Agregátor RSS

A new zero-day pre-authentication remote code execution vulnerability has been disclosed in the Apache OFBiz open-source enterprise resource planning (ERP) system that could allow threat actors to achieve remote code execution on affected instances. Tracked as CVE-2024-38856, the flaw has a CVSS score of 9.8 out of a maximum of 10.0. It affects Apache OFBiz versions prior to 18.12.15. "The Ravie Lakshmananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/[email protected]

Some scowl, some smile, as fines no longer apply every time your mugshot or fingerprint is shared

The US state of Illinois has reduced penalties for breaches of its tough Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).…

Smile for the camera to get in, or buy a beer without lining up

The National Football League and all 32 of its teams will use tech from facial recognition software vendor Wicket to verify the identity of thousands of staff, media and fans as part of its credentialing program.…

Než si sjednáte cestovní pojištění pro svoji bezproblémovou dovolenou, seznamte se s podmínkami zvolené pojišťovny, za jakých okolností bude vaše pojištění skutečně fungovat.

Důvodem pro přiznání většího podílu na společném majetku po rozvodu může být výlučná zásluha jen jednoho z manželů, který nadstandardně vydělával. Jaké to má podmínky a omezení? K jakým rozdílům může soud dospět?

Minule jsme se zaměřili na popis textových režimů karty VGA a dnes si ukážeme základní práci s jejími standardními grafickými režimy. Zmíníme se i o programování DAC (což je na VGA novinka) a slavném grafickém režim 13H.

Proslýchá se, že pověstná trouba, z níž Jen-Hsung Huang tahá akcelerátory, má závadu. Akcelerátory Blackwell se tak na trh v letošním roce nedostanou…

Vědci si donedávna mysleli, že Grónský ledový příkrov sevřel nešťastné Grónsko na dlouhé miliony let. Poslední dobou se ale množí důkazy, že tahle masa ledu je mnohem mladší, než vypadá. Podle nového výzkumu i centrální část Grónska, v oblasti základny Summit Camp, byla bez ledu a porostlá svěží tundrou naposledy někdy před 1,1 miliony až 250 tisíci let.

If you hear the word Ozempic, weight loss immediately comes to mind. The drug—part of a family of treatments called GLP-1 agonists—took the medical world (and internet) by storm for helping people manage diabetes, lower the risk of heart disease, and rapidly lose weight.

The drugs may also protect the brain against dementia. In a clinical trial including over 200 people with mild Alzheimer’s disease, a daily injection of a GLP-1 drug for one year slowed cognitive decline. When challenged with a battery of tests assessing memory, language skills, and decision-making, participants who took the drug remained sharper for longer than those who took a placebo—an injection that looked the same but wasn’t functional.

The results are the latest from the Evaluating Liraglutide in Alzheimer’s Disease (ELAD) study led by Dr. Paul Edison at Imperial College London. Launched in 2014, the study was based on years of research in mice showing liraglutide—a GLP-1 drug already approved for weight loss and diabetes management in the United States—also protects the brain.

In Alzheimer’s disease, neurons die off and the brain gradually loses volume. In the trial, Liraglutide slowed the process down, resulting in roughly 50 percent less volume lost in several areas of the brain related to memory compared to a placebo.

“We are in an era of unprecedented promise, with new treatments in various stages of development that slow or may possibly prevent cognitive decline due to Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Maria C. Carrillo, Alzheimer’s Association chief science officer and medical affairs lead, in a press release. “This research provides hope that more options for changing the course of the disease are on the horizon.”

The results were presented last month at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Back to Basics

The quest for an Alzheimer’s disease treatment is littered with failures. Most treatments aim to tackle toxic protein clumps that build up inside the brain. It’s thought that breaking them up could prevent neurons from withering away.

A few have had limited success. Last month, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a drug that breaks down the clumps in people already experiencing symptoms at an early stage of the disease. A few weeks later, the European Medicines Agency refused to approve another drug that also targets the clumps, saying the effects of delaying cognitive decline didn’t balance the risk of serious side effects, including brain swelling and bleeding.

Other scientists have looked elsewhere—specifically, diabetes. Insulin helps maintain brain health, and Type 2 diabetes is a risk factor for developing Alzheimer’s disease. Rather than directly breaking down protein clumps in the brain, might we protect the brain by tweaking the body’s metabolism?

Enter GLP-1 drugs. These mimic hormones released by the stomach after a satisfying meal, tricking the brain into thinking you’re full. In other words, the drugs don’t only influence the gut—they also change brain functions.

