The SEC has approved the first leveraged cryptocurrency ETF in the United States, which will allow customers to gain bitcoin exposure by putting up only half the value of the bitcoin. The ETF is set to launch on Tuesday and corresponds with the CME Bitcoin Futures Daily Roll Index. CoinDesk reports: The regulator has not denied the application for the 2x ETF, Volatility Shares Chief Investment Officer Stuart Barton said, paving the way for its launch this upcoming Tuesday. "It's exciting to see digital assets in the ETF wrapper," Barton said.

Cyberattacks on US hospitals are on the rise, adding a layer of financial pressure onto an industry still struggling to recover from the pandemic. From a report: Health facilities have been hit with 226 digital incursions affecting 36 million people this year, on track to be more widespread than 2022 attacks, according to John Riggi, the national advisor for cybersecurity and risk at the American Hospital Association. Cyber raids on hospitals more than tripled in the past five years and have become more sophisticated, just when hospitals are coping with higher costs for labor and supplies and grappling with staff shortages. The industry in 2022 had what Moody's Investors Service analyst Matthew Cahill called "arguably the worst year in health-care history" for financial performance. "There's really no wiggle room for hospitals to deal with this," Cahill said in an interview. He said cyber risk has contributed to downgrades, including one at Missouri's Capital Region Medical Center last year following a breach.

Health-care facilities are attractive targets for cybercriminals because they hold ample personal data on patients, Matt Fabian and Lisa Washburn of Municipal Market Analytics wrote in a research note. Staffing shortages and wide use of third-party technology make the sector particularly vulnerable. The problem is particularly dire at smaller and rural hospitals, which have more financial distress and tend to use older technology. In an April note, Moody's cited an IBM survey that showed hospitals for 12 years have had the highest average cyberattack cost per industry, with $10.1 million in 2022. The AHA's Riggi said that while most hospitals have insurance, the cost to recover from attacks could be up to 10 times what insurance pays out.

Discord is introducing new ways to generate revenue, including server subscriptions, tiered subscriptions, and the ability for server owners to sell digital products. This move has raised concerns among some users who feel that Discord is becoming less welcoming and more like the paywalled internet it was once an escape from. PC Gamer reports: "To date, we've paid out millions of dollars to thousands of creators and communities, and we're seeing more creators and communities earning on their Discord servers every day," wrote product manager Derek Yang in a blog post published today. "...Today, we're excited to share new tools that help you get started earning money faster."

The nickel-and-dime-ification of Discord servers begins this week with "media channels," a new type of channel (currently in beta) designed to host subscriber-only content, including, for instance, "exclusive memes and wallpapers." You could see an art creator using this Discord feature to post subscriber-only illustrations, as many comic creators and other illustrators already use Patreon to do.

Not a bad deal for creators, but that's only the start of the new revenue streams Discord, who currently takes a 10% cut of server subscriptions, plans to implement. Here's a full list of what the free (now with three asterisks) chat app has in the works:

- Tier Templates: Formalized subscription tiers with prices set by Discord ($3.99, $4.99, $7.99, and $9.99)
- Downloadables: One-time purchasable digital products or subscriptions sold by server owners, which will be accessed via ...
- Server Shops: "A single home for server owners to sell Server Subscriptions, Downloadables and Premium Roles"

According to a report from The Financial Times, the European Union Commission is planning an in-depth investigation into Adobe's $20 billion purchase of Figma, the popular online graphics editing and interface design application. Gizmodo reports: Back in February, the EU Commission noted that it had received numerous requests to review the business deal. The international watchdog announced that it would need to clear the proposed merger, under the justification that it "threatens to significantly affect competition in the market for interactive product design and whiteboarding software."

Now, the Brussels-based Commission will open a phase II investigation, per the FT. Generally, anti-competition probes are handled at the phase I level, which accounts for 90% of all cases, according to EU internal data. In comparison, a phase II analysis takes more time and goes deeper. By the Commission's description, a phase II investigation "typically involves more extensive information gathering, including companies' internal documents, extensive economic data, more detailed questionnaires to market participants, and/or site visits." From the start of such a probe, the regulatory body has 90 days to make a decision.

