Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest
 

Contents

  1. Anthropic’s Claude Passes ChatGPT, Now #1, on Apple’s ‘Top Apps’ Chart After Pentagon Controversy
  2. America Used Anthropic’s AI for Its Attack On Iran, One Day After Banning It
  3. Americans Listen to Podcasts More Than Talk Radio Now, Study Shows
  4. North America’s Bird Populations Are Shrinking Faster. Blame Climate Change and Agriculture
  5. Collabora Clashes With LibreOffice Over Move To Revive LibreOffice Online
  6. Galileo’s Handwritten Notes Discovered in a Medieval Astronomy Text
  7. Some Linux LTS Kernels Will Be Supported Even Longer, Announces Greg Kroah-Hartman
  8. Silicon Valley’s Ideas Mocked Over Penchant for Favoring Young Entrepreneurs with ‘Agency’
  9. Sam Altman Answers Questions on X.com About Pentagon Deal, Threats to Anthropic
  10. Duolingo Grows, But Users Disliked Increased Ads and Subscription Pushes. Stock Plummets Again
  11. New ‘Star Wars’ Movies Are Coming to Theatres. But Will Audiences?
  12. US Threatens Anthropic with ‘Supply-Chain Risk’ Designation. OpenAI Signs New War Department Deal
  13. Antarctica’s Massive Neutrino Observatory Gets an Upgrade
  14. ‘World’s Largest Battery’ Soon At Google Data Center: 100-Hour Iron-Air Storage
  15. After US-Israel Attacks, 90 Million Iranians Lose Internet Connectivity

Alterslash picks up to the best 5 comments from each of the day’s Slashdot stories, and presents them on a single page for easy reading.

Anthropic’s Claude Passes ChatGPT, Now #1, on Apple’s ‘Top Apps’ Chart After Pentagon Controversy

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
“Anthropic may have lost out on doing business with the US government,” reports Engadget, “but it’s gained enough popularity to earn the number one spot on the App Store’s Top Free Apps leaderboard.”

Anthropic’s Claude AI assistant had already leaped to the #2 slot on Apple’s chart by late Friday,” CNBC reported Saturday:
The rise in popularity suggests that Anthropic is benefiting from its presence in news headlines, stemming from its refusal to have its models used for mass domestic surveillance or for fully autonomous weapons… OpenAI’s ChatGPT sat at No. 1 on the App Store rankings on Saturday, while Google’s Gemini was at No. 3… On Jan. 30, [Claude] was ranked No. 131 in the U.S., and it bounced between the top 20 and the top 50 for much of February, according to data from analytics company Sensor Tower… [And Friday night, for 85.3 million followers] pop singer Katy Perry posted a screenshot of Anthropic’s Pro subscription for consumers, with a heart superimposed over it.
Sunday Engadget reported Anthropic’s “very public spat” with the Pentagon “led to a wave of user support that finally allowed Claude to dethrone OpenAI’s ChatGPT on the App Store as the most downloaded free app.”

. Friday Anthropic posted “We are deeply grateful to our users, and to the industry peers, policymakers, veterans, and members of the public who have voiced their support in recent days. Thank you. "

Re:It’s due to XCode 26.3

By Rendus • Score: 5, Funny Thread

Yep, that’s definitely why it’s the #2 app (now #1 in the US actually) for the iPhone, for use with XCode.

100%.

Re: They be dead.

By simlox • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
As long as investors believe in it, it keeps going. Just as with any other bubble.

The ads write themselves.

By Rei • Score: 3 Thread

No, seriously, they write themselves - AI is increasingly taking over the advertising industry.

Re:They be dead.

By MemoryDragon • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Funny thing is Claude is pretty much the only AI I regularily use for coding, because unlike the other models it produces acceptable results which after review and fixes actually can be used!

Very true

By TuballoyThunder • Score: 5, Informative Thread
I am seriously impressed with Claude. I have it doing coding tasks that I have no interest in doing. That lets me focus on the parts that are in my specialty. I was able to knock a fully-functional proof of concept in about half the time.

The other tools are so far behind. I describe Claude Code like a first year graduate student and the others (like Gemini) like a high school student looking for a date. Perplexity is probably the closest to Claude Code capability, but it is a distant second.

America Used Anthropic’s AI for Its Attack On Iran, One Day After Banning It

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
Engadget reports:
In a lengthy post on Truth Social on February 27, President Trump ordered all federal agencies to “immediately cease all use of Anthropic’s technology" following strong disagreements between the Department of Defense and the AI company. A few hours later, the U.S. conducted a major air attack on Iran with the help of Anthropic’s AI tools, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal.
Even Trump’s post noted there would be a six-month phase-out for Anthropic’s technology (adding that Anthropic “better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow.”)

Anthropic’s Claude technology was also used by the U.S. military less than two months ago in its operation in Venezuela — reportedly making them the first AI developer known to be used in a classified U.S. War Department operation. The Wall Street Journal reported Anthropic’s technology found its way into the mission through Anthropic’s contract with Palintir.

Approval for classified data

By CommunityMember • Score: 3 Thread
I recall someone stated that Anthropic was the only AI technology company then approved for classified data. That does not say that other AI companies have not received, or can not receive, those approvals, but that evaluation process takes time, and swapping out to another technology, is not going to happen quickly.

House of cards

By brunes69 • Score: 3 Thread

NvIdia has over 10B in Anthropic.
Microsoft has over 5B
Amazon has over 8B

If Anthropic is deemed a “supply chain risk”, then all of these companies will be legally forced to divest. Their investments will get pennies on the dollar in the fire sale.

And they are the tip of the iceberg.

Re:Approval for classified data

By 93 Escort Wagon • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

I recall someone stated that Anthropic was the only AI technology company then approved for classified data. That does not say that other AI companies have not received, or can not receive, those approvals, but that evaluation process takes time, and swapping out to another technology, is not going to happen quickly.

Quit pretending this current administration does anything except follow the whims of the sitting president and his handlers - all of whom couldn’t care less about doing things correctly or even intelligently. Trump will give access to classified data to whatever bozo (or group of bozos) suits his addled fancy at any given point in time.

Heck, he’s given classified information to foreign agents at social gatherings.

Re: Deep State Ownership of Slashdot?

By serviscope_minor • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

Finish what job? He hasn’t got a job in mind other than a showing off the US military, getting attention and distracting from the Epstein files.

There’s no plan. It might turn out better, but then again, it might turn out worse. Hey remember when America and the UK toppled the Iranian government and installed the Shah who then got replaced with someone even worse?

