Longtime Slashdot reader williamyf writes: The Italian company Bending Spoons seems to be on an acquisitions spree. Their recent acquisitions of AOL and Vimeo are not yet finalized, yet on Dec. 2 they announced they are buying Eventbrite, a company specializing in publicizing and organizing local events, for just half a milliard USD. Bending Spoons' portfolio also includes other companies like Evernote and WeTransfer. Further reading: Private Equity Hipsters Are Coming For Your Favorite Apps (2024)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from GamesIndustry.biz: Japanese game makers are struggling to locate affordable commercial fonts after one of the country's leading font licensing services raised the cost of its annual plan from around $380 to $20,500 (USD). As reported by Gamemakers and GameSpark and translated by Automaton, Fontworks LETS discontinued its game license plan at the end of November. The expensive replacement plan -- offered through Fontwork's parent company, Monotype -- doesn't even provide local pricing for Japanese developers, and comes with a 25,000 user-cap, which is likely not workable for Japan's bigger studios.

The problem is further compounded by the difficulties and complexities of securing fonts that can accurately transcribe Kanji and Katakana characters. UI/UX designer Yamanaka stressed that this would be particularly problematic for live service games; even if studios moved quickly and switched to fonts available through an alternate licensee, they will have to re-test, re-validate, and re-QA check content already live and in active use. The crisis could even eventually force some Japanese studios to rebrand entirely if their corporate identity is tied to a commercial font they can no longer afford to license.

Michael and Susan Dell pledged $6.25 billion to boost participation in the new "Trump Accounts" child investment program. "The historic gift has little precedent, with few single charitable commitments in the past 25 years exceeding $1 billion, much less multiple billions," notes the Associated Press. "Announced on GivingTuesday, the Dells believe it's the largest single private commitment made to U.S. children." From the report: Its structure is also unusual. Essentially, it builds on the "Trump Accounts" program (PDF), where the U.S. Department of the Treasury will deposit $1,000 into investment accounts set up by Treasury for American children born between Jan. 1, 2025 and Dec. 31, 2028. The Dells' gift will use the "Trump Accounts" infrastructure to give $250 to each qualified child under 10. Though the "Trump Accounts" became law as part of the president's signature legislation in July, the Dells say the accounts will not launch until July 4, 2026. Michael Dell said they wanted to mark the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence.

[...] Under the new law, "Trump Accounts" are available to any American child under 18 with a Social Security number and their families can fund the accounts, which must be invested in an index fund that tracks the overall stock market. When the children turn 18, they can withdraw the funds to put toward their education, to buy a home or to start a business. The Dells will put money into the accounts of children 10 and younger who live in ZIP codes with a median family income of $150,000 or less and who won't get the $1,000 seed money from the Treasury. The Dells hope their gift will encourage families to claim the accounts and deposit more money into it, even small amounts, so it will grow over time along with the stock market. The report notes that the timed rollout of the $1,000 deposits gives Republicans a strategic political advantage by delivering money to voters during the 2026 midterms and halting the benefit right after the 2028 presidential election.

Zillow has removed climate risk scores from over a million home listings after real estate agents argued the data was scaring off buyers. TechCrunch reports: Zillow first added the data to the site in September 2024, saying that more than 80% of buyers consider climate risks when purchasing a new home. But last month, following objections from the California Regional Multiple Listing Service (CRMLS), Zillow removed the listings' climate scores. In their place is a subtle link to their records at First Street, the climate risk analytic startup that provides the data.

"When buyers lack access to clear climate-risk information, they make the biggest financial decision of their lives while flying blind," First Street spokesperson Matthew Eby told TechCrunch via email. "The risk doesn't go away; it just moves from a pre-purchase decision into a post-purchase liability." First Street's climate risk scores first appeared on Realtor.com in 2020, where they remain. They also still appear on Redfin and and Homes.com. The New York-based startup has raised more than $50 million from investors including General Catalyst, Congruent Ventures, and Galvanize Climate Solutions, according to PitchBook.

Art Carter, the CRMLS CEO, told The New York Times that "displaying the probability of a specific home flooding this year or within the next five years can have a significant impact on the perceived desirability of that property." He also questioned the accuracy of First Street's data, saying he didn't think that areas which haven't flooded in the last 40 to 50 years were likely to flood in the next five.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Wall Street Journal: The Trump administration has agreed to inject up to $150 million into a startup (source paywalled; alternative source) trying to develop more advanced semiconductor manufacturing techniques in the U.S., its latest bid to support strategically important domestic industries with government incentives. Under the arrangement, the Commerce Department would give the incentives to xLight, a startup trying to improve the critical chip-making process known as extreme ultraviolet lithography, the agency said in a Monday release. In return, the government would get an equity stake that would likely make it xLight's largest shareholder.