The EU Commission would not directly confirm its plans to investigate the Adobe/Figma merger. In an email, spokesperson Marta Perez-Cejuela told Gizmodo, "this transaction has not been formally notified to the Commission." Such notification is a requirement before any investigation can move forward. Commission officials requested that Adobe submit an official notification in February. Despite the Commission's lack of formal announcement, an EU probe into the acquisition is expected. Already the U.S. Department of Justice and the United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority are looking into the digital design tool deal. The DOJ is reportedly preparing to file an antitrust suit blocking the merger, while the UK CMA is actively investigating the acquisition, with a first decision due by the end of June.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Grimace, an ancient McDonalds character who -- recent marketing blitz aside -- may be so unknown among younger readers they will actually need to consult a website to find out who the hell he is, has for a very long time had an extensive page up over at the unofficial McDonalds Wiki. Until this week, at least, when McDonalds paid the site's owners to temporarily replace Grimace's biography with a paid advertisement.

Let's be clear up front: the original biography, written by critic, writer and digital marketer Nathan Steinmetz, aka Humanstein, isn't the most important piece of historical information on the internet. Doing exactly what it needed to do, it served as an introduction to the character himself, before also (this was the real highlight) delving into real-life matters like Malaysian Happy Meals, records of his public appearances and a list of the people who had voiced the character and worn the purple suit. Or it did, until it started looking like this instead. At time of writing the page had been completely hijacked, Nathan's research wiped and replaced with reminders that people can go buy a Grimace meal at McDonalds and play a video game based on the character. The wiki's changelog says the swap is temporary, running "for the length of this [advertising] campaign." [...]

According to a recently discovered patent application, Mastercard plans to develop software optimized for bitcoin and blockchain transactions. The second-largest payment-processing corporation also aims to facilitate crypto-based transactions by reducing connections between virtual asset service providers. Crypto News reports: The trademark application is a fascinating window into Mastercard's plans for the future of digital currency. Details have been revealed about creating a downloadable application programming interface (API) designed to verify transactions inside blockchain networks and ease the handling or trading of cryptocurrency. By standardizing this API software, communication between VASPs may be streamlined and crypto transactions easier. Mastercard wants to set up a platform for financial institutions to exchange customer information to verify compliance. This new step is significant for Mastercard's fast-growing presence in the cryptocurrency sector. The corporation announced its intention to offer a limited number of cryptocurrencies on its network in February 2021.

Crypto.com, the exchange endorsed by Hollywood actor Matt Damon, deploys internal teams to trade tokens for profit, the latest sign of potential conflicts of interest in the digital assets industry. Financial Times: The Singapore-based group, one of the top-10 crypto marketplaces in the world, operates proprietary trading and market making teams, according to five people with direct knowledge of the matter. In most markets, exchanges match buyers with sellers at the most competitive transparent price. Market making and prop trading are usually conducted by separate private companies.

US regulators have begun clamping down on similar activities at other digital asset exchanges. This month the US Securities and Exchange Commission hit Binance, the world's biggest crypto exchange, with 13 charges including using a trading firm owned by chief executive Changpeng Zhao to engage in "manipulative trading that artificially inflated the platform's trading volume." "These trading platforms, they call themselves exchanges, are commingling a number of functions," SEC chair Gary Gensler told CNBC on June 6, adding: "In traditional finance, we don't see the New York Stock Exchange also operating a hedge fund, making markets." The existence of internal traders at Crypto.com has not been widely known since the company launched in 2016. One of the people with direct knowledge about the teams said that Crypto.com executives gave other, external trading houses "absolutely dramatic sworn statements that Crypto.com was in no way involved in trading," while another said that employees were asked to "say there is no internal market maker type operation."

A government panel in Japan drew up a set of regulations aimed at opening up the smartphone app stores of U.S. technology giants Apple and Google to competition. From a report: The two companies dominating the smartphone operating system market will be obliged to allow their users to download apps by using services other than their own app stores. The government hopes that the move will spur competition and lead to app price drops. The smartphone OS market is occupied almost entirely by Apple's iOS and Google's Android. The companies control how apps are installed and paid for on their iPhones and Android devices.

