it'll be like to actually send and receive satellite messages, it sounds like the experience will be similar to Apple's in that you'll have to follow instructions on your phone to point it toward a satellite. According to Grilli, your phone will be able to predict where Iridium's satellites are months in advance thanks to the way its constellation orbits the Earth. When you go to connect to one, it'll use GPS and other measurements to determine where you need to be facing...

India set an "incredibly important precedent" by banning TikTok two and a half years ago, FCC Commissioner said, as he projected a similar fate for the Chinese giant Bytedance app in the U.S. From a report: Brendan Carr, Commissioner of the FCC, warned that TikTok "operates as a sophisticated surveillance tool," and told the Indian daily Economic Times that banning the social app is a "natural next step in our efforts to secure communication network."

The senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission said he is worried that China could use sensitive and non-public data gleaned from TikTok to "blackmail, espionage, foreign influence campaigns and surveillance." He said: "We need to follow India's lead more broadly to weed out other nefarious apps as well," he said. Carr's remarks further illustrates a growing push among U.S. states and lawmakers that are increasingly growing cautious of TikTok, which has amassed over 100 million users in the nation.

Fierce Wireless reports: Verizon is telling customers that if they're still using a 3G CDMA or 4G (non-VoLTE) phone that does not support its newer network technologies, "your line will be suspended without billing and will lose the ability to call, text, or use data."

Verizon is the last of the Big 3 wireless carriers in the U.S. to shut down a 3G network and repurpose the spectrum for newer technology. AT&T was first, shutting its 3G network down in February. T-Mobile's shuttered its 3G network over the summer.... Verizon has been working with customers — both consumers and businesses — since 2016 to ensure customers have "every opportunity" to get a device that uses either 4G or 5G, including direct outreach to customers and even sending some customers updated devices proactively, according to Karen Schulz of Verizon's Global Network & Technology Communications team.

Indeed, the company initially said it was closing its 3G network in 2019. Then they extended it to the end of 2020 and finally, to the end of 2022. In March 2021, Verizon made it clear they were sticking with the 2022 end date and advised customers still accessing the 3G network that they may experience a degradation or complete loss of service.
"Even after that, until the day before their February billing cycle, they'll still be able to use the phones for two things: calling 911 and Verizon customer service," reports the Verge: While 3G will still exist in other countries for quite a few more years, Verizon's deadline is pretty much the end of the line for it here in the US. The tech hasn't gone gentle into that good night; carriers delayed their shutdowns several times, there were tiffs between Dish and T-Mobile, and you can't just turn a network that had been around for years off without things starting to break. (Some notable examples: some connected cars and trucks have been pushed offline, as have parking meters and older Kindles. AT&T's shutdown was even blamed for delays in reporting voting results in Michigan this year.)

Part of the reason carriers are decommissioning their networks is to help build their new ones. As we saw earlier this month, T-Mobile's latest and greatest 5G tech makes use of spectrum that was once part of its 3G network.
The Verge's conclusion? "Spare a thought for the tech that helped build the mobile-first world we live in; even if this ends up being the last time you ever think about it."

January's Communications of the ACM includes an essay predicting "the end of programming," in an AI-powered future where "programming will be obsolete."

But IT analyst and ZDNet contributor Joe McKendrick remains skeptical, judging by a new essay sardonically titled "It's the end of programming as we know it — again." Over the past few decades, various movements, paradigms, or technology surges — whatever you want to call them — have roiled the software world, promising either to hand a lot of programming grunt work to end users, or automate more of the process. CASE tools, 4GL, object-oriented programming, service oriented architecture, microservices, cloud services, Platform as a Service, serverless computing, low-code, and no-code all have theoretically taken the onerous burdens out of software development. And, potentially, threaten the job security of developers.

Yet, here we are. Software developers are busier than ever, with demand for skills only increasing.

"I remember when the cloud first started becoming popular and companies were migrating to Office 365, everyone was saying that IT Pros will soon have no job," says Vlad Catrinescu, author at Pluralsight. "Guess what — we're still here and busier than ever."

The question is how developers' job will ultimately evolve. There is the possibility that artificial intelligence, applied to application development and maintenance, may finally make low-level coding a thing of the past.... Catrinescu believes that the emerging generation of automated or low-code development solutions actually "empowers IT professionals and developers to work on more challenging applications. IT departments can focus on enterprise applications and building complicated apps and automations that will add a lot of value to the enterprise."
Even the man predicting "the end of programming" in an AI-powered future also envisions new technology that "potentially opens up computing to almost anyone" (in ACM's video interview). But in ZDNet's article Jared Ficklin, chief creative technologist and co-founder of argodesign, even predicts the possibility of real-time computing.

"You could imagine asking Alexa to make you an app to help organize your kitchen. AI would recognize the features, pick the correct patterns and in real time, over the air deliver an application to your mobile phone or maybe into your wearable mobile computer."

Matt Welsh is the CEO and co-founder of Fixie.ai, an AI-powered software delivery company founded by a team from Google and Apple. "I believe the conventional idea of 'writing a program' is headed for extinction," he opines in January's Communications of the ACM, "and indeed, for all but very specialized applications, most software, as we know it, will be replaced by AI systems that are trained rather than programmed."

