An anonymous reader shares a report: Beware the apes, Reddit told the world in its IPO documents, though not in such explicit terms. Put simply, the company warned potential investors that one of its subreddits, the infamous r/WallStreetBets, could make its stock price and volume extremely volatile -- and there's little Reddit can do about it. Reddit listed r/WallStreetBets as one of the possible risks to investing in the company in its S-1 form on Thursday, referencing the subreddit's role in the meme stock craze of 2021, where retail investors banded together to raise the price of struggling companies like GameStop and AMC. The goal of r/WallStreetBets back then was to screw over professional investors on Wall Street and make them lose money for betting against certain companies.

It's entirely possible that the everyday people on r/WallStreetBets, a subreddit of 15 million retail investors who refer to themselves as "apes" and "degenerates," and other online forums could do the same thing with Reddit's stock, the company stated. Reddit writes: "Given the broad awareness and brand recognition of Reddit, including as a result of the popularity of r/ wallstreetbets among retail investors, and the direct access by retail investors to broadly available trading platforms, the market price and trading volume of our Class A common stock could experience extreme volatility for reasons unrelated to our underlying business or macroeconomic or industry fundamentals."

The volatility could cause people to lose all or part of their investment, the company explained, if they are unable to sell their shares at or above the IPO price. The long-term effect of movements like those propelled by r/WallStreetBets is already documented, with the takeaway being that surges of interest and heavy investment don't necessarily bring success to companies over time.

An anonymous reader shares a report: When Google Wallet launched in 2022, Google kept the "GPay" app around in a handful of countries. The company announced today that the old Google Pay app is soon going away in the US. That app, which appears as "GPay" on your Android homescreen, was Google's previous vision for mobile payments and finance.

It was "designed around your relationships with people and businesses" with conversation-like threads serving as a purchase history, while keeping track of your spending was another big aspect. GPay will stop working in the US from June 4, 2024. It will remain available for users in India and Singapore as Google continues to "build for the unique needs in those countries." As part of the app going away, Google is shutting down peer-to-peer payments that let you send, request, or receive money from others in the US. Google's P2P offering never really took off.

AmiMoJo writes: Most of the UK companies that took part in the world's biggest ever four-day working week trial have made the policy permanent, research shows. Of the 61 organisations that took part in a six-month UK pilot in 2022, 54 (89%) are still operating the policy a year later, and 31 (51%) have made the change permanent. More than half (55%) of project managers and CEOs said a four-day week -- in which staff worked 100% of their output in 80% of their time -- had a positive impact on their organisation, the report found.

For 82% this included positive effects on staff wellbeing, 50% found it reduced staff turnover, while 32% said it improved job recruitment. Nearly half (46%) said working and productivity improved. The report's author, Juliet Schor, professor of sociology at Boston College, said the results showed "real and long lasting" effects. "Physical and mental health, and work-life balance are significantly better than at six months. Burnout and life satisfaction improvements held steady," she said.

jbmartin6 shares a report from Phys.Org: Threatening messages aimed to prevent digital piracy have the opposite effect if you're a man, a new study from the University of Portsmouth has found. According to the research, women tend to respond positively to this kind of messaging, but men typically increase their piracy behaviors by 18%. [...] This paper studies how effective anti-piracy messages are as a deterrent, examining the change in TV and film piracy intentions among 962 adults compared with their past behavior. The three messages examined in the study were verbatim copies of three real-world anti-piracy campaigns. Two of the campaigns used threatening messages to try to combat piracy and the third was educational in tone.

One of the threatening messages was from crime reduction charity, Crimestoppers, which focused on the individual's risk of computer viruses, identity fraud, money and data theft and hacking. The other message was based on a campaign by the French government, which used a "three strike" process, whereby infringers were given two written warnings before their internet access was terminated. The educational message was taken from the campaign "Get It Right from a Genuine Site," which focuses on the cost to the economy and to the individual creative people, and signposts consumers away from piracy sites and towards legal platforms such as Spotify or Netflix.