Americans Listen to Podcasts More Than Talk Radio Now, Study Shows

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
“Podcasts have officially overtaken AM/FM talk radio as the more popular medium for spoken-word audio in the United States,” reports TechCrunch, citing Edison Research’s Share of Ear survey:
The researchers have tracked these statistics over the last decade, and almost always, the percentage of time people spent listening to podcasts increased, while their time with spoken radio broadcasts decreased. For the first time this year, podcasts eclipsed spoken-word radio with 40% of listening time, as opposed to 39% for radio…

We checked with Edison to see if these statistics include video podcasts, and they do. But the need to clarify that question points to the undeniable growing prevalence of video podcasts, hosted on platforms like Spotify and YouTube, which marks another key trend in podcasting… YouTube said that viewers watched 700 million hours of podcasts each month in 2025 on living room devices, like TVs, up from 400 million the previous year.

Ads

By RitchCraft • Score: 3 Thread

Ads can be skipped on podcasts. Not so much on broadcast radio which is mostly ads now.

Talk radio is completely dominated

By rsilvergun • Score: 3 Thread
By right wing extremists and has been for at least 15 or 20 years. The only exception has been NPR and that’s getting slashed by the current administration.

So if you’re not somebody who craves more Rush Limbaugh then yeah talk radio is pretty freaking worthless to you.

A lot of times I hear people on the right wing complain about late night TV ignoring the fact that you guys have Sinclair media and literally every single radio station in the country. Honestly I think it’s why FM radios weren’t taken out of cars.

I stopped listening to talk radio a long time ago

By ToasterTester • Score: 3 Thread

I stopped listening to talk radio in it’s early days because I reallized what an a55hole it was making me. Plus a lot going on in my personal life I needed to focus on. I didn’t notice how much of my life that hate radio was starting to take up until I noticed it in my best friend. So started back listening to music in my car and on the radio at night, and even parted ways with my best friend because it turned him into a different person. My life became so much better with music back in my life full time. Today I do watch video podcasts, don’t like audio only podcasts. There are so many to choose from and I mainly listen to music podcast that will get into current events now and then. I also watch a little of the video radio shows because with internet I can pickup shows from all over the country and they are short capsules to the full shows. I was watching the full lenght podcast and they were getting longer and longer so even those I just watch the edited short of. I also don’t get into any of these with friends so when with them we just talk like old friends. I think people let these show over take them without realizing it and they become addicted to them. There is enough stuff going on just reading the news so why pile on more, get back to enjoying the other things in life you used to do.

North America’s Bird Populations Are Shrinking Faster. Blame Climate Change and Agriculture

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
“Billions fewer birds are flying through North American skies than decades ago,” reports the Associated Press, “and their population is shrinking ever faster, mostly due to a combination of intensive agriculture and warming temperatures, a new study found.”
Nearly half of the 261 species studied showed big enough losses in numbers to be statistically significant and more than half of those declining are seeing their losses accelerate since 1987, according to Thursday’s journal Science… The only consolation is that the birds that are shrinking in numbers the fastest are species — such as the European starling, American crow, grackle and house sparrow — with large enough populations that they aren’t yet at risk of going extinct, said study lead author Francois Leroy, also an Ohio State ecologist…

When it came to population declines — not the acceleration — the scientists noticed bigger losses further south. When they did a deeper analysis they statistically connected those losses to warmer temperatures from human-caused climate change. “In regions where temperatures increase the most, we are seeing strongest declines in populations,” [said study co-author Marta Jarzyna, an ecologist at Ohio State University]. “On the other hand, the acceleration of those declines, that’s mostly driven by agricultural practices.” The scientists found statistical correlations between speeded-up decline rates and high fertilizer use, high pesticide use and amount of cropland, Leroy said. He said they couldn’t say any of those caused the acceleration of losses, but it indicates agriculture in general is a factor. “The stronger the agriculture, the faster we will lose birds,” said Leroy…

McGill University wildlife biologist David Bird, who wasn’t part of the study, said it was done well and that its conclusions made sense. With a growing human population, agriculture practices are intensified, more bird habitats are being converted to cropland, modern machinery often grind up nests and eggs and single crop plantings offer less possibilities for birds to find food and nests, said Bird, the editor of Birds of Canada. “The biggest impact of agricultural intensity though is our war on insects. Numerous recent studies have shown that insect populations in many places throughout the world, including the U.S., have crashed by well over 40 percent,” Bird said in an email. “Many of the birds in this new study showing population declines depend heavily on insects for food.”
A 2019 study of the same bird species by Cornell University conservation scientist Kenneth Rosenberg also found that North America had 3 billion fewer birds than in 1970, the article points out.

In other news

By pele • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Trump shuts down associated press

Changes in insect population

By Z00L00K • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

A lot of birds feeds on insects, and large centralized farms will concentrate some of the insects while a lot of former farmland won’t get any grazing animals.

There are also fewer and fewer ditches around farm fields because the drainage is now below the surface, and ditches are a breeding ground for weed. Many insects actually feed on weed and in turn birds feed on the insects.

Add to that pesticides used in farming that kills off not just the unwanted insects but many more.

Collabora Clashes With LibreOffice Over Move To Revive LibreOffice Online

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
Slashdot reader darwinmac writes:
The Document Foundation (TDF), the organization behind LibreOffice, has decided to bring back its LibreOffice Online project which been inactive since 2022. Collabora, a company that was a major contributor to the original LibreOffice Online, is not pleased with this development. After the original project went dormant, Collabora forked the code and created its own product, Collabora Online.

Collaboras Michael Meeks, who also sits on the TDF board, reacted to the TDFs decision by saying that a fully supported, free online version already exists in the form of Collabora Online, and that resurrecting a dead repository makes little sense when an active, open community around the online suite already exists.

For now, The Document Foundation plans to reopen the old repository for new contributions. The organization has issued a warning that the code is not ready for live deployment and users should wait until the development team confirms it is stable.

Re:I don’t trust them

By AmiMoJo • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

I’m not sure that is what they are saying here. They have a fork, they have been developing it, and now ODF has made another fork for some reason, ignoring all their work. On the fact of it, it makes little sense to ignore their work and create yet another open source project doing the same thing, splitting what limited resources are available.

I’m sure ODF has some reason, ideological or practical. Or maybe they just want their name on it. Anyone know? Of course I didn’t read TFA.

Galileo’s Handwritten Notes Discovered in a Medieval Astronomy Text

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
In a library in Florence, Italy, historian Ivan Malara noticed handwritten notes on a book printed in the 1500s — and recognized the handwriting as Galileo’s. The finding “promises new insights into one of the most famous ideological transitions in the history of science,” writes Science magazine — since the book Galileo annotated was a reprint of Ptolemy’s second-century work arguing that the earth was the center of the universe.
Galileo’s notes, perhaps written around 1590, or roughly 2 decades before his groundbreaking telescope observations of the Moon and Jupiter, reveal someone who both revered and critically dissected Ptolemy’s work. And they imply, Malara argues, that Galileo ultimately broke with Ptolemy’s cosmos because his mastery of the traditional paradigm’s reasoning convinced him that a heliocentric [sun-centered] system would better fulfill Ptolemy’s own mathematical logic.