The government will create a list of what OS providers must not do in order to stop them favoring their own services and payment platforms. The regulations were drawn up at the government's headquarters for digital market competition, headed by Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno. The government aims to submit relevant legislation to the next year's ordinary session of parliament. Apple makes it impossible for iPhone users to download apps without using its App Store. Of Android users, 97% download apps through the Google Play store, although Google does not require them to do so.

Apple, the company, wants rights to the image of apples, the fruit, in Switzerland -- one of dozens of countries where it's flexing its legal muscles. From a report The Fruit Union Suisse is 111 years old. For most of its history, it has had as its symbol a red apple with a white cross -- the Swiss national flag superimposed on one of its most common fruits. But the group, the oldest and largest fruit farmer's organization in Switzerland, worries it might have to change its logo, because Apple, the tech giant, is trying to gain intellectual property rights over depictions of apples, the fruit. "We have a hard time understanding this, because it's not like they're trying to protect their bitten apple," Fruit Union Suisse director Jimmy Mariethoz says, referring to the company's iconic logo. "Their objective here is really to own the rights to an actual apple, which, for us, is something that is really almost universal ... that should be free for everyone to use."

While the case has left Swiss fruit growers puzzled, it's part of a global trend. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization's records, Apple has made similar requests to dozens of IP authorities around the world, with varying degrees of success. Authorities in Japan, Turkey, Israel, and Armenia have acquiesced. Apple's quest to own the IP rights of something as generic as a fruit speaks to the dynamics of a flourishing global IP rights industry, which encourages companies to compete obsessively over trademarks they don't really need. Apple's attempts to secure the trademark in Switzerland go as far back as 2017, when the Cupertino, California-based giant submitted an application to the Swiss Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) requesting the IP rights for a realistic, black-and-white depiction of an apple variety known as the Granny Smith -- the generic green apple.

The request covered an extensive list of potential uses -- mostly on electronic, digital, and audiovisual consumer goods and hardware. Following a protracted back-and-forth between both parties, the IPI partially granted Apple's request last fall, saying that Apple could have rights relating to only some of the goods it wanted, citing a legal principle that considers generic images of common goods -- like apples -- to be in the public domain. In the spring, Apple launched an appeal. The case now moving through the courts deals only with the goods for which the IPI refused the trademark, which an IPI official said could not be disclosed without consent from Apple, because the proceedings are still pending, but which include common uses such as audiovisual footage "meant for television and other transmission."

Trial lawyer Kyle Roche has led an interesting life, according to the New York Times. He once earned $100 million selling bitcoin. He helped win a case against Craig Wright (who claims to be Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto) through his law firm Roche Freedman. And Roche also founded a startup that lets people bet on the outcome of (civil) lawsuits, "to make access to justice more affordable."

But something very bad for his career happened in January of 2022 when two businessmen flew Roche from Miami to the U.K. to discuss an investment. When he woke up the next morning, Roche said, he felt groggy... The brain fog was odd because he didn't think he'd had all that much to drink. As he flew back to Miami a few days later, Roche couldn't shake the feeling that something was amiss.

Months passed. Then, one day last summer, Roche's world detonated. A website called Crypto Leaks posted two dozen videos of him that had been secretly recorded during his meetings with Villavicencio and Ager-Hanssen. The videos portrayed Roche and his law firm, Roche Freedman, as being in the pocket of one of their crypto clients [Ava Labs]... In other clips, Roche made it sound like his sole concern, even when representing other clients, was to promote Ava Labs' interests...