In a mouse model of Alzheimer’s, daily injections of liraglutide for eight weeks prevented memory problems. Their neurons also thrived. Synapses—the junctions connecting brain cells—were still able to rapidly form neural networks in areas especially damaged by the disease. Surprisingly, toxic protein clumps also declined by up to 50 percent, and inflammation dropped.

Liraglutide didn’t just work on neurons. Another study, also in an Alzheimer’s mouse model, found it rapidly tweaked the metabolism of a particular kind of star-shaped brain cell that supports neurons. These cells don’t form neural networks, but they do help provide energy. In Alzheimer’s, they stop functioning normally, but liraglutide reversed the decline. In mice, the drug improved the cells’ ability to support neurons, allowing the neurons to flourish and connect to others. The brain also made better use of sugar—its primary fuel—allowing it to give birth to new neurons in a region important for memory.

But as the field frustratingly knows, mice are not people. Many promising treatments in mice have failed in clinical studies, earning these endeavors the nickname “graveyard of dreams.”

The Trial

Edison took on the task of extending the research from mice to humans. In 2019, he and his colleagues detailed plans for a clinical trial to gauge liraglutide’s effects in people with mild Alzheimer’s. Called ELAD, the study was to be randomized and double-blind—the gold standard in clinical trials. Here, neither doctor nor patient knows who’s getting liraglutide or the placebo.

They recruited 204 people to receive injections, either liraglutide or placebo, every day for a year. Before the trial, each person had an MRI scan to map their brain’s structure and volume. Other scans recorded brain metabolism, and a battery of memory tests detailed cognition. These tests were repeated at the end, with safety checkups in between, in case of side effects.

The study had several goals. One was to see if liraglutide increased the brain’s metabolism in regions heavily impacted by Alzheimer’s—those related to learning, memory, and decision-making. Another examined brain volume, which decreases as the disease progresses. The last evaluated cognitive tests of memory, comprehension, language, and spatial navigation.

People who took liraglutide had nearly 50 percent less brain volume loss, especially in regions associated with reasoning and learning. “The slower loss of brain volume suggests liraglutide protects the brain, much like statins protect the heart,” said Dr. Edison.

Liraglutide also boosted cognition. Comparing scores from before the trial, at its midpoint, and at the end, those who received the drug had an 18 percent slower decline than those who took the placebo. However, the drug didn’t affect brain metabolism.

Side effects were relatively mild. The most common was nausea. More serious ones, not specified, occurred in 18 patients but weren’t likely related to the treatment according to Edison.

To be clear, the team presented the results at a conference, and they haven’t yet been formally vetted by other experts in the field. But they add to accumulating evidence that GLP-1 drugs slow cognitive decline. A Swedish study in June conducted a simulated trial in people with Type 2 diabetes given GLP-1 or two other types of drugs and assessed their cognition afterward. Using health data records from over 88,000 participants followed over four years, GLP-1 drugs were better than the two other diabetes drugs at keeping the risk of dementia at bay.

We don’t yet know how liraglutide protects the brain. Based on studies in mice, it likely works multiple ways, such as reducing inflammation, clearing toxic protein clumps, and improving communicate between neurons, Edison said.

But the idea is gaining steam. EVOKE Plus, a late stage clinical trial of semaglutide—the chemical in Ozempic—is ongoing. The study will take about three and a half years, with an estimated enrollment of 1,840 people with early Alzheimer’s disease. It’s set to conclude in late 2026.

“Repurposing drugs already approved for other conditions has the advantage of providing data and experience from previous research and practical use—so we already know a lot about real-world effectiveness in other diseases and side effects,” said Carrillo.

Image Credit: Maxim Berg / Unsplash

In a landmark decision, a US District Court on Monday ruled that Google is a monopoly that used its dominance in the online search market to suppress other search engines and keep them from gaining market share.

“By 2020, it was nearly 90% [of the search market], and even higher on mobile devices at almost 95%” US District Judge Amit Mehta wrote in his 277-page opinion. “The second-place search engine, Microsoft’s Bing, sees roughly 6% of all search queries — 84% fewer than Google. Google has not achieved market dominance by happenstance.

“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta added.

The decision by the US District Court for the District of Columbia said Google’s dominance has gone unchallenged for well over a decade — allowing it to grow even stronger at the expense of its competitors.

Google Search is parent-company Alphabet’s oldest and most profitable business. A Google spokesperson said the company plans to appeal the decision.