No one is right about everything

By rmdingler • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Science and new discoveries are rife with the tenet of assuming nothing done previously is canonic, but using the prior work to expand knowledge and understanding.

Re:No one is right about everything

By fuzzyfuzzyfungus • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
It’s arguably that specific position that gets you ‘science’ rather than something else. If there’s insufficient interest in prior work or too much zeal for sticking it to the orthodoxy, man, you never actually get a research program; just individual theories advanced in relative isolation, often specifically tied to their creator and a few students, but just abandoned for the next individual theory rather than ever being worked up hard enough for the cracks to start to show. And, of course, if you declare an existing piece of work to be canonical you are explicitly defining it as no longer a research program(with the possible exception of doing a bit of empirical stamp collecting to fill in details around the edges if they cannot be inferred from first principles) because it’s the truth.

Galileo’s case is, obviously, one of a system that veered too close to being declared The Truth; clearly you’ve got a problem when academic astronomy will get you hassled by the pope; but it’s also a case of astronomy being comparatively mature and functional as a ‘scientific’ endeavor; and Ptolomaic theory ultimately cracking up under the weight of centuries of carefully collected observations that became increasingly hard to square with the number of deferents and epicycles and things needed to construct a Ptolomaic model that agreed with the observed sky. The Ptolomaic model was, as it happens, totally wrong(as was the Copernican one; heliocentrism with perfect circles rather than Kepler’s elliptical orbits gets really gross really fast once you start adding the complications needed to square it with observations); but as an example of science at work astronomy was a more or less enormous success at achieving an ongoing research program that generated empirical results that ultimately both demanded the development of better theoretical models and were conveniently ready and waiting for the people who worked on creating those models.

This fake historical garbage again?

By trelanexiph • Score: 4, Informative Thread

Galileo didn’t discover heliocentrism.

1517 Martin Luther publishes the Ninety-Five Theses. The Protestant Reformation begins decades before Galileo’s conflict and reshapes the religious and political environment of Europe.

1543 Nicolaus Copernicus, a canon lawyer and church administrator, publishes De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres).
This work introduces the mathematical heliocentric model. The term “Copernican system” comes from this publication.
Copernicus dies the same year.

1570s Church scholars recognize that the Julian calendar has drifted relative to the equinox. Because Easter depends on the lunar cycle relative to the equinox, the error creates theological and practical problems.

1578–1580 Pope Gregory XIII commissions astronomical work to correct the calendar and builds the Vatican observatory tower, often called the Gregorian Tower or Tower of the Winds, to support observations. The tower still exists today.

1582 The Gregorian calendar is promulgated after roughly a decade of astronomical and mathematical work led largely by Jesuit scholars such as Christopher Clavius.
This reform demonstrates that the Catholic Church was actively funding and conducting astronomical research decades before Galileo.

1609–1610 Galileo uses the telescope for astronomical observation and publishes Sidereus Nuncius.
He observes the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus, discoveries that undermine the traditional Ptolemaic geocentric system but do not uniquely prove heliocentrism over competing models such as Tycho Brahe’s system.

1616 The Roman Inquisition rules that heliocentrism may not be taught as physical truth.
Copernicus’s book is not banned outright but is suspended until minor corrections are made.
Galileo is instructed not to defend heliocentrism as fact.

1623 Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, who had previously been sympathetic to Galileo, becomes Pope Urban VIII. Galileo initially believes he has papal support.

1632 Galileo publishes Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems).
The book is written as a Socratic dialogue comparing geocentrism and heliocentrism and clearly favors the Copernican position.
The work cites Copernicus directly and does not claim to invent heliocentrism.
                Arguments associated with the Pope appear in the mouth of the character Simplicio, which is perceived in Rome as insulting. (calling the pope “simple” or stupid)
                Galileo claims proof based on his theory of tides, which is incorrect.
                He rejects Kepler’s already published elliptical orbits and insists on circular orbits.

At this time, heliocentrism was still debated scientifically. Many astronomers preferred the Tychonic system because stellar parallax had not yet been observed.

1633 Galileo is tried by the Roman Inquisition and found “vehemently suspected of heresy.”
He is required to recant and is sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life.

Some Linux LTS Kernels Will Be Supported Even Longer, Announces Greg Kroah-Hartman

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader shared this report from the blogIt’s FOSS:
Greg Kroah-Hartman has updated the projected end-of-life (EOL) dates for several active longterm support kernels via a commit. The provided reasoning? It was done “based on lots of discussions with different companies and groups and the other stable kernel maintainer.” The other maintainer is Sasha Levin, who co-maintains these Linux kernel releases alongside Greg. Now, the updated support schedule for the currently active LTS kernels looks like this:

Linux 6.6 now EOLs Dec 2027 (was Dec 2026), giving it a 4-year support window.

Linux 6.12 now EOLs Dec 2028 (was Dec 2026), also a 4-year window.

Linux 6.18 now EOLs Dec 2028 (was Dec 2027), at least 3 years of support.

Worth noting above is that Linux 5.10 and 5.15 are both hitting EOL this year in December, so if your distro is still running either of these, now is a good time to start thinking about a move.

Re:Kernel support

By skullandbones99 • Score: 4, Informative Thread

A kernel.org release or stable release is not considered to be a “one size fits all” solution. For example, there is a kernel defconfig file that distributions will adapt to best match the requirements of their users.Such as running on ARM64 instead of x86-64. Additionally, distributions may provide extra kernel drivers that are not in the kernel.org tree such as drivers specific to chipsets that are not supported in kernel.org.

You are correct in saying that application software running in userland is mostly independent of the kernel version but application software is dependent on libraries that interact with the kernel. Therefore, there is some wiggle room to have a mix and match approach between kernel, library and application versions before breakage occurs.

Also, end users can build their own custom kernel and deploy it. This is particularly necessary when resolving kernel bugs in the community and for sending proposed fixes to the kernel.org mailing lists.

If a distribution adapts the kernel then these adaptions need to be incorporated on top of the next LTS. This prevents an immediate switch over to a new LTS kernel.

It should also be noted that a LTS kernel release may have deleted an API or removed a feature that the distribution was using. This can also delay upgrading to a new LTS kernel release as time is needed to find a solution.

Silicon Valley’s Ideas Mocked Over Penchant for Favoring Young Entrepreneurs with ‘Agency’

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
In a 9,000-word expose, a writer for Harper’s visited San Francisco’s young entrepreneurs in September to mockingly profile “tech’s new generation and the end of thinking.”