One after another, companies that Roche Freedman had sued filed motions to disqualify the firm from their cases. In October, the first of those motions succeeded: A federal judge in New York tossed Roche Freedman from a case it had filed against Tether, the operator of the world's most used "stablecoin." Within days, Roche was forced to resign from the law firm he had founded. With his career in tatters, he said, he enrolled in ethics classes and began to see a therapist.
Roche calls the recorded remarks baseless bluster to impress a prospective investor (and alleges in court there are signs of deep fake alterations). While Roche "was felled by his own loose lips and his overly cozy relationship with a client," the Times reports "he also was the victim of an elaborate international setup." On April 3, 2020, Roche Freedman filed lawsuits seeking class-action status against seven issuers of digital coins, alleging they had pumped what amounted to unregistered securities with false statements and then dumped them, leaving retail investors holding the bag... Those suits were just an opening salvo: Sixteen months later, Roche filed his biggest securities fraud case yet. It alleged that a British entrepreneur, Dominic Williams, and entities he controlled had swindled investors out of billions of dollars by aggressively promoting, and then dumping, a digital coin tied to a grandiose plan to revolutionize computing. Williams had boldly proclaimed that his Internet Computer blockchain — a decentralized network of computers powered by a digital token called ICP — would supplant the big cloud services offered by Amazon and Microsoft and become humanity's primary computing platform. But after an initial surge that briefly made it one of the most valuable cryptocurrencies, ICP had plummeted 92% — a collapse that Roche's lawsuit attributed to "massive" selling by Williams and other insiders. (Williams denied the allegations.)
The Times reports that Roche's prospective investor Ager-Hanssen, "in addition to running his venture capital firm, has long had a sideline digging up dirt on behalf of wealthy clients entangled in business disputes in Britain and Scandinavia. On multiple occasions, he has secretly recorded his targets. For example, in a 2014 interview, he recounted how he had snared the adversary of a Swedish financier with a hidden microphone and boasted that he employed former intelligence officers from the CIA, MI6 and Mossad..." Roche believes them because he thinks he knows who hired Ager-Hanssen: Williams, the British entrepreneur who was the target of Roche Freedman's biggest pump-and-dump lawsuit... On May 12, 2022, Williams wrote on Twitter that he was "coming for" his critics. That was the same day the cryptoleaks.info domain name was registered. That was the same day the cryptoleaks.info domain name was registered. Then, on June 9, 2022, the Crypto Leaks website went live. Billing itself as the defender of "the honest crypto community," it posted two reports that aligned with Williams' interests...

The first espoused a complicated theory about the ICP token crash that Williams had previously floated on Twitter. The second attacked the Times for an article it had published about the crash. Williams tweeted a link to that Crypto Leaks report, calling it "Gobsmacking." The Dfinity Foundation, a Swiss nonprofit that Williams created to oversee his blockchain, has since sued the Times for defamation in New York. The Times is seeking to dismiss the suit. The videos of Roche were the crux of Crypto Leaks' third exposé. After they were published, Williams and Dfinity filed a motion to disqualify Roche Freedman as plaintiffs' counsel in the pump-and-dump lawsuit, saying Roche's comments demonstrated "a disregard for the integrity of the judicial system...."

Last month, the judge overseeing the pump-and-dump case granted Williams' motion and disqualified Freedman Normand Friedland as plaintiffs' counsel.

An anonymous reader shared this report from Bloomberg: Ask Amazon's digital assistant, "Hey, Alexa, is Amazon a monopoly?" and it will profess ignorance.

"Hmm, I don't know that one," it answers.

But ask about any of the other tech giants' business practices, and it's ready to critique them. Surfacing answers from across the internet, Alexa describes Apple as an "oligopoly" and cites Alphabet's Google as violating privacy rights, according to Bloomberg News tests of the software on three devices.... [Alexa] won't label Amazon a monopoly, but it tends to respond in the affirmative when asked the same question about Google, Meta's Facebook, Microsoft and Walmart. When Alexa is asked if Amazon has broken antitrust law, it says, "I don't have an answer to the question I just heard."

Google's Assistant and Apple's Siri, Alexa's two closest competitors, each cite news stories on government antitrust lawsuits against their companies. Siri, for the most part, offers up criticisms of the iPhone maker. But it evades at least one question about Apple's power. When asked whether Apple is a monopoly, Siri often replies, "I can't answer that, but Apple.com should be able to...."

Alexa also cites alleged privacy lapses by its rivals, bringing up a Facebook privacy settlement with the FTC and allegations that Apple's finger-scanning technology violates constitutional rights. When users ask whether Amazon violates users' privacy, Alexa sticks up for its safeguards: "Amazon builds multiple layers of privacy protections into your Alexa experience." It also links to an Amazon website with more information about Alexa's privacy settings.