Ken Walker, Google’s president of Global Affairs, said the court’s decision both “recognizes that Google offers the best search engine,” but it also restrains the company from making it easily available.

“We appreciate the Court’s finding that Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine…, particularly on mobile devices’,” Walker said in an email to Computerworld. “Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal.  As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”

After a lengthy trial last fall, the court found Google has spent tens of billions of dollars on exclusive contracts to secure a dominant role as the default search engine for web browsers and mobile devices. The court even used a competitive analysis performed by Google itself in 2020 to illustrate the point; that study estimated it would cost Google competitor Apple $20 billion to create a similar product that could compete with Google search.

Other rivals, such as Microsoft Bing and Duckduckgo.com, suffer the same inability to compete — and as Google’s revenue has grown, so has its ability to continue locking its competition out.

“In 2014, Google booked nearly $47 billion in advertising revenue. By 2021, that number had increased more than three-fold to over $146 billion. Bing, by comparison, generated only a fraction of that amount — less than $12 billion in 2022,” Mehta wrote.

While Mehta didn’t offer a solution to the monopoly Google has built, the court’s decision will likely affect other lawsuits against the company and change the way its search engine works in the future. If it prevails through the appeals process, the ruling is also likely open the door to Google’s competition to grow their own business and search engine market base.

Google’s court woes are far from over with the Monday ruling. A second lawsuit by the Department of Justice brought by the Biden administration will challenge the company’s advertising technology business.

The DOJ complaint has alleged that Google monopolizes advertising and uses technologies to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its advertising dominance. That case is expected to head to trial in early September.

After the ruling was made public, Attorney General Merrick Garland weighed in with a statement: “This victory against Google is an historic win for the American people,” said Garland. “No company — no matter how large or influential — is above the law. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce our antitrust laws.”

“This landmark decision holds Google accountable,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter. “It paves the path for innovation for generations to come and protects access to information for all Americans.”

The Court’s desicion also referenced what it called “specialized vertical providers,” such as Amazon, DoorDash, Expedia, and Yelp as Google competitors for shopping and food queries.

A Yelp spokesperson said in an email to Computerworld that the historic decision “clearly found that Google willfully used illegal means to monopolize the online search market.

“While we are still reviewing the ruling, it validates what Yelp’s CEO and co-founder Jeremy Stoppelman has said for more than a decade, ‘When one company controls the market, it ultimately controls consumer choice.’ If competition really were just ‘one click away,’ as Google suggests, why have they invested so heavily to be the default choice on web browsers and mobile phones? Clearly they are not taking any chances.”

(Stoppelman was deposed in the US vs. Google case.)

Any remedy for “Google’s misconduct” should require the company to stop its exclusionary conduct and instead compete based on the merits of its products, Yelp’s spokesperson said.

“Additionally, there must be serious consideration of requiring Google to spin off services that have been artificially boosted by its illegal search monopoly, which harms consumers and businesses,” he said. “We applaud Judge Mehta’s watershed ruling and the important work of the US Department of Justice and state attorneys general to vigorously address anticompetitive practices.”

Google’s dominance in the search arena has given rise to two major antitrust lawsuits from the U.S. government, which allege that the company has manipulated the market to maintain that dominance, to the exclusion of its competitors and the detriment of the public at large.

The first lawsuit, targeting Google’s search business, kicked off in mid-September 2023, and drew to a close in May 2024 with the delivery of closing arguments; a second trial against the tech giant, focusing on advertising, is scheduled for later this year.

The cases heavily echo the turn-of-the-century Microsoft antitrust case in several respects, not least of which is the fact that Google faces the possibility of being broken up by regulators if it is unsuccessful in its legal battles.

Here’s our condensed timeline of the two lawsuits, and their progress through the court system.

Aug. 5, 2024: In a major defeat for Google, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that the company had engaged in anticompetitive behavior in an effort to protect its search business. In the 277-page decision, Mehta was blunt: “After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.” Attorney General Merrick Garland, in a statement from the Department of Justice, said: “This victory against Google is an historic win for the American people. No company — no matter how large or influential — is above the law.” Mehta’s ruling did not include remedies for the anticompetitive behavior; those will be decided later.

May 3, 2024: Over two days of closing arguments, the Department of Justice revisited its case for Google having a monopoly on search advertising, and Judge Mehta quizzed both parties about whether other platforms could be viewed as substitutes for Google’s search advertising business. He hasn’t said how long he expects to take to reach a decision, but if he rules against Google, a second hearing will take place to decide on any remedies.