There’s Cluely founder Roy Lee. (“His grand contribution to the world was a piece of software that told people what to do.”) And the Rationalist movement’s Scott Alexander, who “would probably have a very easy time starting a suicide cult…”
Alexander’s relationship with the AI industry is a strange one. “In theory, we think they’re potentially destroying the world and are evil and we hate them,” he told me. In practice, though, the entire industry is essentially an outgrowth of his blog’s comment section… “Many of them were specifically thinking, I don’t trust anybody else with superintelligence, so I’m going to create it and do it well.” Somehow, a movement that believes AI is incredibly dangerous and needs to be pursued carefully ended up generating a breakneck artificial arms race.
There’s a fascinating story about teenaged founder Eric Zhu (who only recently turned 18):
Clients wanted to take calls during work hours, so he would speak to them from his school bathroom. “I convinced my counselor that I had prostate issues… I would buy hall passes from drug dealers to get out of class, to have business meetings.” Soon he was taking Zoom calls with a U.S. senator to discuss tech regulation… Next, he built his own venture-capital fund, managing $20 million. At one point cops raided the bathroom looking for drug dealers while Eric was busy talking with an investor. Eventually, the school got sick of Eric’s misuse of the facilities and kicked him out. He moved to San Francisco.

Eric made all of this sound incredibly easy. You hang out in some Discord servers, make a few connections with the right people; next thing you know, you’re a millionaire… Eric didn’t think there was anything particularly special about himself. Why did he, unlike any of his classmates, start a $20 million VC fund? “I think I was just bored. Honestly, I was really bored.” Did he think anyone could do what he did? “Yeah, I think anyone genuinely can.”
The article concludes Silicon Valley’s investors are rewarding young people with “agency”. Although “As far as I could tell, being a highly agentic individual had less to do with actually doing things and more to do with constantly chasing attention online.” Like X.com user Donald Boat, who successfully baited Sam Altman into buying him a gaming PC in “a brutally simplified miniature of the entire VC economy.” (After which “People were giving him stuff for no reason except that Altman had already done it, and they didn’t want to be left out of the trend.”)
Shortly before I arrived at the Cheesecake Factory, [Donald Boat] texted to let me know that he’d been drinking all day, so when I met him I thought he was irretrievably wasted. In fact, it turned out, he was just like that all the time… He seemed to have a constant roster of projects on the go. He’d sent me occasional photos of his exploits. He went down to L.A. to see Oasis and ended up in a poker game with a group of weapons manufacturers. “I made a bunch of jokes about sending all their poker money to China,” he said, “and they were not pleased....”

“I don’t use that computer and I think video games are a waste of time. I spent all the money I made from going viral on Oasis tickets.” As far as he was concerned, the fact that tech people were tripping over themselves to take part in his stunt just confirmed his generally low impression of them. “They have too much money and nothing going on…” Ever since his big viral moment, he’d been suddenly inundated with messages from startup drones who’d decided that his clout might be useful to them. One had offered to fly him out to the French Riviera.
The author’s conclusion? “It did not seem like a good idea to me that some of the richest people in the world were no longer rewarding people for having any particular skills, but simply for having agency.”

We’re now at the token high school dropout phase

By ebunga • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

That’s the final step before the bubble pops, just like in the dotcom era.

Introducing SPACEDEFENSEAICOIN

By locater16 • Score: 3 Thread
Now where’s my $20 million dollars in venture capital? BTW I’m 3 and my co-founder hasn’t been conceived yet.

Re:Huh?

By Kokuyo • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Yes and he is absolutely correct on the matter.

Underpants Gnomes in real life

By too2late • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Step 1: Find a young entrepreneur with agency. Step 2: .... Step 3: Profit!!!! Except they are purposely leaving out step 2, which is: Pump 20 million in startup cash into the company with the goal of goading other rich VCs into pumping it up as well. Get the company up to 1 billion and then you sell out your shares. Step 3 is now complete. All you had to do is be the first one and then convince everyone else to follow suit.

Rich people are stupid too. And they get Con’ed

By gurps_npc • Score: 3 Thread

This is no surprise. The real thing is there are unmentioned elements of:

1) First to use an idea - no matter how stupid it is.
2) Pure good luck plus the absence of bad luck.

These two things matter a lot more in life than Americans admit it (Russia totally knows about the luck thing - they think it is more important than competence or hard work). America has a myth that average intelligence plus hard work makes you money - refusing to admit that luck plays as much a part of it. Hard work without good luck leaves you tired and middle class. Hard work with bad luck leaves you tired, broke, and sick. You try getting rich if you are born a black woman with drug dealer parents and childhood cancer.

Sam Altman Answers Questions on X.com About Pentagon Deal, Threats to Anthropic

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
Saturday afternoon Sam Altman announced he’d start answering questions on X.com about OpenAI’s work with America’s Department of War — and all the developments over the past few days. (After that department’s negotions had failed with Anthropic, they announced they’d stop using Anthropic’s technology and threatened to designate it a "Supply-Chain Risk to National Security". Then they’d reached a deal for OpenAI’s technology — though Altman says it includes OpenAI’s own similar prohibitions against using their products for domestic mass surveillance and requiring “human responsibility” for the use of force in autonomous weapon systems.)

Altman said Saturday that enforcing that “Supply-Chain Risk” designation on Anthropic “would be very bad for our industry and our country, and obviously their company. We said [that] to the Department of War before and after. We said that part of the reason we were willing to do this quickly was in the hopes of de-esclation.... We should all care very much about the precedent… To say it very clearly: I think this is a very bad decision from the Department of War and I hope they reverse it. If we take heat for strongly criticizing it, so be it.”

Altman also said that for a long time, OpenAI was planning to do “non-classified work only,” but this week found the Department of War “flexible on what we needed…”
Sam Altman: The reason for rushing is an attempt to de-escalate the situation. I think the current path things are on is dangerous for Anthropic, healthy competition, and the U.S. We negotiated to make sure similar terms would be offered to all other AI labs.

I know what it’s like to feel backed into a corner, and I think it’s worth some empathy to the Department of War. They are… a very dedicated group of people with, as I mentioned, an extremely important mission. I cannot imagine doing their work. Our industry tells them “The technology we are building is going to be the high order bit in geopolitical conflict. China is rushing ahead. You are very behind.” And then we say “But we won’t help you, and we think you are kind of evil.” I don’t think I’d react great in that situation. I do not believe unelected leaders of private companies should have as much power as our democratically elected government. But I do think we need to help them.

Question: Are you worried at all about the potential for things to go really south during a possible dispute over what’s legal or not later on and be deemed a supply chain risk…?

Sam Altman: Yes, I am. If we have to take on that fight we will, but it clearly exposes us to some risk. I am still very hopeful this is going to get resolved, and part of why we wanted to act fast was to help increase the chances of that…

Question: Why the rush to sign the deal ? Obviously the optics don’t look great.