An anonymous reader shared this report from CNN: Over the past few years, restaurants from White Castle to Wendy's have been investing in artificial intelligence tech for drive-thrus... [E]fforts have ramped up recently, with two announcements in May. CKE Restaurants (owner of Hardee's and Carl's Jr.) said it will roll out AI ordering capability more broadly after a successful pilot. Soon after, Wendy's said it had expanded its partnership with Google Cloud to include an AI ordering tool at the drive-thru. The chain is piloting the program in Columbus, Ohio this month.
Fast food restaurants "say it's a way to ease the burden placed on overworked employees, and a solution to bogged down drive-thrus overwhelmed by a surge of customers," according to the article. "But customers — and workers — may not be thrilled with the technology... " Frustrated customers have already documented cases of AI getting their orders wrong, and experts warn the noisy drive-thru is a challenging environment for the technology. And AI may swipe hours or even entire jobs away from fast-food workers... Out of ten orders placed by customers at an Indiana White Castle that uses AI in its drive-thru, three people asked to speak with a human employee, because of either an error or a desire to simply talk to a person, the Wall Street Journal recently reported.

That said, AI inherently improves as it collects more data. The experience may improve after tools take more orders and learn to better recognize voices.

For companies, a hiccup-y start seems to be well worth the potential boost to sales. One of the main benefits of using AI in the drive-thru is that it upsells relentlessly — leading customers to spend more, according to Presto Automation, an AI company that works with restaurants and has partnered with CKE... Some analysts are similarly bullish. "We believe that AI voice recognition and digital only lanes could speed up the average drive through service time by at least 20-30%," analysts wrote in a Bernstein Research note published in March. "We expect AI to augment the competitive advantages of restaurants with digital culture."

Short-staffed restaurants may see AI as a way to fill in the gaps... Some restaurants are still struggling to find staff. Meanwhile, dining trends have changed. The pandemic sent customers to drive-thrus in droves and some have kept the habit, contributing to slower drive-thru times.

America's Federal Trade Commission is soliciting public comments on the business practices of cloud computing providers, trying to understand security risks and competitive dynamics. (Questions include "To what extent are particular segments of the economy reliant on a small handful of cloud service providers and what are the data security impacts of this reliance?") They've already received dozens of comments (including one from Red Hat).

But there's also three questions about open-source software:


"To what extent do cloud providers offer products based on open-source software?"

- "What is the impact of such offerings on competition?"

- "How have recent changes to the terms of open-source licenses affected cloud providers' ability to offer products based on open-source software?"


This has drawn a response from the Free Software Foundation — and they're urging others to join in. "Since it isn't every day that the FTC solicits public comments on subjects in which the free software community is so well-versed, let's take this opportunity to submit comments that support digital sovereignty." The hope is to persuade policy makers to make software freedom and privacy a central part of any future considerations made in the areas of storage, computation, and services. Such comments will be made part of the public record, so any participation promises to have a lasting impact...

[W]e have prepared the following points for consideration:


- When considering rules and regulations in technology that stand to protect people's fundamental civil liberties, it is important to start from the question, "does this decision improve digital sovereignty or diminish it?"

- In the case of computing, (e.g. word processing, spreadsheet, and graphic design programs), the typical options diminish digital sovereignty because the computations are being run on another computer under someone else's control, inaccessible to the end user, who therefore does not have the essential freedoms to share, modify, and study the computations (i.e. the program). The only real solution to this is to offer free "as in freedom" replacements of those programs, so that end users may maintain control over their computing.

- In the case of storage, today's typical options diminish digital sovereignty because many storage providers only provide unencrypted options for storage. It is imperative that individuals and businesses who choose third-party storage always have the choice to encrypt their storage, and the encryption keys must be entirely within the control of the end user, not the third-party provider.

- In the case of services (such as email, teleconferencing, and videoconferencing), while the source code that runs services need not necessarily be made public, end users deserve to be able to access such services via a free software client. In such cases, it is imperative that service providers implement a design of interoperability, so that end users may use the service with any choice of client.

- Free software allows end users to inspect the software for possible security flaws, while proprietary software does not. Therefore free software is the only realistic option for an end user to achieve verifiable security...


Unfortunately, the FTC's website requires nonfree JavaScript (reCAPTCHA, specifically) to comment on a document, and the FTC has declined repeated requests for instructions for how to submit comments by paper form.

If you're not in the habit of avoiding nonfree JavaScript for the sake of your freedom, which we recommend, you can also leave comments on the FTC's website. While you're there, let webmaster@ftc.gov know about the injustice of proprietary JavaScript and encourage them to respect the freedom of their users...

