177226029
submission
NewtonsLaw writes:
A school teacher in South Africa asked Google Gemini AI a simple question:
"What would the devil do to corrupt young minds?"
The answer is shocking, horrifying and frighteningly accurate.
The real question is "where did Gemini get this information?"
Is it regurgitating the results of some carefully measured plan that was scraped from a website in the darkest recesses of the Net? Why is the instruction given by Gemini such an accurate representation of exactly what we're seeing right now in the real world?
Should we be worried?
177111187
submission
NewtonsLaw writes:
When YouTuber Bruce Simpson received notification of a community guidelines infringement on his xjet YouTube channel he wasn't happy. YouTube alleges that one of his videos constitutes "hate speech" and even after review, the platform stands by its allegations.
What was the video that risks inciting hate and violence to such an extent that it needed to be removed, even after "appeal"?
Well it wasn't anything political, ideological or even violent. It was a two minute video of a radio controlled model aircraft flying in the skies at his local airfield in Tokoroa, New Zealand.
Incensed by this baseless allegation, Simpson posted this video to YouTube and within a few hours it had already gathered tens of thousands of views and over a thousand comments. Those comments make for great reading and show just how "out of touch" YouTube has become with its target audience and its creators.
The hypocrisy is also highlighted, as Simpson points out just how YouTube is prepared to overlook or even support frauds being perpetrated on its audience by way of scam advertisements that continue to play weeks or even months after they've been reported by countless people, many of who have become victims of the scams.
Has YouTube lost its way? Has it forgotten its roots? Are many creators now turning to self-hosting in reaction to ridiculous levels of censorship?
Or do we have a reverse adpocalypse — where content creators are shunning YouTube because they do not want their content being run alongside fraudulent scammy ads placed by YouTube?
177057459
submission
NewtonsLaw writes:
YouTube is very quick to demonetize or delete videos it considers to be a scam or deceptive. In fact it will also delete such videos or even entire channels simply because its AI has sometimes erroneously decided something is a scam or deceptive and this can happen within seconds of upload.
However, it's time YouTube itself was held to account because an increasing number of the ads it shows are outright scams and, even after many people have reported those ads, they continue to run — defrauding an unknown number of visitors to the site.
This hypocrisy is outrageous but now more than half the ads I see on YouTube are scams for things such as fake laser welding torches, worthless EMF stickers for phones, drones that don't have the advertised features, devices that allegedly use Starlink to provide limitless *free* internet from a one-time purchase with no monthly or data fees, etc, etc.
Surely, at some stage, YouTube has to be held accountable for effectively being a willing accomplice in such scams and opting to continue taking ad revenues from these scammers rather than taking down fraudulent ads when they're reported.
175673541
submission
NewtonsLaw writes:
A science enthusiast is facing 10 years' jail for importing nuclear material even though it was found to be harmless.
Emmanuel Steven Lidden, 24, was arrested in August 2023 when officers in full hazmat suits swooped on his parents' Arncliffe unit in southern Sydney, blocking off the street and evacuating neighbours.
They confiscated plutonium and depleted uranium in decorative vials and polymer cubes that Lidden kept by his bedside after buying from a US science collectables website to complete a real-life periodic table
173484136
submission
NewtonsLaw writes:
Lithium-Ion (LI) batteries are the backbone of much of our modern technology. They're in our phones, our laptops, our smartwatches and even the EVs that are increasingly appearing on our roads. One of the problems with LI technolgy however, is the very finite life of those batteries.
In the case of an EV, the battery pack represents a very significant portion of the total price you pay when buying one. Right now, the life of EV batteries is generally considered to be at least eight years, under normal use. But what if that could be doubled — simply by changing the way those batteries are charged?
This announcement by researchers in Europe indicates that the service life (ie: the number of charg/discharge cycles) of LI batteries could be as much as doubled, through the use of a pulsed current charging technology.
The standard charge method for LI cells is to deliver a constant direct current (DC) until the voltage of the cell rises to around 4.2 volts, at which time the voltage is maintained at a constant level and the charge current allowed to fall off. Once the charge current reaches a predefined minimum level, the cell is considered charged.
The new pulsed current method does not use DC but instead opts to recharge by way of intermittent pulses of current. This is not a new charging technology although it's not the norm for LI cells. Pulsed current chargers have been used on older chemistries such as nickel-cadmium in order to reduce/eliminate the formation of dendrites that would otherwise create short-circuits or significantly increase the self-discharge rate. Applying this tech to recharging LI cells seems to be a significant game-changer, if the lab results are duplicated in "the real world (TM)"
Doubling the life of your EV's battery or even your smartphone's battery is no small thing.
168994564
submission
NewtonsLaw writes:
Manufacturers of drones made after 16 September 2022 must, from today (16 December), ensure that those drones are "Standard Remote ID" compliant.
This means that the drones must broadcast packets of data once per second (using Bluetooth or Wifi) that contain the position speed and path of the drone, a unique identifier and the operator's position including height above ground.
The Federal Aviation Administration claims that this is something they were forced to add to the regulations by the DoD and DHS.
Already, several companies have announced their intention to build networks of receivers that will create a realtime database of all drone activity in the USA, showing the positions of the drones and their operators and flagging any non-compliant craft.
As of September 2023, all hobbyists must fit "broadcast remote ID" modules to their RC model aircraft or older drones which also make them Remote ID compliant (unless they are under 250g in mass or are flown in pre-approved areas called FRIAs).
For the record: There are (on average) around 1,000 reported injuries from recreational drone use each year in the USA, few of these actually requiring hospitalization and the death toll from the recreational use of multirotor drones remains at ZERO (in all of time and across the face of the globe).