Sam Altman: It was definitely rushed, and the optics don’t look good. We really wanted to de-escalate things, and we thought the deal on offer was good.

If we are right and this does lead to a de-escalation between the Department of War and the industry, we will look like geniuses, and a company that took on a lot of pain to do things to help the industry. If not, we will continue to be characterized as as rushed and uncareful. I don’t where it’s going to land, but I have already seen promising signs. I think a good relationship between the government and the companies developing this technology is critical over the next couple of years…

Question: What was the core difference why you think the Department of War accepted OpenAI but not Anthropic?

Sam Altman: […] We believe in a layered approach to safety—building a safety stack, deploying FDEs [embedded Forward Deployed Engineers] and having our safety and alignment researcher involved, deploying via cloud, working directly with the Department of War. Anthropic seemed more focused on specific prohibitions in the contract, rather than citing applicable laws, which we felt comfortable with. We feel that it it’s very important to build safe system, and although documents are also important, I’d clearly rather rely on technical safeguards if I only had to pick one…

I think Anthropic may have wanted more operational control than we did…

Question: Were the terms that you accepted the same ones Anthropic rejected?

Sam Altman: No, we had some different ones. But our terms would now be available to them (and others) if they wanted.

Question: Will you turn off the tool if they violate the rules?

Sam Altman: Yes, we will turn it off in that very unlikely event, but we believe the U.S. government is an institution that does its best to follow law and policy. What we won’t do is turn it off because we disagree with a particular (legal military) decision. We trust their authority.
Questions were also answered by OpenAI’s head of National Security Partnerships (who at one point posted that they’d managed the White House response to the Snowden disclosures and helped write the post-Snowden policies constraining surveillance during the Obama years.) And they stressed that with OpenAI’s deal with Department of War, “We control how we train the models and what types of requests the models refuse.”
Question: Are employees allowed to opt out of working on Department of War-related projects?

Answer: We won’t ask employees to support Department of War-related projects if they don’t want to.

Question: How much is the deal worth?

Answer: It’s a few million $, completely inconsequential compared to our $20B+ in revenue, and definitely not worth the cost of a PR blowup. We’re doing it because it’s the right thing to do for the country, at great cost to ourselves, not because of revenue impact…

Question: Can you explicitly state which specific technical safeguard OpenAI has that allowed you to sign what Anthropic called a ‘threat to democratic values’?

Answer: We think the deal we made has more guardrails than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic’s. Other AI labs (including Anthropic) have reduced or removed their safety guardrails and relied primarily on usage policies as their primary safeguards in national security deployments. Usage policies, on their own, are not a guarantee of anything. Any responsible deployment of AI in classified environments should involve layered safeguards including a prudent safety stack, limits on deployment architecture, and the direct involvement of AI experts in consequential AI use cases. These are the terms we negotiated in our contract.
They also detailed OpenAI’s position on LinkedIn:
Deployment architecture matters more than contract language. Our contract limits our deployment to cloud API. Autonomous systems require inference at the edge. By limiting our deployment to cloud API, we can ensure that our models cannot be integrated directly into weapons systems, sensors, or other operational hardware…

Instead of hoping contract language will be enough, our contract allows us to embed forward deployed engineers, commits to giving us visibility into how models are being used, and we have the ability to iterate on safety safeguards over time. If our team sees that our models aren’t refusing queries they should, or there’s more operational risk than we expected, our contract allows us to make modifications at our discretion. This gives us far more influence over outcomes (and insight into possible abuse) than a static contract provision ever could.

U.S. law already constrains the worst outcomes. We accepted the “all lawful uses” language proposed by the Department, but required them to define the laws that constrained them on surveillance and autonomy directly in the contract. And because laws can change, having this codified in the contract protects against changes in law or policy that we can’t anticipate.

Re:On the verge of bankruptcy

By Martin Blank • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Grumman and McDonnell Douglas were saved from bankruptcy by mergers. It is very likely that other companies like Martin Marietta would have gone bankrupt post-Cold War save for mergers. Five major defense contractors were left out of around 50 previous major contractors. OpenAI may not go bankrupt, but that doesn’t mean its independent future is secure.

OpenAI is already facing serious headwinds. Its 2025 revenue was only $13 billion, but it expects 2030 revenue to be around $280 billion. Two years ago, it expected to invest $1.3 trillion in data centers, hardware, and model training, but a few weeks ago, that was cut to $600 million. It’s losing money on most of its subscriptions, even the $200 Pro level. Its early technology edge is fading, with Anthropic and Google competing for the top spot. It had to push out ChatGPT 5.2 earlier than planned, and that wasn’t much of an upgrade over 5.1. They’re still by far the most popular AI brand, but that doesn’t mean permanent success.

Collaborator

By Rosco P. Coltrane • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

We said [that] to the Department of War

It’s Department of Defense, you fucking fascist collaborator.

The denial of reality is strong in Altman.

By Computershack • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Yes, we will turn it off in that very unlikely event, but we believe the U.S. government is an institution that does its best to follow law and policy.

Clearly he hasn’t been following the news for the last 14 months. Trump started breaking the law on day 1. ICE has followed suit growing more emboldened the more Trump and his lackeys have defended their illegal arrests and murder of US citizens.

Re: tl;dr

By gtall • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Masked, armed men kidnapping people off the streets? Their parent organization setting up a surveillance system capable of tracking Americans everywhere? Their parent organization “losing” the people they kidnap into a legal nightmare which just happens to have them sitting in a prison camp awaiting some Habeas Corpus relief that will never come for them because they cannot afford lawyers? The Fed. Gov. setting up concentration camps complete with warehouses to put the people they do not like?

Die Fuhrerin having the U.S. Gov. promoting certain companies as “special” and using them for kickback schemes? Die Fuherin whining about how elections should be “federalized?” Die Fuhrerin using the Fed. Gov. for the denigration of any non-whites by erasing their history and monuments?

No Nazis? Hello, Stupid!

Re: tl;dr

By justMichael • Score: 5, Informative Thread
It’s also called murdering citizens. And don’t even bother trying to justify Renée Good or Alex Pretti.

Duolingo Grows, But Users Disliked Increased Ads and Subscription Pushes. Stock Plummets Again

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
Friday was “a horrible day” for investors in Duolingo, reports Fast Company. But Friday’s one-day 14% drop is just part of a longer story.

Since last May, Duolingo’s stock has dropped 81%. Yes, the company faced a social media backlash that month after its CEO promised they’d become an “AI-first” company (favoring AI over human contractors). And yes, Duolingo did double its language offerings using generative AI. But more importantly, that summer OpenAI showed how easy it was to just roll your own language-learning tool from a short prompt in a GPT-5 demo, while Google built an AI-powered language-learning tool into its Translate app.