The deadline to submit is June 21, which is just enough time to publish something meaningful on the topic in support of free software.

PDF Association, in a blog post: We live in a world where the only constant is accelerating change. The twists and turns in the technology landscape over the last 30 years have drained some of the hype from the early days of the consumer digital era. Today we are confronted with all-new, even more disruptive, possibilities. Along with the drama of the internet, the web, broadband, smart-phones, mobile broadband, social media, and AI, the last thirty years have revealed some persistent truths about how people use and think about information and communication. From the vantage-point of 2023 we are positioned to recognize 1993 as a year of two key developments; the first specification of HTML, the language of the web, and the first specification of PDF, the language of documents. Today, both technologies predominate in their respective use cases. They coexist because they meet deeply-related but distinct needs.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed a bill prohibiting children under 18 from joining various social media platforms without parental consent. Similar legislation has been passed in Utah and Louisiana. The Verge reports: The bill, HB 18, requires social media companies to receive explicit consent from a minor's parent or guardian before they'd be allowed to create their own accounts starting in September of next year. It also forces these companies to prevent children from seeing "harmful" content -- like content related to eating disorders, substance abuse, or "grooming" -- by creating new filtering systems.

Texas' definition of a "digital service" is extremely broad. Under the law, parental consent would be necessary for kids trying to access nearly any site that collects identifying information, like an email address. There are some exceptions, including sites that primarily deliver educational or news content and email services. The Texas attorney general could sue companies found to have violated this law. The law's requirements to filter loosely defined "harmful material" and provide parents with control over their child's accounts mirror language in some federal legislation that has spooked civil and digital rights groups.

Like HB 18, the US Senate-led Kids Online Safety Act orders platforms to prevent minors from being exposed to content related to disordered eating and other destructive behaviors. But critics fear this language could encourage companies like Instagram or TikTok to overmoderate non-harmful content to avoid legal challenges. Overly strict parental controls could also harm kids in abusive households, allowing parents to spy on marginalized children searching for helpful resources online.

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) has created the largest open-source archive of PDFs as part of DARPA's Safe Documents program, with the aim of improving internet security. The corpus consists of approximately 8 million PDFs collected from the internet. From a press release: "PDFs are used everywhere and are important for contracts, legal documents, 3D engineering designs, and many other purposes. Unfortunately, they are complex and can be compromised to hide malicious code or render different information for different users in a malicious way," said Tim Allison, a data scientist at JPL in Southern California. "To confront these and other challenges from PDFs, a large sample of real-world PDFs needs to be collected from the internet to create a shared, freely available resource for software experts." Building the corpus was no easy task. As a starting point, Allison's team used Common Crawl, an open-source public repository of web-crawl data, to identify a wide variety of PDFs to be included in the corpus -- files that are publicly available and not behind firewalls or in private networks. Conducted between July and August 2021, the crawl identified roughly 8 million PDFs.

Common Crawl limits downloaded data to 1 megabyte per file, meaning larger files were incomplete. But researchers need the entire PDF, not a truncated version, in order to conduct meaningful research on them. The file-size limit reduced the number of complete, untruncated files extracted directly from Common Crawl to 6 million. To get the other 2 million PDFs and ensure the corpus was complete, the JPL team re-fetched the truncated files using specialized software that downloaded the whole files from the incomplete PDFs' web addresses. Various metadata, such as the software used to create each PDF, was extracted and is included with the corpus. The JPL team also relied on free, publicly available geolocation software to identify the server location of the source website for each PDF. The complete data set totals about 8 terabytes, making it the largest publicly available corpus of its kind.

The corpus will do more than help researchers identify threats. Privacy researchers, for example, could study these files to determine how file-creation and editing software can be improved to better protect personal information. Software developers could use the files to find bugs in their code and to check if old versions of software are still compatible with newer versions of PDFs. The Digital Corpora project hosts the huge data archive as part of Amazon Web Services' Open Data Sponsorship Program, and the files have been packaged in easily downloadable zip files.