His essay is titled "The End of programming," and predicts a future will "Programming will be obsolete." In situations where one needs a "simple" program (after all, not everything should require a model of hundreds of billions of parameters running on a cluster of GPUs), those programs will, themselves, be generated by an AI rather than coded by hand.... with humans relegated to, at best, a supervisory role.... I am not just talking about things like Github's CoPilot replacing programmers. I am talking about replacing the entire concept of writing programs with training models. In the future, CS students are not going to need to learn such mundane skills as how to add a node to a binary tree or code in C++. That kind of education will be antiquated, like teaching engineering students how to use a slide rule.

The engineers of the future will, in a few keystrokes, fire up an instance of a four-quintillion-parameter model that already encodes the full extent of human knowledge (and then some), ready to be given any task required of the machine. The bulk of the intellectual work of getting the machine to do what one wants will be about coming up with the right examples, the right training data, and the right ways to evaluate the training process. Suitably powerful models capable of generalizing via few-shot learning will require only a few good examples of the task to be performed. Massive, human-curated datasets will no longer be necessary in most cases, and most people "training" an AI model will not be running gradient descent loops in PyTorch, or anything like it. They will be teaching by example, and the machine will do the rest.

In this new computer science — if we even call it computer science at all — the machines will be so powerful and already know how to do so many things that the field will look like less of an engineering endeavor and more of an an educational one; that is, how to best educate the machine, not unlike the science of how to best educate children in school. Unlike (human) children, though, these AI systems will be flying our airplanes, running our power grids, and possibly even governing entire countries. I would argue that the vast majority of Classical CS becomes irrelevant when our focus turns to teaching intelligent machines rather than directly programming them. Programming, in the conventional sense, will in fact be dead....

We are rapidly moving toward a world where the fundamental building blocks of computation are temperamental, mysterious, adaptive agents.... This shift in the underlying definition of computing presents a huge opportunity, and plenty of huge risks. Yet I think it is time to accept that this is a very likely future, and evolve our thinking accordingly, rather than just sit here waiting for the meteor to hit.
"I think the debate right now is primarily around the extent to which these AI models are going to revolutionize the field," Welsh says in a video interview. "It's more a question of degree rather than whether it's going to happen....

"I think we're going to change from a world in which people are primarily writing programs by hand to a world in which we're teaching AI models how to do things that we want them to do... It starts to feel more like a field that focuses on AI education and maybe even AI psychiatry. In order to solve these problems, you can't just assume that people are going to be writing the code by hand."

Chinese police can set up "alarms" for various protest activities using a software platform provided by Hikvision, a major Chinese camera and surveillance manufacturer, the Guardian has learned. From the report: Descriptions of protest activity listed among the "alarms" include "gathering crowds to disrupt order in public places," "unlawful assembly, procession, demonstration" and threats to "petition." These activities are listed alongside offenses such as "gambling" or disruptive events such as "fire hazard" in technical documents available on Hikvision's website and flagged to the Guardian by surveillance research firm IPVM, or Internet Protocol Video Market. The company's website also included alarms for "religion" and "Falun Gong" -- a spiritual movement banned in China and categorized as a cult by the government -- until IPVM contacted the company.

The findings come a month after mass protests against the country's zero-Covid policies erupted across China. Though the demonstrations resulted in the government easing restrictions, many protesters later received calls from police. The US government has long had its sights set on Hikvision. The company was placed on a commerce department blacklist that restricts the use of federal funds to purchase equipment manufactured by the firm as well as US exports to the surveillance firm for its complicity in human rights violations associated with China's mass incarceration of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities. In November, the Federal Communications Commission also introduced new rules that prohibited imports and sales of future Hikvision communications equipment in the US.

Intel and SoftBank-backed VLSI Technology have agreed to end a $4 billion patent dispute, according to documents filed in Delaware District Court this week. From a report: The decision marks a victory for Intel, which has already lost $3 billion in failed patent disputes to VLSI over the past few years. The case in question dates back to 2018 and alleged that Intel had infringed on five VLSI-owned patents governing things like secure communications, power optimization and delivery, and flip-chip interconnects.

If VLSI sounds familiar, that's because the company has been lurking around the semiconductor industry in one shape or form since the late '70s. The company originally made ASICs before it was acquired by Philips Electronics and later spun off under NXP. But despite any early successes in chipmaking, VLSI is now owned by SoftBank's Fortress Investment Group, and appears to exist solely to sue chipmakers it believes have violated its intellectual property -- in other words, it's a patent troll. The decision to call it quits comes after nearly five years of litigation. Tuesday, Intel and VLSI released a joint filing in which Intel and VLSI mutually agreed to dismiss the case and resolve all disputes over Intel's use of the aforementioned patents. Critically, VLSI has done so with prejudice. As we understand it, this means the company can't refile the case.

Newly released documents show an influential group that helps shape US food policy and steers consumers toward nutritional products has financial ties to the world's largest processed food companies and has been controlled by former industry employees who have worked for companies like Monsanto. From a report: The documents reveal the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has a record of quid pro quos with a range of food giants, owns stock in ultra-processed food companies and has received millions in contributions from producers of pop, candy, and processed foods linked to diabetes, heart disease, obesity and other health problems.

The findings are a part of a recently published peer-reviewed study that examined a trove of financial documents and internal communications obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (Foia) request. "It's incredibly influential so if the Academy is corrupt then nutritional policy in the US is going to be corrupt," said Gary Ruskin, executive director of US Right to Know, and a co-author of the study. The investigative non-profit developed the study with researchers from non-profits and universities in the US and UK. "If we're ever going to solve the problems of obesity and diabetes in the US and elsewhere, then we're going to have to tackle the corruption in our health institutions," Ruskin added.