And yet, Friday Duolingo’s shares dropped another 14%, after announcing good fourth quarter results but an unpopular direction for its future. Fast Company reports:
On the surface, many of the company’s most critical metrics saw decent gains for the quarter, including:

— Daily Active Users: 52.7 million (up 30% year-over-year)
— Paid Subscribers: 12.2 million (up 28% year-over-year)
— Revenue: $282.9 million (up 35% year-over-year)
— Total bookings: $336.8 million (up 24% year-over-year)

The company also reported its full-year 2025 financials, revealing that for the first time in its history, it crossed the $1 billion revenue mark for a fiscal year.
But the Motley Fool explains that Duolingo’s higher ad loads and repeated pushes for subscription plans “generated revenues in the short term, but made the Duolingo platform less engaging. Ergo, user growth decelerated while revenues rose.” Thursday Duolingo announced a big change to address that, including moving more features into lower-priced tiers. Barron’s reports:
D.A. Davidson analyst Wyatt Swanson, who rates Duolingo stock at Neutral, posited that the push to monetize “led to disgruntled users and a meaningful negative impact to ‘word-of-mouth’ marketing.” Duolingo has guided for bookings growth between 10% and 12% in 2026, compared with the 20% rate the company would have expected to see “if we operated like we have in past years....” If stock reaction is any indication, investors are concerned about Duolingo’s new focus.

Justice

By parityshrimp • Score: 5, Informative Thread

It’s really refreshing to see backlash to enshittification hitting a company right in the share price. Didn’t expect to read such good news today.

It’s more than just the ads

By berchca • Score: 5, Informative Thread

The app interface is as busy as a squatted domain, and it only seems to get worse every month.

Which is a pity, because at the core of it is a decent product.

Quality is plummeting

By fuzzyf • Score: 4, Interesting Thread
Before they started using AI the quality was barely good enough, and now, after AI it has gotten way worse. My entire family is using Duolingo, but we’ve started to talk about getting something else soon. It’s also not a very effective learning platform, as you are usually stuck on just learning words (and often a bit odd ones at that).

Using AI might save them some money, but they need to do better than what any AI chatbot can do for you. Gamification will only get you so far, the platform needs to actual help learning a language.

Undone by greed

By butt0nm4n • Score: 3 Thread

The capitalist’s Achille’s heel.

It’s a balancing act of service vs profit. You like your stock price going higher so you’ve got to grow your revenue and rather than making difficult efficiencies it’s easier to grift more cash from your customers and damage the experience they signed up for. It looks like that taps out at some point. I am cancelling Prime since they started pushing ads.

Ads are micro stressors, they assault your attention, create desire for something you probably cant afford or probably shouldn’t buy, their outcome is disappointment a sense of missing out. You might be happier using your money to work less and spend more time enjoying what’s free like nature and friendship.

My guess is we’ll have a star trek universal translator soon, an earpiece hooked to your phone, so why learn a language? Or English becomes the universal language.

Used to be good

By thePsychologist • Score: 3 Thread

But as usual, they went for the short-term profit and worsened the platform significantly for the most dedicated users. It might work in the short-term but they’ll be driven away by their lack of uniqueness soon enough.

New ‘Star Wars’ Movies Are Coming to Theatres. But Will Audiences?

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
“The drought of upcoming Star Wars movies is coming to an end soon,” writes Cinemablend. In May the The Mandalorian and Grogu opens, and one year later there’s the release of the Ryan Gosling-led Star Wars: Starfighter.

But “there are some insiders who already believe that Starfighter will be a bigger hit than The Mandalorian and Grogu…”
According to unnamed sources who spoke with Variety, there’s a “sense” that Star Wars: Starfighter, which is directed by Deadpool & Wolverine‘s Shawn Levy, will be a more satisfying viewing experience. These same sources are allegedly impressed by the early footage they’ve seen of Ryan Gosling’s performance and also suggested that Levy has “recaptured the franchise’s spirit of fun.” Furthermore, the article states that there’s concern that because The Mandalorian and Grogu is spinning out of a streaming-exclusive series, it might not have as much appeal to people who aren’t already fans of The Mandalorian… Star Wars: Starfighter, on the other hand, will be accessible to everyone equally. It’s set five years after The Rise of Skywalker, which is an unexplored period for the Star Wars franchise onscreen. It’s also expected that most, if not all of its featured characters will be brand-new, so no knowledge of past adventures is required.
Slashdot reader gaiageek reminds us that 2027 will also see a special 50-year anniversary event in movie in theatres: a “newly restored” version of the original 1977 Star Wars.

hahaha no

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
oh wait you’re serious? let me laugh harder.

Definitely

By fjo3 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
NOT! I have punished myself more than long enough hoping for modern Star Wars to improve. I am ignoring the franchise, just as I ignore the modern Star Trek franchise.

Possibly

By DrMrLordX • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

The Mandalorian was extremely popular and carried the entire Star Wars franchise post-Disney acquisition. Which is saying something since it was only on Disney+. It remains to be seen whether it has enough left in the tank to keep going.

Lost interest 40 years ago

By newbie_fantod • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

Return Of The Jedi and it’s teddy-bear war was as far as I could go.

A double no

By markdavis • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

From what I have seen of what they did with Star Wars, I probably have no interest anymore.

On top of that, my last theater experiences have been so bad, with never-ending commercials, unbelievably rude people and their damn phones, talking, smells (perfume and/or weed), etc, I just don’t think I can tolerate that anymore.

So it looks like is a negative times two.

US Threatens Anthropic with ‘Supply-Chain Risk’ Designation. OpenAI Signs New War Department Deal

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
It started Friday when all U.S. federal agencies were ordered to "immediately cease” using Anthropic’s AI technology after contract negotiations stalled when Anthropic requested prohibitions against mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons. But later Friday there were even more repercussions…

In a post to his 1.1 million followers on X.com, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth criticized Anthropic for what he called “a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon.”
Our position has never wavered and will never waver: the Department of War must have full, unrestricted access to Anthropic’s models for every LAWFUL purpose in defense of the Republic… Cloaked in the sanctimonious rhetoric of “effective altruism,” [Anthropic and CEO Dario Amodei] have attempted to strong-arm the United States military into submission — a cowardly act of corporate virtue-signaling that places Silicon Valley ideology above American lives. The Terms of Service of Anthropic’s defective altruism will never outweigh the safety, the readiness, or the lives of American troops on the battlefield. Their true objective is unmistakable: to seize veto power over the operational decisions of the United States military. That is unacceptable…