November 16, 2023: The evidentiary phase of the trial finishes, as Judge Mehta issues instructions for post-trial submissions. Despite considerable amounts of redaction and closed-door testimony, the case revealed some unprecedented details about the relationships between the largest tech companies in the world, including the fact that Apple apparently keeps 36% of the search revenue from Google searches in Safari, and Apple once considered buying Microsoft’s Bing search engine as leverage against Google. Judge Mehta has scheduled closing arguments in the case for May 1, 2024.

October 31, 2023: Google CEO Sundai Pichai takes the stand, for long-awaited testimony about the relationship between his company and Apple. He gave some details about Google’s negotiations with Apple over a contract that made Google the default search engine on Apple’s iPhones, iPads, and Macs. Google has paid billions for the privilege of being the default search on Apple products, and the relationship is a key part of the case – which was underlined by the Justice Department’s cross-examination of Pichai, during which he admitted that default search status is a major driver of market share.

October 18, 2023: Google begins its defense, calling Paul Nayak, a vice president of search, to the stand as its first witness. Nayak downplays the importance of scale in his testimony, stressing that machine intelligence, compute infrastructure, and a team of 16,000 staff that checks on search results are crucial to maintaining quality of service. DOJ witnesses including DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella had testified that Google keeps an edge over competitors via an ever-increasing trove of data — the result of its default search engine status, maintained through exclusive contracts and billions of dollars in payments to Apple, Samsung and other companies. This data gives Google an advantage in refining search engine results, they said. 

October 3, 2023: As a witness for the prosecution in the Google antitrust trial, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warns that Google’s monopoly profits could lock in publishers as AI-enabled search arrives. Nadella argued that it’s almost impossible to compete with Google, given the search leader’s massive competitive edge in collecting and analyzing user data. He also warned that Google, with its vast profits and lock on the search market, stands poised to extend its monopoly power in a new era where artificial intelligence technologies will turbocharge the search business.

September 26, 2023: Apple’s Eddy Cue testifies behind closed doors in the Google search case, as critics slam presiding Judge Amit Mehta’s decision to hold much of the trial’s testimony from witnesses secret, allow documents to be heavily redacted, and block some documents from public view — mainly at the insistence of Google, but also at the request of other companies, including Apple. By the end of Cue’s testimony — and after a wek of wrangling by all parties — Judge Mehta rules that documents used during the trial can be published online at the end of each day, but still allows time Google and third parties to object to exhibits being shown publicly before the DOJ presents them in court. 

September 21, 2023: Judge Mehta rules that public access to court exhibits, which have been mostly internal Google documents thus far, should be removed, after Google challenged the Justice Department’s regular publication of them. The company said that it was concerned for its employees’ privacy.

September 12, 2023: The default search trial begins with opening statements, and the government begins its case.

August 2023: Judge Mehta grants partial summary judgment for Google in the search case, saying that the government had failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on antitrust charges relating to contracts around the use of the Android operating system, as well as Google Assistant and IoT devices. The claims relating to Google’s exclusive “default search” contracts, however, are allowed to proceed to trial.

July/August 2023: Google and the plaintiffs in the search case argue various motions in limine, designed to control what evidence should be included or excluded in the actual trial. Discovery and motion practice over evidence continues in the advertising case.

June 2023: Judge Mehta schedules a trial date of September 12, 2023 for the search case.

April 2023: Judge Leonie M. Brinkema denies Google’s motion to dismiss in the advertising case.

March 2023: Google’s motion to transfer the advertising case to New York is denied by Judge Brinkema, who orders the parties to propose discovery schedules within two weeks of the order. Two weeks later, Google moves to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, arguing that the plaintiffs have simply produced legal conclusions, and not specific facts, that could support their claims. Judge Brinkema schedules pre-trial conferences for January 2024.

February 2023: The plaintiffs in the default search case case move for sanctions against Google, accusing it of spoliation, which refers to the destruction, alteration or failure to preserve relevant evidence in a case. Elsewhere, in the advertising case, Google moves to transfer the case from the Eastern District of Virginia to the Southern District of New York, which is seen as an attempt to consolidate the case with related digital advertising antitrust litigation.

January 2023: A second antitrust action, this one filed by eight states and the DoJ, is filed in federal district court in eastern Virginia. The plaintiffs, who call for Google’s advertising business to be split up, accuse Google of manipulating its dominant position in the online advertising world to squeeze out rivals and control both the supply and demand side of the advertising market. Google, according to the complaint, thwarted fair competition by manipulating fees, punished advertisers for using alternative platforms and ad exchanges, and engaged in a host of further anti-competitive behavior in the interest of monopolizing the marketplace.