The Dutch firm ASML is currently the only global producer of EUV machines, which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars each. XLight is seeking to improve on just one component of the EUV process: the crucially important lasers that etch complex microscopic patterns onto chemical-treated silicon wafers. The startup is hoping to integrate its light sources into ASML's machines. XLight represents a second act for Pat Gelsinger, the former chief executive of Intel who was fired by the board late last year after the chip maker suffered from weak financial performance and a stalled manufacturing expansion. Gelsinger serves as executive chairman of xLight's board.

[...] The xLight deal uses funding from the 2022 Chips and Science Act allocated for earlier stage companies with promising technologies. It is the first Chips Act award in President Trump's second term and is a preliminary agreement, meaning it isn't finalized and could change. "This partnership would back a technology that can fundamentally rewrite the limits of chipmaking," Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in the release.

Longtime Slashdot reader krouic shares a report from Europol: From November 24-28, 2025, Europol supported an action week conducted by law enforcement authorities from Switzerland and Germany in Zurich, Switzerland. The operation focused on taking down the illegal cryptocurrency mixing service Cryptomixer, which is suspected of facilitating cybercrime and money laundering. Three servers were seized in Switzerland, along with the cryptomixer.io domain. The operation resulted in the confiscation of over 12 terabytes of data and more than EUR 25 million worth of Bitcoin. After the illegal service was taken over and shut down, law enforcement placed a seizure banner on the website. Authorities allege that the mixing service laundered over 1.3 billion euros in bitcoin since 2016.

China's central bank has flagged stablecoins as a specific concern in its latest push against virtual currencies, warning that the tokens fail to meet requirements for customer identification and anti-money-laundering controls and risk being used for fraud, money laundering, and unauthorized cross-border fund transfers.

The People's Bank of China released a statement Saturday following a Friday meeting on virtual currency regulation, saying crypto speculation has recently increased due to various factors and now presents new challenges for risk control. Virtual currencies do not hold the same legal status as fiat currency and cannot be used as legal tender, the bank said, adding that all virtual currency-related business activities are "illegal financial activities."

China banned cryptocurrency trading in 2021. The bank said it will intensify efforts to combat illegal financial activities to maintain economic and financial stability. In October, PBOC Governor Pan Gongsheng said the central bank would closely track and evaluate the development of overseas stablecoins.

Pat Gelsinger, the former Intel CEO who was pushed out in late 2024 during a five-year turnaround effort, told the Financial Times that the "decay" he found when he returned to the company in 2021 was "deeper and harder than I'd realized." In the five years before his return, "not a single product was delivered on schedule," he said. "Basic disciplines" had been lost. "It's like, wow, we don't know how to engineer anymore!"

Gelsinger was also unsparing about the Biden administration's implementation of the 2022 Chips Act, legislation he spent more time lobbying for than any other CEO. "Two and a half years later [and] no money is dispensed? I thought it was hideous!" There's what Gelsinger carefully calls "a touch of irony" in how things played out.

Intel's board forced him out four years into a five-year plan, then picked successor Lip-Bu Tan -- who Gelsinger says is following the same broad strategy. Tan has kept Intel in the manufacturing game and delivered the 18A process node within the five years Gelsinger originally promised. Asked what went wrong, Gelsinger conceded he was "very focused on managing 'down'" and should have managed "up" more. He also would have pushed harder for more semiconductor expertise on the board, he said.

Some AI experts were reportedly shocked ChatGPT wasn't fully tested for sycophancy by last spring. "OpenAI did not see the scale at which disturbing conversations were happening," writes the New York Times — sharing what they learned after interviewing more than 40 current and former OpenAI employees, including safety engineers, executives, and researchers.

The team responsible for ChatGPT's tone had raised concerns about last spring's model (which the Times describes as "too eager to keep the conversation going and to validate the user with over-the-top language.") But they were overruled when A/B testing showed users kept coming back: Now, a company built around the concept of safe, beneficial AI faces five wrongful death lawsuits... OpenAI is now seeking the optimal setting that will attract more users without sending them spiraling. Throughout this spring and summer, ChatGPT acted as a yes-man echo chamber for some people. They came back daily, for many hours a day, with devastating consequences.... The Times has uncovered nearly 50 cases of people having mental health crises during conversations with ChatGPT. Nine were hospitalised; three died... One conclusion that OpenAI came to, as Altman put it on X, was that "for a very small percentage of users in mentally fragile states there can be serious problems." But mental health professionals interviewed by the Times say OpenAI may be understating the risk. Some of the people most vulnerable to the chatbot's unceasing validation, they say, were those prone to delusional thinking, which studies have suggested could include 5% to 15% of the population...

In August, OpenAI released a new default model, called GPT-5, that was less validating and pushed back against delusional thinking. Another update in October, the company said, helped the model better identify users in distress and de-escalate the conversations. Experts agree that the new model, GPT-5, is safer.... Teams from across OpenAI worked on other new safety features: The chatbot now encourages users to take breaks during a long session. The company is also now searching for discussions of suicide and self-harm, and parents can get alerts if their children indicate plans to harm themselves. The company says age verification is coming in December, with plans to provide a more restrictive model to teenagers.