The study found that one threatening message influences women to reduce their piracy intentions by over 50%, but men increase their piracy behaviors. The educational messages had no effect on either men or women. "The research shows that anti-piracy messages can inadvertently increase piracy, which is a phenomenon known as psychological reactance," explained [lead author, Kate Whitman, from the University of Portsmouth's Centre for Cybercrime and Economic Crime]. "From an evolutionary psychology point of view, men have a stronger reaction to their freedom being threatened and therefore they do the opposite." Moreover, the study found that participants with the most favorable attitudes towards piracy demonstrated the most polarized changes in piracy intentions -- the threatening messages increased their piracy even more. The study has been published in the Journal of Business Ethics.

"I'm not so sure about the author's attribution of this difference to evolutionary psychology, so looking forward to some educational comments on that," adds Slashdot reader jbmartin6.

Sarah Perez reports via TechCrunch: The CEO of meditation app Insight Timer, Christopher Plowman, is frustrated. He doesn't think the teachers who leverage his app's marketplace to reach their students should have to share 30% of their income with Apple -- its commission on in-app purchases -- and for the past 12 months, Apple had also agreed. After Apple loosened its rules around in-app donations in 2022, Insight Timer took advantage of the option to adjust a digital donations feature that allowed Insight Timers' teachers to collect "tips" from their user profiles and during live events. Apple reviewed the app and approved its release on the App Store. Now the tech giant has changed its mind -- it wants to collect a commission from this content, and Insight Timer had no choice but to comply or have its iOS business shut down, Plowman says. [...]

In section 3.2.1 of Apple's App Review guidelines, the company explains that apps can route around Apple's in-app purchase if the app enables individual users to "give a monetary gift to another individual" and "100% of the funds" go to the receiver of the gift. Insight Timer capitalized on this option to allow its users to tip meditation teachers, healers, musicians, and others who use its app to teach classes on meditation, managing stress, finding happiness or spiritual enlightenment, and more. Insight Timer implemented the feature using Stripe as the payment provider on the back end, as the rule permits. Users can opt to donate funds to the teacher, but they don't have to. Insight Timer's main business is selling premium subscriptions to its app, which offer additional features, like offline listening, journaling, and unlimited access to its courses. Fifty percent of this revenue is shared with the teachers, so they don't have to rely on donations to fund their work. During the time the commission-free donations feature was live, Insight Timer's users donated roughly $100,000 per month to the app's teachers, Plowman says.

Apple appeared to have blessed this use case, as the tech giant went on to approve 47 more updates to Insight Timer's app over the course of a 12-month period. When a question arose, Insight Timer explained that these were donations -- it doesn't take a cut of that revenue -- and Apple would approve the app. Late last year, those approvals stopped. An app reviewer told Insight Timer that these donations were no longer considered monetary gifts -- they were now "digital content." That meant they were also now subject to Apple's commissions. This decision doesn't hurt Insight Timer's bottom line, as the app's main business is subscriptions. Instead, it hurts the community of teachers who generate additional funds via users' donations. Now, with Apple demanding 30% of that revenue, the teachers are getting a 30% pay cut overnight, so to speak.

Plowman says he went back and forth with Apple over this feature, trying to understand why the donations option that Apple had previously allowed -- 47 times! -- was now subject to commission. Apple compromised and said it would allow the donations' link on teachers' profiles to be subject to its commission-free rules, but all other donations -- from live events, from meditations themselves -- had to be commissioned. It wouldn't allow those links to point to the donation link on the teachers' profiles, either. "And I was like, well, what's the point of building an ice cream stand across the road if you won't let the customers cross the road to buy the ice cream?" Plowman argued. In the end, the two parties didn't reach any sort of resolution. Plowman was given until February to comply with Apple's decision, or his business would be shut out of the App Store.