December 2022: Google moves for summary judgment against the separate Colorado case and the larger, DoJ-led case. A summary judgement motion is essentially a request by one of the parties in a lawsuit that the judge rule in their favor and end the case, arguing that, based on the undisputed facts, they are entitled to win the case as a matter of law.

May 2022: A deadline of June 17 is set for the production of all discovery materials. Further documents – for example, those whose is existence is first disclosed in late in the discovery window – can be produced until June 30.

May 2022: Judge Mehta denies a government motion to sanction Google for inaccurately classifying documents as attorney-client privileged. The plaintiffs had argued that emails on which Google’s lawyers were listed as recipients or CCed, but that the lawyers never responded to, constituted a misuse of the attorney-client privilege rules.

December 2021: Judge Mehta conditionally splits Colorado’s claims from the case at large, ordering that separate trials on that state’s issues of liability and remedies will be “more convenient for the Court and the Parties, and will expedite and economize this litigation.”

August-October 2021: Discovery-related motions and orders continue, as Yelp and Samsung join the fray. (Those companies, like Microsoft and Apple, are relevant to the case even if they aren’t parties themselves, as their internal records are potentially relevant to Google’s liability.)

June/July 2021: The discovery process continues, and the U.S. and Google both file several documents with the court under seal. (Microsoft files two sealed documents, as well, in response to Google’s subpoenas for company records, and Apple becomes involved after the government requests access to some of its internal information.)

March 2021: Meetings between Google and the various governmental plaintiffs continue, with periodic status reports on the discovery process.

January 2021: Google files a response to the complaint, admitting to many of the facts alleged by the Justice Department and associated attorneys general, but categorically denying the substance of the government’s claims of illegality. Further responses to separate but related claims, generally to specific state attorneys general, follow in the subsequent weeks and months.

December 2020: Judge Amit Mehta approves the joinder of Michigan, Wisconsin and California to the suit.

October 2020: The Department of Justice, along with the attorneys general of 11 states, sues Google in DC federal district court for unlawfully maintaining a monopoly, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The case centers on Google’s use of exclusive contracts that mandate its use as the default search engine in a host of different hardware and software applications, with the government alleging that this represents an artificial constraint on any possible competition for the search giant.

Každý měsíc vybíráme nejlepší mobily v několika kategoriích • Smartphony dělíme podle výbavy a ceny, aby si mohl vybrat každý • Nezapomínáme ani na tablety a tlačítkové telefony

Podle společnosti Ookla provozující oblíbený měřič speedtest.net je průměrná rychlost pevného připojení v Česku 70 Mb/s ve směru k uživateli a 25 Mb/s ve směru od něj. Téma dnešní ankety tedy zní, máte doma rychlejší než ono průměrné připojení o rychlosti 70/25 Mb/s? V komentáři pak můžete ...

Background check biz accused of negligence

Updated  A lawsuit has accused a Florida data broker of carelessly failing to secure billions of records of people's private information, which was subsequently stolen from the biz and sold on an online criminal marketplace.…

Apple has introduced what might seem a controversial new Safari feature to make surfing the web a lot less annoying, as it removes those overlays that sometimes gets in the way of the experience. The new feature is called Distraction Control.

What is Distraction Control in Safari?

Coming this fall to Safari, Distraction Control lets users hide distracting items such as sign-in banners, newsletter subscription sign-ups, pestering subscription requests, or content overlays users see while browsing the web. 

These kinds of elements are not removed by most ads blockers; now, Safari will do it for you. It lets you choose which overlays to remove, after which you won’t be exposed to them next time you visit the site. In the context of user need, that’s great, but as a unique feature it gives Apple’s browser an additional USP as it is forced to open its platforms up. (If you’re using latest iOS and macOS betas you can now work with Distraction Control, which is scheduled to ship with macOS Sequoia, iOS 18 and iPadOS 18.)

How does Distraction Control work?

The tool is only automatic to an extent. That means the first time you visit a site that carries these kinds of overlays, Safari will render them precisely as the website wants.  But this is where Safari gives you a choice: just tap in the Smart Search field to surface the Page Menu, where you will find the Distraction Control tool (Hide Distracting Items). Tap this and you will be able to select the distracting site element(s) you want removed from view. Safari will then automatically remove that element and won’t show it again until the content is changed — it’s not a 100% removal solution.