According to global consulting leader McKinsey and Company, Generative AI could add "2.6 trillion to $4.4 trillion annually" to the global economy. That's almost the "economic equivalent of adding an entire new country the size and productivity of the United Kingdom to the Earth ($3.1 trillion GDP in 2021)," notes VentureBeat. From the report: The $2.6 trillion to $4.4 trillion economic impact figure marks a huge increase over McKinsey's previous estimates of the AI field's impact on the economy from 2017, up 15 to 40% from before. This upward revision is due to the incredibly fast embrace and potential use cases of GenAI tools by large and small enterprises. Furthermore, McKinsey finds "current generative AI and other technologies have the potential to automate work activities that absorb 60 to 70% of employees' time today." Does this mean massive job loss is inevitable? No, according to Alex Sukharevsky, senior partner and global leader of QuantumBlack, McKinsey's in-house AI division and report co-author. "You basically could make it significantly faster to perform these jobs and do so much more precisely than they are performed today," Sukharevsky told VentureBeat. What that translates to is an addition of "0.2 to 3.3 percentage points annually to productivity growth" to the entire global economy, he said.

However, as the report notes, "workers will need support in learning new skills, and some will change occupations. If worker transitions and other risks can be managed, generative AI could contribute substantively to economic growth and support a more sustainable, inclusive world." Also, the advent of accessible GenAI has pushed up McKinsey's previous estimates for workplace automation: "Half of today's work activities could be automated between 2030 and 2060, with a midpoint in 2045, or roughly a decade earlier than in our previous estimates."

Specifically, McKinsey's report found that four types of tasks -- customer operations, marketing and sales, software engineering and R&D -- were likely to account for 75% of the value add of GenAI in particular. "Examples include generative AI's ability to support interactions with customers, generate creative content for marketing and sales and draft computer code based on natural-language prompts, among many other tasks." [...] Overall, McKinsey views GenAI as a "technology catalyst," pushing industries further along toward automation journeys, but also freeing up the creative potential of employees. "I do believe that if anything, we are getting into the age of creativity and the age of creator," Sukharevsky said.

Sony says it has started testing the ability to stream PS5 games from the cloud. The PlayStation maker says it's testing cloud streaming for PS5 games and is planning to add this as a feature to its PlayStation Plus Premium subscription. From a report: "We're currently testing cloud streaming for supported PS5 games -- this includes PS5 titles from the PlayStation Plus Game Catalog and Game Trials, as well as supported digital PS5 titles that players own," says Nick Maguire, VP of global services, global sales, and business operations at Sony Interactive Entertainment. "When this feature launches, cloud game streaming for supported PS5 titles will be available for use directly on your PS5 console." A cloud feature for PS5 games would mean you'll no longer have to download games to your console to stream them to other devices. Sony currently supports streaming PS5 games to PCs, Macs, and iOS and Android devices, but you have to use your PS5 as the host to download and stream titles to your other devices.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Techdirt: So, this is bad. Over the last few years, we've written plenty about the so-called "inter partes review" or "IPR" that came into being about a decade ago as part of the "America Invents Act," which was the first major change to the patent system in decades. For much of the first decade of the 2000s, patent trolls were running wild and creating a massive tax on innovation. There were so many stories of people (mostly lawyers) getting vague and broad patents that they never had any intention of commercializing, then waiting for someone to come along and build something actually useful and innovative... and then shaking them down with the threat of patent litigation. The IPR process, while not perfect, was at least an important tool in pushing back on some of the worst of the worst patents. In its most basic form, the IPR process allows nearly anyone to challenge a bad patent and have the special Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) review the patent to determine if it should have been granted in the first place. Given that a bad patent can completely stifle innovation for decades this seems like the very least that the Patent Office should offer to try to get rid of innovation-killing bad patents.

However, patent trolls absolutely loathe the IPR process for fairly obvious reasons. It kills their terrible patents. The entire IPR process has been challenged over and over again and (thankfully) the Supreme Court said that it's perfectly fine for the Patent Office to review granted patents to see if they made a mistake. But, of course, that never stops the patent trolls. They've complained to Congress. And, now, it seems that the Patent Office itself is trying to help them out. Recently, the USPTO announced a possible change to the IPR process that would basically lead to limiting who can actually challenge bad patents, and which patents could be challenged.