In conjunction with the President’s directive for the Federal Government to cease all use of Anthropic’s technology, I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a Supply-Chain Risk to National Security. Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic… America’s warfighters will never be held hostage by the ideological whims of Big Tech. This decision is final.
Meanwhile, Anthrophic said on Friday that "no amount of intimidation or punishment from the Department of War will change our position.” (And “We will challenge any supply chain risk designation in court.”)
Designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk would be an unprecedented action — one historically reserved for US adversaries, never before publicly applied to an American company. We are deeply saddened by these developments. As the first frontier AI company to deploy models in the US government’s classified networks, Anthropic has supported American warfighters since June 2024 and has every intention of continuing to do so. We believe this designation would both be legally unsound and set a dangerous precedent for any American company that negotiates with the government… Secretary Hegseth has implied this designation would restrict anyone who does business with the military from doing business with Anthropic. The Secretary does not have the statutory authority to back up this statement.
Anthropic also defended the two exceptions they’d requested that had stalled contract negotiations. "[W]e do not believe that today’s frontier AI models are reliable enough to be used in fully autonomous weapons. Allowing current models to be used in this way would endanger America’s warfighters and civilians. Second, we believe that mass domestic surveillance of Americans constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.”

Also Friday, OpenAI announced that "we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network.” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman emphasized that the agreement retains and confirms OpenAI’s own prohibitions against using their products for domestic mass surveillance — and requires “human responsibility” for the use of force including for autonomous weapon systems. “The Department of War agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement. We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should, which the Department of War also wanted. "
We are asking the Department of War to offer these same terms to all AI companies, which in our opinion we think everyone should be willing to accept. We have expressed our strong desire to see things de-escalate away from legal and governmental actions and towards reasonable agreements. We remain committed to serve all of humanity as best we can. The world is a complicated, messy, and sometimes dangerous place.

“lawful purpose”

By matthewcharles2006 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Trump and his supporters have been very clear from the beginning that the law is whatever Donald Trump says it is. So “lawful purpose” is a totally pointless fig leaf. OpenAI’s models will be used for whatever purpose the government wants.

Re:What am I missing here?

By fuzzyfuzzyfungus • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
These are people who treat laughably childish assertions of dominance as the point; so odds are it was largely just about dick-waving vs. the ‘woke’ and attempting to normalize the ability of the DoD to directly punish elements of the civilian economy that don’t fall in line with el presidente; not about some capability the Anthropic wasn’t selling them, if they even have it(which they potentially do for domestic surveillance and propaganda operations, allegedly LLMs have some value for doing text attribution by style and speech-to-text; and they certainly have utility for more sophisticated sockpuppeting; it’s much less clear that the big name LLM guys have anything super interesting on machine vision of the sort that you’d want to use for geospatial analysis or terminal guidance).

There’s also the possibility that Hegseth and friends have roughly the same understanding of ‘AI’ as your average dangerously clueless optimist taking medical advice from chatgpt; and genuinely believe that the techbros are holding out on them when it comes to developing skynet or the assorted near-miracles that the so called “Genesis Mission” is allegedly going to deliver; in which case they might believe that they are actually being denied a capability that they will want in the more or less near future; but my money would mostly be on it being an attempt to demonstrate dominance rather than a meaningful dispute.

The idea that it’s a dominance play seems especially likely given that they are throwing around the threat of ‘supply chain risk’ designation; rather than going with the much more banal “RFP says we need ‘AI’ that can be used for killbots and agentic stasi, if your product doesn’t do that it’s not in the running’. It’s not like the DoD doesn’t buy tons of nonlethal products and services of various sorts all the time, mostly without incident, or normally makes any fuss about just not-buying products that don’t meet their requirements; without threatening to blacklist the vendor. A ‘power move’ from people with the crudest and most puerile understanding of power.

Re:Unwarranted Outrage

By fuzzyfuzzyfungus • Score: 5, Informative Thread
That would be the case; except that they are also threatening the ‘supply chain risk’ designation.

Just not-buying something that doesn’t suit your purposes would be normal; saying that none of the people you do business with can do business with the guy you have chosen not to do business with is both extreme and clearly intended to be punitive. “Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic” Sure, because there’s an obvious risk that someone who sells the DoD 5.56 or gauze might have javscript devs vibe-coding their website with anthropic rather than openAi tooling. Absurd, purely about trying to expand their ability to punish whoever they feel like.

Re:Unwarranted Outrage

By znrt • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

i sort of called this yesterday and the day before. it’s not just the military and it’s not just contract cancelled, it’s throwing anthropic into a fair bit of trouble they might not be able to cope with. why? the modus operandi is pretty consistent: accept my outrageous and unacceptable demands or get crushed. this is not how you negotiate or void a contract, this is how you bully or go for the kill. it actually looks more like the alliances were solidified beforehand and this is a deliberate move to eliminate anthropic. openai stands to gain quite a bit from that, it gets the contract on top, it might eventually get the (not unsubstantial) crumbs of what is left of anthropic’s work after the witch hunt and the administration gets its toys and sets the mood for everybody else.

ofc the administration might be miscalculating, that wouldn’t be a first, so wait and see.

Please don’t call it “the dept of war”

By 278MorkandMindy • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

We all know that is yet another vanity title to please the orange king, which will get reverted when he dies/goes more insane/loses power.

Antarctica’s Massive Neutrino Observatory Gets an Upgrade

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
There’s already 5,000 sensors embedded in Antarctica’s ice to look for evidence of neutrinos, reports the Washington Post. But in November scientists drilled six new holes at least a mile and a half deep and installed cables with hundreds more light detectors — an upgrade to the massive 15-year-old IceCube Neutrino Observatory to detect the charged particles produced by lower-energy neutrinos interacting with matter:
When they do, the neutrinos produce charged particles that travel through the ice at nearly the speed of light, creating a blue glow called Cherenkov radiation… “Within the first couple years, we should be making much better measurements,” [said Erin O’Sullivan, an associate professor of physics at Uppsala University in Sweden and a spokesperson for the project.] “There’s hope to expand the detector, by an order of magnitude in volume, so the important thing there is we’re not just seeing a few neutrino point sources, but we’re starting to be a true telescope. … That’s really the dream.”
The scientists spent seven years planning the upgrade, according to the article. “To drill holes a mile and a half deep takes about 30 hours, and 18 more hours to return to the surface,” the article points out. “Then, the race begins because almost immediately, the hole starts to shrink as the water refreezes.” (“If it takes too much time, the principal investigator says, “the instruments don’t fit in anymore!”)