To unhide these items, click the Hide icon in the search field and then tap Show Hidden Items.

What doesn’t Distraction Control do?

Distraction Control is not an ad blocker — you’ll need other tools for that. What it does is identify these items to provide you with the option of removing them. Safari is not generating content it thinks sits behind these on-page items, either. It just shows the content itself. The feature is not designed and cannot be used to evade paywalls. 

Why might it be controversial?

The new feature adds to Apple’s privacy-first browser, which is festooned with protective features such as Intelligent Tracking Prevention and private browsing that is actually private. Over time, however, many of the privacy-protecting tools Apple has put inside Safari have raised resistance, usually from across the less salubrious parts of the surveillance-based advertising industry. Because this new tool might reduce the effectiveness of some of the most annoying on-page elements out there, it seems inevitable Apple will face resistance once again.

Perhaps the most controversial part of this involves the economics of running websites. Many site publishers have seen income yields fall dramatically since tougher GDPR rules came into effect. The impact of these has been particularly tough on small web publishers who, in some cases, have seen incomes collapse.

Many of these had turned to subscriptions and mailing lists in an attempt to claw back some of this income, and Apple’s new feature could make the task of attracting those signups more difficult — even as AI developers continue to grab content from those same sites to make their technologies seem more genuine. 

What privacy features does Safari provide?

As noted, Safari already offers a host of privacy protecting features, including:

• Intelligent Tracking Prevention to prevent cross-site tracking.
• Private Browsing.
• Passkeys: Better than passwords.
• Password monitoring: Built in protection against compromised passwords.
• Privacy Report — what trackers are tracking you and who is being blocked.
• Social widget tracking prevention.
• Fingerprinting defense: Prevents advertisers and websites tracking you using the unique features of your device.

You can also read an extensive whitepaper detailing Safari’s privacy protecting technologies; it’s available here.

What else is coming to Safari this fall?

Apple has already revealed several additional features for its Safari browser. 

First, it tweaked how Safari tools are accessed by making these available via the URL bar; in keeping with the rest of the UI, this also gives the company a little more space within which to offer additional tools in the future.

New tools also include Highlights, which automatically detects relevant information on a page and highlights this as you browse and a much improved Reader tool that adds a summary and table of contents when you look at web content.

The company has also spun out Safari’s built in Keychain-based password manager as a standalone app. These new features will appear when the operating systems ship in fall.

Please follow me on Mastodon, or join me in the AppleHolic’s bar & grill and Apple Discussions groups on MeWe.

Grafické karty NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER jsou už nějaký ten pátek na trhu a dnes se podíváme na model společnosti GIGABYTE.

Po dlouhém období růstu se dnes akciové trhy ocitly v prudkém pádu a s nimi i trh kryptoměn v čele s bitcoinem, společně tak zažívají jeden z nejhorších dnů od dob koronavirové krize. Pád přichází jednak po zveřejnění dat americké nezaměstnanosti, která vyskočila na nejvyšší úroveň za poslední 3 ...

Nvidia has notified customers that its new AI chips in the Blackwell series will be at least three months late, according to The Information.

The B200 chip was shown off in March, but a serious design flaw found recently needs to be fixed before they are rolled out widely, according to the site’s sources.

According to The Verge, it will be difficult for Nvidia and its partner TSMC to deliver any larger quantities of the chip before the end of the year, as they need to do extensive testing first. The delay is a major setback for Nvidia, but also for Microsoft, Google and Meta, which ordered tens of billions of dollars worth of chips.

Nvidia’s work on AI chips has sparked something of a chips war with rivals Intel and AMD.

OpenAI has for more than a year had a tool to watermark text generated by the company’s AI assistant ChatGPT, according to information provided to The Wall Street Journal via The Verge. (OpenAI itself has confirmed that it’s been working on such a tool in a blog post.)

According to Journal, the watermarking should not affect the quality of the content ChatGPT creates — but OpenAI has chosen not to start using the tool because internally there are divided opinions about it.

The generative AI (genAI) ​​company reportedly commissioned a survey that showed four times as many people are disposed to using tools that can identify AI content as opposed to them. At the same time, another survey found that 30% of ChatGPT users would use the service less if it contained watermarked content.

Watch this video to learn how Palo Alto Networks is using GenAI to automate and simplify cybersecurity

Sponsored Post  Cyber security is complex right, particularly when you're tyring to monitor and configure multiple tools across a host of different on- and off-premise IT environments?…