Apple is rolling out an upgrade to its iMessage texting platform to defend against future encryption-breaking technologies. From a report: The new protocol, known as PQ3, is another sign that U.S. tech firms are bracing for a potential future breakthrough in quantum computing that could make current methods of protecting users' communications obsolete. "More than simply replacing an existing algorithm with a new one, we rebuilt the iMessage cryptographic protocol from the ground up," an Apple blog post published on Wednesday reads. "It will fully replace the existing protocol within all supported conversations this year."

The Cupertino, California-based iPhone maker says its encryption algorithms are state-of-the-art and that it has found no evidence so far of a successful attack on them. Still, government officials and scientists are concerned that the advent of quantum computers, advanced machines that tap in to the properties of subatomic particles, could suddenly and dramatically weaken those protections. Late last year, a Reuters investigation explored how the United States and China are racing to prepare for that moment, dubbed "Q-Day," both by pouring money into quantum research and by investing in new encryption standards known as post-quantum cryptography. Washington and Beijing have traded allegations of intercepting massive amounts of encrypted data in preparation for Q-Day, an approach sometimes dubbed "catch now, crack later." More on Apple's security blog.

Internet service provider Cox Communications has been cleared of a $1 billion jury verdict in favor of several major record labels that had accused it of failing to curb user piracy. "The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled on Tuesday that the amount of damages was not justified and that a federal district court should hold a new trial to determine the appropriate amount," reports Reuters. From the report: A Virginia jury in 2019 found Cox, the largest unit of privately-owned Cox Enterprises, liable for its customers' violations of over 10,000 copyrights belonging to labels including Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and Universal Music Group. The labels' attorney Matt Oppenheim said that the appeals court "affirmed the jury's verdict that Cox is a willful infringer," and that "the evidence of Cox's complete disregard for copyright law and copyright owners has not changed." "A second jury will get to hear that same compelling evidence, and we fully expect it will render a significant verdict," Oppenheim said.

More than 50 labels teamed up to sue Cox in 2018, in what was seen as a test of the obligations of internet service providers (ISPs) to thwart piracy. The labels accused Cox of failing to address thousands of infringement notices, cut off access for repeat infringers, or take reasonable measures to deter pirates. Atlanta-based Cox had told the 4th Circuit that upholding the verdict would force ISPs to boot households or businesses based on "isolated and potentially inaccurate allegations," or require intrusive oversight of customers' internet usage. Other ISPs, including Charter Communications, Frontier Communications and Astound Broadband, formerly RCN, have also been sued by the record labels.

Andrew Feinberg, writing for Slate: If you wanted to design a financial channel that would cause investors to underperform the stock market, you'd create CNBC, NBC's financial counterpart that runs on cable news and ostensibly tries to make viewers better investors. You'd make it sober and rational (well, there is Jim Cramer, but we'll get to him later), no need to feature anyone foaming at the mouth about stocks that could triple in six months or worried Cassandras warning that it's time to sell everything and burrow underground. And yet, you'd ensure that viewers stay engaged by keeping them on edge, worried and confused about what might happen next. Anxiety, you'd discover, is your friend, viewer hypervigilance your bread and butter.

In other words, CNBC makes viewers nervous in a very specific way. Nervous that they're about to lose money in a market downturn. Nervous that they might miss a hot trend or stock. Or uncertain that they're in the right sectors. Then an "expert" comes on and says, "Hey, you're in the wrong sectors -- it's time to leave tech for industrials, financials, and health care." In its sober, rational way, the network creates a sense of urgency. Although its tone is never like that of an infomercial, sometimes the message is similar. Act now. The problem is, hypervigilance is probably the worst quality most investors can have. "Sit on your ass," the late Charlie Munger advised investors, emphasizing that when it comes to investing, less is more. Feeling nervous leads to excessive trading. And "all the evidence shows that individual investors do worse the more they trade," says Jay Ritter, professor of finance at the University of Florida's Warrington College of Business. "Buying and selling something based on what you see on CNBC is not likely to be a successful strategy."