The really cool possibility remains

By JoshuaZ • Score: 5, Informative Thread
The really cool possibility is that we may be able to use this to detect a supernova’s neutrinos before the light arrives. This happened once before in 1987 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A but in that case the supernova was very close and the tech was poor enough that we didn’t realize the supernova neutrinos had arrived before hand until days after. If we could have this happen again we could know to point conventional optical telescopes at a supernova before the light arrived and get to see the first light from a supernova in detail which would be potentially highly informative. However, it is important to note that this doesn’t work via neutrinos going faster than light in a vacuum. The OPERA experiment which seemed to show that a few years ago was in error. These neutrinos get there faster than light because they get a head start of a few hours, starting at the very beginning of the supernova from the star’s core, while it takes light a few hours going out from the core bouncing off of the dense plasma. The neutrinos barely interact with any matter, so they don’t get blocked the same way. Upgrading IceCube increases the chance that we’ll get to see this with a somewhat far away supernova.

‘World’s Largest Battery’ Soon At Google Data Center: 100-Hour Iron-Air Storage

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
Interesting Engineering reports:
US tech giant Google announced on Tuesday that it will build a new data center in Pine Island, Minnesota. The new facility will be powered by 1.9 gigawatts (GW) of clean energy from wind and solar, coupled with a 300-megawatt battery, claimed to be the ‘world’s largest’, with a 30-gigawatt-hour (GWh) capacity and 100-hour duration… The planned battery would dwarf a 19 GW lithium-ion project in the UAE…

Form Energy’s batteries work very differently from most large batteries today. Instead of using lithium like the batteries in electric cars, they store electricity by making iron rust and then reversing the rusting process to release the energy when needed… Form’s iron-air batteries are heavier and less efficient than their counterparts; they can only return about 50% to 70% of the energy used to charge them, while lithium-ion batteries return more than 90%. However, Form’s batteries have one distinct advantage. They are cheaper than lithium-ion batteries, costing about $20 per kilowatt-hour of storage, which is almost three times as cheap… It will store 150 MWh of electricity and can supply to the grid for up to 100 hours, delivering about 1.5 MW at peak output.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.

Meanwhile

By DrMrLordX • Score: 3 Thread

Sodium ion batteries are entering the market, why isn’t Google using those? Also:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…

Dwarfing, yet far less useful

By dhartshorn • Score: 3 Thread

“The planned battery would dwarf a 19 GW lithium-ion project in the UAE…”

Iron-air batteries have a 0.01C charge/discharge rate.

The reason 300MW has 30GWH of storage is because of that.

The cost per kWh (capacity) is frequently touted as the reason for their use, but in fact, you’re paying for storage you’ll rarely (if ever) use. Yes, it will sustain a four day outage, then potentially be exhausted the next day because it takes nearly six days to recharge (using the 0.7 efficiency). And while getting there, 60GWH of energy will be lost as waste heat.

LFP can have a C rate up to 10. 1 to 3 is common, So 100 to 1,000 times faster charge/discharge. Stack the energy behind the inverter that you actually need and spend less in the long run, both CAPEX and OPEX.

Then stack as many cells as you need to get the duration desired.

After US-Israel Attacks, 90 Million Iranians Lose Internet Connectivity

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot
CNN reports that images from Iran’s capital “have shown cars jammed along Tehran’s street, with heavy traffic on major roads after today’s wave of attacks by the US and Israel.” And though Iran has a population of 93 million, the attacks suddenly plunged Iran into “a near-total internet blackout with national connectivity at 4% of ordinary levels,” according to internet monitoring experts at NetBlocks.

CNN reports:
Since Iran’s brutal crackdown earlier this year, the regime has made progress to allow only a subset of people with security clearance to access the international web, experts said. After previous internet shutdowns, some platforms never returned. The Iranian government blocked Instagram after the internet shutdown and protests in 2022, and the popular messaging app Telegram following protests in 2018.
The International Atomic Energy Agency announced an hour ago that they’re “closely monitoring developments” — keeping in contact with countries in the region and so far seeing "no evidence of any radiological impact.” They’re also urging “restraint to avoid any nuclear safety risks to people in the region.”

UPDATE (1 PM PST): Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait “are shifting to remote learning starting Sunday until further notice following Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Saturday,” reports CNN.

Re:Finally

By Tailhook • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

When has a regime change by the USA ever improved a country?

Germany is one example.

Japan is another.

Re:Finally

By ClickOnThis • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

You seem to think that the current strikes against Iran by the USA and Israel are an attempt to get Iran to treat its people more humanely.

No, they are a pressure tactic to bend Iran’s resolve in nuclear negotiations — which would not have been necessary if Trump hadn’t torn up the JCPOA signed on July 14, 2015 between Iran and China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK, and the USA. But that agreement happened during Obama’s administration, so in Trump’s mind, it had to go.

And, perhaps — oh, say — these strikes are meant to distract the American people from the Epstein files.

Re:Finally

By nospam007 • Score: 5, Informative Thread

In the 1980s in Lebanon, Hezbollah, funded and trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, carried out bombings that killed American personnel: the April 1983 suicide car bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut (17 U.S. deaths) and the October 1983 Marine barracks bombing (241 U.S. Marines and sailors killed). These attacks are widely attributed to Iran-backed Hezbollah and associated groups.

In the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, a group linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel. An FBI investigation found Iranian involvement in planning/support.

During the Iraq War (2003–2011), U.S. officials have stated that Iranian-backed militias (armed, trained, and supplied via Iran’s IRGC) were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops (Pentagon estimates put it at over 600).

More recently, Iran-aligned militias in Iraq and Syria have carried out rocket and drone attacks on U.S. forces. In early 2024, a drone strike in Jordan killed three U.S. soldiers, and U.S. assessments have linked such attacks to Iran-backed groups.

Other examples include Iranian support for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which have killed U.S. citizens in terrorist attacks abroad (e.g., bus bombings in Jerusalem in the 1990s), though these involve complex networks of support rather than direct Iranian command.

This is not exhaustive but shows that over decades, Iran has sponsored or enabled groups that have killed American service members and civilians through proxy networks.

Re:Finally

By korgitser • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Yeah, that was kinda my point, that he was cherry picking, or possibly, didn’t think this through, or didn’t even know that there was more to it. For example I’ve met British people who have literally no idea what it means they had an Empire, and cannot figure out why you would invent such insane things to attack ol’ Blighty… I don’t know about the British school curricula in particular, but it’s not very usual for a country to teach their dark side in schools, so that might be part of it. Maybe like the US, that has to tackle the problem of slavery, because black people are everywhere, but can ignore the problem of the founding of the nation, that is the native american genocide, because there’s not much of them around to stare in your face.

Trump’s Board of Peace says what?

By fahrbot-bot • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Here’s where Trump has ordered U.S. military strikes in his second term (with timeline charts):

Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Iran (now twice), Nigeria, Syria, Venezuela as well as in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

In the first 12 months of his second term, President Donald Trump ordered strikes on seven countries, in addition to his campaign against alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Didn’t he literally campaign on America First and No New Wars?
So stumped as to why he didn’t get the Nobel Peace prize. /s