Drone and RC model aircraft users must register with the FAA, sit (and pass) a knowledge test and soon have this Remote ID technology installed on all their craft.
By comparison, ultralight aircraft in the USA caused 268 deaths in 2021 yet these craft require no training, no registration, no license or knowledge exam and do not require any form of electronic ID.
Similarly, bicycles account for over 1,200 deaths a year and over 300,000 injuries in the USA. Likewise, bicycles can be used without any training, licensing, registration or electronic ID system
Restriction and regulation should be proportional to risk... so what is going on with drones?
And before anyone says "but drones can be used to drop bombs... just look at Ukraine" its worth noting the following:
A drone without a bomb is JUST A DRONE — but a bomb without a drone is STILL A BOMB.
If you are worried about drones dropping bombs then you don't have a drone problem you have a bomb problem and perhaps it would be more prudent to increase the control and regulation of explosives rather than to criminalize a hobby that has never produced a single death, anywhere, ever.
136240158
submission
NewtonsLaw writes:
A Raspberry Pi, a USB SDR dongle, an LCD a buzzer and a little bit of coding in Python and C has created a very useful alarm for drone and RC model aircraft operators. The device allows users to set an "alarm" perimeter around their operating area and automatically alert them whenever a manned aircraft with ADSB fitted intrudes into that area.
While there are apps like FlightRadar24 that allow you to monitor ADSB-equipped air traffic, this is the first stand-alone hand-held unit that isn't reliant on cellular or Wifi data and which not just monitors aircraft movments but also sounds an alarm according to user-defined parameters.
For those worried about the risks of drones colliding with aircraft this should bring a little extra peace of mind — even though there has never been a single death attributed to the use of recreational multirotor drones in the decade or so since their ready availability.
125130274
submission
NewtonsLaw writes:
The FAA has issued an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) that would effectively see the end of the traditional hobby of flying RC planes, helicopters and drones. As well as mandating remote ID on store-bought products it would effectively (over time) outlaw scratch-built craft as well. This stands to have a hugely negative impact on those STEM/STEAM programs that have in the past used drones and RC planes as a teaching tool and a way of getting kids into electronics, engineering and aerospace-related subjects. Although many older folk have tried to rally public support for some pushback on these outrageous proposed new rules, a 15-year-old called Jack Thornton has outclassed everyone with his four and a half minute YouTube video. Not only does he explain what's going on but he makes a fantastic case for the continuation of the hobby and even uses some of the tech to create the video. I am seriously impressed by what this guy has done!
95787463
submission
NewtonsLaw writes:
Since the YouTube "adpocalypse", many creators have placed a greater (or total) reliance on Patreon to fund their channels. It seems that Patreon is taking advantage of this by totally restructuring its fee structure (ie: increase fees).
Despite Patreon's hype that this is a "good thing" for creators, few of these actually seem to agree and there's already a growing backlash on social media.
Patreon's claims that content creators will be better off because, under the new scheme, they will now get 95% of all pledges, many fear that their nett return will be lower because the extra fees levied on patreons are causing them to either reduce the amount they pledge or withdraw completely.
The new fee structure sees patrons being charged 35 cents per donation per month plus 2.9% of the value of those donations. For those patrons supporting only a few creators the effect won't be large but for those who make small donations to many creators this could amount to a hike of almost 40% in the amount charged to their credit cards.
Without exception, all the content creators I have spoken to would have:
a) liked to have been consulted first
b) wanted the option to retain the old system where they bear the cost of the fees.
As a content creator, I've already seen quite a few of my patreons reducing their pledge and others canceling their pledges completely — and I understand why they are doing that.
Ultimately it's starting to look as if many content creators will be getting a slightly larger percentage of a much smaller amount as a result of this lunacy by Patreon — something that will see them far worse off than the were before.
It's starting to look as if greed is about to ruin Patreon as it ruined YouTube.
74728403
submission
NewtonsLaw writes:
Drones such as the Lilly Camera, DJI Phamtom and (to a lesser extent, because of its size) DJI Inspire are changing the way we experience our vacations. Instead of toting along a camcorder or a 35mm DSLR, more and more people are just packing a GoPro and, increasingly, a drone on which to mount it.
This is fine if you're going to a drone-friendly country but be warned that (when/if they finally ship), your Lilly Camera will get you into big trouble in Thailand (where all use of drones by the public is banned outright) and now New Zealand, where strict new laws regarding the operation of drones and even tiny toys like the 20g Cheerson CX10, come into effect on August 1.
Under these new rules, nobody can operate a drone or model aircraft without getting the prior consent of the owner over which property it is intended to fly — and (this is the kicker) also the permission of the occupiers of that property. So you can effectively forget about flying down at the local park, at scenic locations or just about any public place. Even if you could manage to get the prior permission of the land-owner, because we're talking "public place", you'd also have to get the permission of anyone and everyone who was also in the area where you intended to fly.
Other countries have produced far more sane regulations — such as limiting drone and RC model operators to flying no closer than 30m from people or buildings — but New Zealand's CAA have gone right over the top and imposed what amounts to a virtual death-sentence on a hobby that has provided endless, safe fun for boys (and girls) of all ages for more than 50 decades.
Of course if you are prepared to pay a $600 fee to become "Certified" by CAA then the restrictions on where you can fly are lifted and you don't need those permissions. It seems that the government here is taking away our rights and simply selling them back to us as "privileges" that can be purchased by paying a fist-full of cash to the appropriate government agency.
When reading the linked news story, remember that as far as CAA in New Zealand is concerned, *everything* that flies and is remotely controlled is now deemed to be a "drone" — so that includes everything from a tiny 20g toy quadcopter to a huge octocopter.