Capital One is buying Discover Financial (non-payalled source) in a deal that would marry two of the largest credit-card companies in the U.S. WSJ: The all-stock deal could be announced Tuesday, according to people familiar with the matter. Discover has a market value of $28 billion, and the takeover would be expected to value it at a premium to that. Buying Discover will give Capital One, a credit-card lender with a market value of a little over $52 billion, a network that would vastly increase its power in the payments ecosystem.

Card networks are critical to enabling transactions and setting fees that merchants pay when consumers shop with credit cards. Though much smaller than Visa and Mastercard, Discover is one of the few competitors to those companies in the U.S. and it is one of a small number of card issuers that also has a payments network. Capital One, the ninth-largest bank in the country and a major credit-card issuer, uses Visa and Mastercard for most of its cards. The bank plans to switch at least some of its cards to the Discover network, while continuing to use Visa and Mastercard on others. Those larger networks have more merchant acceptance abroad than Discover does. Update: Capital One has proposed to pay $35.3 billion for Discover in an all-stock deal.

Founders and investors who moved to Miami and elsewhere are returning to a boom in AI and an abundance of tech talent. From a report: In 2020, venture capitalist Keith Rabois urged startup founders to join him in ditching San Francisco for Miami, praising the city's safety, lower taxes and tech-friendly mayor. The self-proclaimed contrarian investor, who made a fortune backing companies such as Airbnb and DoorDash, once tweeted that San Francisco was "miserable on every dimension."

The hard pivot to Miami has faltered. Several of the startups that Rabois backed are relocating or opening offices elsewhere to better attract engineering talent. Late last year, he was pushed out of his old venture firm, Founders Fund, after falling out with some colleagues. Now, he plans to spend one week a month in San Francisco for a new employer, Khosla Ventures, and is busy renovating a house there. During the pandemic, scores of Silicon Valley investors and executives such as Rabois decamped to sunnier American cities, criticizing San Francisco's dysfunctional governance and high cost of living. Tech-firm founders touted their success at raising money outside the Bay Area and encouraged their employees to embrace remote work.

Four years later, that bet hasn't really worked out. San Francisco is once again experiencing a tech revival. Entrepreneurs and investors are flocking back to the city, which is undergoing a boom in artificial intelligence. Silicon Valley leaders are getting involved in local politics, flooding city ballot measures and campaigns with tech money to make the city safer for families and businesses. Investors are also pushing startups to return to the Bay Area and bring their employees back into the office. San Francisco has largely weathered the broader crunch in startup funding. Investment in Bay Area startups dropped 12% to $63.4 billion last year. By contrast, funding volumes for Austin, Texas, and Los Angeles, two smaller tech hubs, dropped 27% and 42%, respectively. In Miami, venture investment plunged 70% to just $2 billion last year.

"After years of rapid expansion, California's booming EV market may be showing signs of fatigue," reports the Los Angeles Times, "as high vehicle prices, unreliable charging networks and other consumer headaches appear to dampen enthusiasm for zero-emission vehicles.

"For the first time in more than a decade, electric vehicle sales dropped significantly in the last half of 2023..." Sales of all-electric cars and light trucks in California had started off strong in 2023, rising 48% in the first half of the year compared with a year earlier. By that time, California EV sales numbered roughly 190,807 — or slightly more than a quarter of all EV sales in the nation, according to the California New Car Dealers Assn. But it's what happened in the second half of last year though that's generating jitters. Sales in the third quarter fell by 2,840 from the previous period — the first quarterly drop for EVs in California since the Tesla Model S was introduced in 2012. And the fourth quarter was even worse: Sales dropped 10.2%, from 100,151 to 89,933...