The wording of the proposed changes seems to be written in a manner to be as confusing as possible. But there are a few different elements to the proposal. One part would limit who can bring challenges to patents under the IPR system, utilizing the power of the director to do a "discretionary denial." For example, it would say that "certain for-profit entities" are not allowed to bring challenges. Why? That's not clear. [...] But the more worrisome change is this one: "Recognizing the important role the USPTO plays in encouraging and protecting innovation by individual inventors, startups, and under-resourced innovators who are working to bring their ideas to market, the Office is considering limiting the impact of AIA post-grant proceedings on such entities by denying institution when certain conditions are met." Basically, if a patent holder is designated as an "individual inventor, startup" or "under-resourced innovator" then their patents are protected from the IPR process. But, as anyone studying this space well knows, patent trolls often present themselves as all three of those things (even though it's quite frequently not at all true). [...] And, again, none of this should matter. A bad patent is a bad patent. Why should the USPTO create different rules that protect bad patents? If the patent is legit, it will survive the IPR process. The Electronic Frontier Foundation issued a response to the proposed changes: "The U.S. Patent Office has proposed new rules about who can challenge wrongly granted patents. If the rules become official, they will offer new protections to patent trolls. Challenging patents will become far more onerous, and impossible for some. The new rules could stop organizations like EFF, which used this process to fight the Personal Audio 'podcasting patent,' from filing patent challenges altogether."

The digital rights group added: "If these rules were in force, it's not clear that EFF would have been able to protect the podcasting community by fighting, and ultimately winning, a patent challenge against Personal Audio LLC. Personal Audio claimed to be an inventor-owned company that was ready to charge patent royalties against podcasters large and small. EFF crowd-funded a patent challenge and took out the Personal Audio patent after a 5-year legal battle (that included a full IPR process and multiple appeals)."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: When should you be concerned about a NAS hard drive failing? Multiple factors are at play, so many might turn to various SMART (self-monitoring, analysis, and reporting technology) data. When it comes to how long the drive has been active, there are backup companies like Backblaze using hard drives that are nearly 8 years old. That may be why some customers have been panicked, confused, and/or angered to see their Western Digital NAS hard drive automatically given a warning label in Synology's DiskStation Manager (DSM) after they were powered on for three years. With no other factors considered for these automatic flags, Western Digital is accused of age-shaming drives to push people to buy new HDDs prematurely. The practice's revelation is the last straw for some users. Western Digital already had a steep climb to win back NAS customers' trust after shipping NAS drives with SMR (shingled magnetic recording) instead of CMR (conventional magnetic recording). Now, some are saying they won't use or recommend the company's hard drives anymore.

As users have reported online, including on Synology-focused and Synology's own forums, as well as on Reddit and YouTube, Western Digital drives using Western Device Digital Analytics (WDDA) are getting a "warning" stamp in Synology DSM once their power-on hours count hits the three-year mark. WDDA is similar to SMART monitoring and rival offerings, like Seagate's IronWolf, and is supposed to provide analytics and actionable items. The recommended action says: "The drive has accumulated a large number of power on hours [throughout] the entire life of the drive. Please consider to replace the drive soon." There seem to be no discernible problems with the hard drives otherwise.

Synology confirmed this to Ars Technica and noted that the labels come from Western Digital, not Synology. A spokesperson said the "WDDA monitoring and testing subsystem is developed by Western Digital, including the warning after they reach a certain number of power-on-hours." The practice has caused some, like YouTuber SpaceRex, to stop recommending Western Digital drives for the foreseeable future. In May, the YouTuber and tech consultant described his outrage, saying three years is "absolutely nothing" for a NAS drive and lamenting the flags having nothing to do with anything besides whether or not a drive has been in use for three years. A user on SynoForum discussed their "panic" upon seeing the label. And SpaceRex said one of its clients also panicked and quickly replaced the "warning" drives out of fear of losing business-critical data. "It is clearly predatory tactics by Western Digital trying to sell more hard drives," SpaceRex said in a June 10 video. "Users are also concerned that this could prevent people from noticing serious problems with their drive," adds Ars. "Further, you can't repair a pool with a drive marked with a warning label."

Some of the affected products with WDDA include the WD Red Pro, WD Red Plus, and WD Purple. A discussion post about how to disable WDDA via SSH can be found here.