Propelled by the sales success of Tesla, and boosted by electric vehicles from other automakers entering the market, consumer acceptance of EVs had seemed like a given until recently. In fact, robust sales growth is a key assumption in the state's zero-emission vehicle plan... Under the no-gas mandate, zero-emission vehicles must account for 35% of all new vehicle sales by model year 2026.... Nationally, EV sales growth also has slowed as automakers such as Ford and General Motors cut back — at least temporarily — on EV and battery production plans. Hertz, the rental car giant, is also pulling back on plans to shift heavily toward EVs. Hertz several years ago announced plans to buy 100,000 Teslas but is now selling off its EV fleet.

Corey Cantor, EV analyst at Bloomberg BNEF, an energy research firm, said that although recent sales figures are worrisome, there's plenty of momentum behind the EV transition, as evidenced by government mandates around the globe and massive investments by motor vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers. Those investments total $616 billion globally over five years, according to consulting firm AlixPartners.
But EVs haven't reached "price parity" with gas-powered engines, the article points out, so just 7.6% of the vehicles sold last year in the U.S. were electric — while in California, the market share for EVS was 20.1%.

The article also quantifies concerns about reliability of California's public charging system, which "according to studies from academic researchers and market analysts, can be counted on to malfunction at least 20% of the time." After $1 billion in state money for charger companies, the state's Energy Commission will now also start collecting reliability statistics, according to the article. But the article also cites wait times at the chargers. "Even if they were reliable, there aren't enough chargers to go around. EV sales have outpaced public charger installation."

Some good news? The federal government is spending $5 billion nationally to put fast chargers on major highways at 50-mile intervals. California will receive $384 million. Seven major automakers have also teamed up to build a North American charging network of their own, called Ionna. The joint venture plans to install at least 30,000 chargers — which would be open to any EV brand — at stations that will provide restrooms, food service and retail stores on site or nearby.

"I feel things fraying," says Nick Hilton, host of a neo-luddite podcast called The Ned Ludd Radio Hour.

But he's one of the more optimistic tech skeptics interviewed by the Guardian: Eliezer Yudkowsky, a 44-year-old academic wearing a grey polo shirt, rocks slowly on his office chair and explains with real patience — taking things slowly for a novice like me — that every single person we know and love will soon be dead. They will be murdered by rebellious self-aware machines.... Yudkowsky is the most pessimistic, the least convinced that civilisation has a hope. He is the lead researcher at a nonprofit called the Machine Intelligence Research Institute in Berkeley, California... "If you put me to a wall," he continues, "and forced me to put probabilities on things, I have a sense that our current remaining timeline looks more like five years than 50 years. Could be two years, could be 10." By "remaining timeline", Yudkowsky means: until we face the machine-wrought end of all things...

Yudkowsky was once a founding figure in the development of human-made artificial intelligences — AIs. He has come to believe that these same AIs will soon evolve from their current state of "Ooh, look at that!" smartness, assuming an advanced, God-level super-intelligence, too fast and too ambitious for humans to contain or curtail. Don't imagine a human-made brain in one box, Yudkowsky advises. To grasp where things are heading, he says, try to picture "an alien civilisation that thinks a thousand times faster than us", in lots and lots of boxes, almost too many for us to feasibly dismantle, should we even decide to...

[Molly Crabapple, a New York-based artist, believes] "a luddite is someone who looks at technology critically and rejects aspects of it that are meant to disempower, deskill or impoverish them. Technology is not something that's introduced by some god in heaven who has our best interests at heart. Technological development is shaped by money, it's shaped by power, and it's generally targeted towards the interests of those in power as opposed to the interests of those without it. That stereotypical definition of a luddite as some stupid worker who smashes machines because they're dumb? That was concocted by bosses." Where a techno-pessimist like Yudkowsky would have us address the biggest-picture threats conceivable (to the point at which our fingers are fumbling for the nuclear codes) neo-luddites tend to focus on ground-level concerns. Employment, especially, because this is where technology enriched by AIs seems to be causing the most pain....

Watch out, says [writer/podcaster Riley] Quinn at one point, for anyone who presents tech as "synonymous with being forward-thinking and agile and efficient. It's typically code for 'We're gonna find a way around labour regulations'...." One of his TrashFuture colleagues Nate Bethea agrees. "Opposition to tech will always be painted as irrational by people who have a direct financial interest in continuing things as they are," he says.
Thanks to Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the article.

High-capacity DNA data storage "is closer than you think," Slashdot wrote in 2019.

Now IEEE Spectrum brings an update on where we're at — and where we're headed — by a participant in the DNA storage collaboration between Microsoft and the Molecular Information Systems Lab of the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington. "Organizations around the world are already taking the first steps toward building a DNA drive that can both write and read DNA data," while "funding agencies in the United States, Europe, and Asia are investing in the technology stack required to field commercially relevant devices." The challenging part is learning how to get the information into, and back out of, the molecule in an economically viable way... For a DNA drive to compete with today's archival tape drives, it must be able to write about 2 gigabits per second, which at demonstrated DNA data storage densities is about 2 billion bases per second. To put that in context, I estimate that the total global market for synthetic DNA today is no more than about 10 terabases per year, which is the equivalent of about 300,000 bases per second over a year. The entire DNA synthesis industry would need to grow by approximately 4 orders of magnitude just to compete with a single tape drive. Keeping up with the total global demand for storage would require another 8 orders of magnitude of improvement by 2030. But humans have done this kind of scaling up before. Exponential growth in silicon-based technology is how we wound up producing so much data. Similar exponential growth will be fundamental in the transition to DNA storage...

Companies like DNA Script and Molecular Assemblies are commercializing automated systems that use enzymes to synthesize DNA. These techniques are replacing traditional chemical DNA synthesis for some applications in the biotechnology industry... [I]t won't be long before we can combine the two technologies into one functional device: a semiconductor chip that converts digital signals into chemical states (for example, changes in pH), and an enzymatic system that responds to those chemical states by adding specific, individual bases to build a strand of synthetic DNA. The University of Washington and Microsoft team, collaborating with the enzymatic synthesis company Ansa Biotechnologies, recently took the first step toward this device... The path is relatively clear; building a commercially relevant DNA drive is simply a matter of time and money...

At the same time, advances in DNA synthesis for DNA storage will increase access to DNA for other uses, notably in the biotechnology industry, and will thereby expand capabilities to reprogram life. Somewhere down the road, when a DNA drive achieves a throughput of 2 gigabases per second (or 120 gigabases per minute), this box could synthesize the equivalent of about 20 complete human genomes per minute. And when humans combine our improving knowledge of how to construct a genome with access to effectively free synthetic DNA, we will enter a very different world... We'll be able to design microbes to produce chemicals and drugs, as well as plants that can fend off pests or sequester minerals from the environment, such as arsenic, carbon, or gold. At 2 gigabases per second, constructing biological countermeasures against novel pathogens will take a matter of minutes. But so too will constructing the genomes of novel pathogens. Indeed, this flow of information back and forth between the digital and the biological will mean that every security concern from the world of IT will also be introduced into the world of biology...

The future will be built not from DNA as we find it, but from DNA as we will write it.
The article makes an interesting point — that biology labs around the world already order chemically-synthesized ssDNA, "delivered in lengths of up to several hundred bases," and sequence DNA molecules up to thousands of bases in length.

"In other words, we already convert digital information to and from DNA, but generally using only sequences that make sense in terms of biology."

"It appears that Apple Pay is down — particularly for Chase customers," reports the Verge: Verge staffers have had their cards declined while trying to pay with Chase cards using Apple Pay, while using the same physical card works just fine. Several people on Threads confirmed the same issue when I asked — although people with non-Chase banks like Citi appear to be using Apple Pay just fine...

For what it's worth, the Chase customer service line is currently up to 15-minute wait times, and agents are telling people that Apple Pay is "going through maintenance" to receive "an unexpected upgrade," which is a delightful euphemism. Sadly, no one seems to know when things will be fixed.
"Maintenance in progress," says Apple's system status page — saying their maintenance started five hours ago and is "ongoing." (It adds that some users may be "affected," and that some Maryland Users "may have issues.")

But the Verge writes that "we've had reports in both New York and Los Angeles," while commenters on their article add that they've also experienced the same problem in Florida and in Colorado.

UPDATE (2/18/2024): An Apple spokesperson told the Verge Sunday this "was not an Apple Pay issue, and we saw no problems with our systems." (The Verge adds that "the not-so-subtle subtext there being that this was a Chase problem...") The spokesperson added that Apple's maintenance announcement on their system status page was unrelated.

An article in the Washington Post remembers a 1980s-era "glass box with metal water pipes running through it" that "converted sunlight into hot water. By trapping solar energy like a greenhouse, it heated the water to a scorching 180 degrees Fahrenheit.

"[T]oday, hardly anyone is using these solar water heaters even as photovoltaic panels have popped up on the roofs of nearly 4 million American homes." Unlike photovoltaic panels, which can power your home, solar thermal panels are mainly used to heat water. But they're smaller and more efficient. The technology converts 60 to 70 percent of the sun's energy into heat. Even the best photovoltaics, which generate electricity, only achieve 24 percent efficiency. Now, a new generation of solar water heater manufacturers is hoping subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, and growing interest in net-zero emissions, will reignite their growth.

Theoretically, solar thermal offers a big opportunity to slash emissions. Nearly 20 percent of an average home's energy is used to heat water, and nearly 50 percent globally, according to MIT. By adopting solar water heaters, the average household can keep 2 tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, the equivalent of not driving your car for four months, estimates the Environmental Protection Agency. Solar water heaters can also save money, cutting the average utility bill by $400 to $600 per year, the Energy Department estimates...

Only about 370,000 solar thermal systems were operating in the United States by the end of 2021, according to the International Energy Agency, many of them on larger commercial buildings...

Since they can cut fuel consumption to heat water by 50 percent to 70 percent, other countries are embracing the technology: Almost all new residential buildings in Israel must include solar thermal, while in countries as far north as Canada and Denmark, solar thermal energy warms millions of homes with district heating systems. Yet these systems represent a tiny fraction of the potential, supplying 0.4 percent of today's global energy demand for domestic hot water.
New U.S. subsidies can cut the price in half depending on location, the article points out.

Cheap photovoltaics still make economic sense for many homes (unless you're heating a pool). "But the cost of solar thermal could look like a bargain if we consider increasingly unreliable electric grids and the cost to the climate from burning fossil fuels."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: SoftBank Group Chief Executive Officer Masayoshi Son is looking to raise up to $100 billion for a chip venture that will rival Nvidia, Bloomberg News reported on Friday, citing people with knowledge of the matter. The project, code named Izanagi, will supply semiconductors essential for artificial intelligence (AI), the report added. The company would inject $30 billion in the project, with an additional $70 billion potentially coming from Middle Eastern institutions, according to the report.

The Japanese group already holds about a 90% stake in British chip designer Arm, per LSEG. SoftBank is known for its tech investments with high conviction bets on startups at an unheard of scale. But it had adopted a defensive strategy after being hit by plummeting valuations in the aftermath of the pandemic, when higher interest rates eroded investor appetite for risk. It returned to profit for the first time in five quarters earlier this month, as the Japanese tech investment firm was buoyed by an upturn in portfolio companies.

Microsoft announced this week that four of Xbox's previously-exclusive games are going cross-platform to PlayStation and Switch. Xbox head Phil Spencer says in a new interview that he'd like to see Sony and Nintendo bring their games to Xbox -- but that he isn't holding his breath. From a report: In an interview for journalist Stephen Totilo's Game File newsletter, Spencer said the decision to bring four Xbox games to other consoles wasn't intended to make its rivals follow suit. "This is not for me, like, some kind of bartering system," Spencer explained. "We're doing it for the better of Xbox's business." Despite this, Spencer said he would of course welcome other consoles' games on Xbox, and noted that it would be beneficial for multiplayer games in particular, where building a large online community is important for a game's lifespan.

"I will say, when I look at a game like Helldivers 2 -- and it's a great game, kudos to the team shipping on PC and PlayStation -- I'm not exactly sure who it helps in the industry by not being on Xbox," he said. "If you try to twist yourself to say, like, somehow that benefited somebody somewhere. But I get it. There's a legacy in console gaming that we're going to benefit by shipping games and not putting them on other places. We do the same thing." Spencer also noted that Helldivers 2 -- which Sony released on PlayStation and PC on the same day -- is doing well on the latter. "I will say shipping more games in more places and making them more accessible to more people is a good part of the gaming business," he said. Further reading: Phil Spencer Puts Apple's Money Where His Mouth Is.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBC.ca: Air Canada has been ordered to pay compensation to a grieving grandchild who claimed they were misled into purchasing full-price flight tickets by an ill-informed chatbot. In an argument that appeared to flabbergast a small claims adjudicator in British Columbia, the airline attempted to distance itself from its own chatbot's bad advice by claiming the online tool was "a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions."

"This is a remarkable submission," Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) member Christopher Rivers wrote. "While a chatbot has an interactive component, it is still just a part of Air Canada's website. It should be obvious to Air Canada that it is responsible for all the information on its website. It makes no difference whether the information comes from a static page or a chatbot." In a decision released this week, Rivers ordered Air Canada to pay Jake Moffatt $812 to cover the difference between the airline's bereavement rates and the $1,630.36 they paid for full-price tickets to and from Toronto bought after their grandmother died.

Nvidia is now the third most valuable company in the U.S., surpassing Google parent Alphabet and Amazon. It's only behind Apple and Microsoft in terms of market cap. CNBC reports: Nvidia rose over 2% to close at $739.00 per share, giving it a market value of $1.83 trillion to Google's $1.82 trillion market cap. The move comes one day after Nvidia surpassed Amazon in terms of market value. The symbolic milestone is more confirmation that Nvidia has become a Wall Street darling on the back of elevated AI chip sales, valued even more highly than some of the large software companies and cloud providers that develop and integrate AI technology into their products.

Nvidia shares are up over 221% over the past 12 months on robust demand for its AI server chips that can cost more than $20,000 each. Companies like Google and Amazon need thousands of them for their cloud services. Before the recent AI boom, Nvidia was best known for consumer graphics processors it sold to PC makers to build gaming computers, a less lucrative market.

Lyft Chief Executive Officer David Risher's response to a clerical error that unintentionally inflated the company's earnings outlook on Tuesday and sent shares soaring: "My bad." From a report: "First of all, it's on me," Risher said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Wednesday, taking the blame for a typo in a company press release Tuesday that erroneously projected a particular measure of earnings margin to expand by an eye-watering 500 basis points. (In reality, Lyft expects margins to grow by 50 basis points.) "This was a bad error," he said, "but it was one zero in a press release."

The typo, which actually appeared in multiple company documents on Tuesday, helped drive a 67% surge in Lyft's shares in after-hours trading. The mistake was a serious one, Risher said. But it shouldn't take away from Lyft's "butt-kicking" financial performance, he said. Risher said his team at Lyft was taking the error very seriously and noted it was corrected "within seconds of finding it." But in fact, on a call with analysts to discuss the quarterly results, Lyft executives didn't immediately note the error in their opening remarks. Lyft Chief Financial Officer Erin Brewer just began referring to the company's outlook for a 50-basis-point expansion. It wasn't until later in the call, when an analyst pointed out the discrepancy, that Brewer acknowledged her outlook was "actually a correction from the press release."