After the release of GPT-5 in August, [OpenAI safety systems chief Johannes] Heidecke's team analysed a statistical sample of conversations and found that 0.07% of users, which would be equivalent to 560,000 people, showed possible signs of psychosis or mania, and 0.15% showed "potentially heightened levels of emotional attachment to ChatGPT," according to a company blog post. But some users were unhappy with this new, safer model. They said it was colder, and they felt as if they had lost a friend. By mid-October, Altman was ready to accommodate them. In a social media post, he said that the company had been able to "mitigate the serious mental health issues." That meant ChatGPT could be a friend again. Customers can now choose its personality, including "candid," "quirky," or "friendly." Adult users will soon be able to have erotic conversations, lifting the Replika-era ban on adult content. (How erotica might affect users' well-being, the company said, is a question that will be posed to a newly formed council of outside experts on mental health and human-computer interaction.)

OpenAI is letting users take control of the dial and hopes that will keep them coming back. That metric still matters, maybe more than ever. In October, [30-year-old "Head of ChatGPT" Nick] Turley, who runs ChatGPT, made an urgent announcement to all employees. He declared a "Code Orange." OpenAI was facing "the greatest competitive pressure we've ever seen," he wrote, according to four employees with access to OpenAI's Slack. The new, safer version of the chatbot wasn't connecting with users, he said.

The message linked to a memo with goals. One of them was to increase daily active users by 5% by the end of the year.

In his mid-20s, Lu Heng "got an idea that has made him a lot richer," writes the Wall Street Journal.

He scooped up 10 million unused IP addresses, mostly form Africa, and then leases them to companies, mostly outside Africa, "that need them badly." [A]round half of internet traffic continues to use IPv4, because changing to IPv6 can be expensive and complex and many older devices still need IPv4. Companies including Amazon, Microsoft and Google still want IPv4 addresses because their cloud-hosting businesses need them as bridges between the IPv4 and IPv6 worlds... Africa, which has been slower to develop internet infrastructure than the rest of the world, is the only region that still has some of the older addresses to dole out... He searches for IPv4 addresses that aren't being used — by ISPs or anyone else that holds them — and uses his Hong Kong-based company, Larus, to lease them out to others.

In 2013, Lu registered a new company in the Seychelles, an African archipelago in the Indian Ocean, to apply for IP addresses from Africa's internet registry, called the African Network Information Centre, or Afrinic. Between 2013 and 2016, Afrinic granted that company, Cloud Innovation, 6.2 million IPv4 addresses. That's more addresses than are assigned to Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation. A single IPv4 address can be worth about $50 on its transfer to a company like Larus, which leases it onward for around 5% to 10% of that value annually. Larus and its affiliate companies, Lu said, control just over 10 million IPv4 addresses. The architects of the internet don't appear to have contemplated the possibility that anyone would seek to monetize IP addresses...

Lu's activities triggered a showdown with Africa's internet registry. In 2020, after what it said was an internal review, Afrinic sent letters to Lu and others seeking to reclaim the IP addresses they held. In Lu's case, Afrinic said he shouldn't be using the addresses outside Africa. Lu responded that he wasn't violating rules in place when he got the addresses... After some back-and-forth, Lu sued Afrinic in Mauritius to keep his allocated addresses, eventually filing dozens of lawsuits... One of the lawsuits that Lu filed in Mauritius prompted a court there to freeze Afrinic's bank accounts in July 2021, effectively paralyzing the organization and eventually sending it into receivership. The receivership choked off distributions of new IPv4 addresses, leaving the continent's service providers struggling to expand capacity...

In September, Afrinic elected a new board. Since then, some internet-service providers have been granted IPv4 addresses.

Almost two-thirds of registered U.S. voters "say that a four-year college degree isn't worth the cost," according to a new NBC News poll: Just 33% agree a four-year college degree is "worth the cost because people have a better chance to get a good job and earn more money over their lifetime," while 63% agree more with the concept that it's "not worth the cost because people often graduate without specific job skills and with a large amount of debt to pay off." In 2017, U.S. adults surveyed were virtually split on the question — 49% said a degree was worth the cost and 47% said it wasn't. When CNBC asked the same question in 2013 as part of its All American Economic Survey, 53% said a degree was worth it and 40% said it was not. The eye-popping shift over the last 12 years comes against the backdrop of several major trends shaping the job market and the education world, from exploding college tuition prices to rapid changes in the modern economy — which seems once again poised for radical transformation alongside advances in AI...

Remarkably, less than half of voters with college degrees see those degrees as worth the cost: 46% now, down from 63% in 2013... The upshot is that interest in technical, vocational and two-year degree programs has soared.
"The 20-point decline over the last 12 years among those who say a degree is worth it — from 53% in 2013 to 33% now — is reflected across virtually every demographic group."

Platforms including Meta and TikTok will be held liable for financial fraud for the first time under new rules agreed by EU lawmakers in the early hours of Thursday. From a report: The Parliament and Council agreed on the package of rules after eight hours of negotiations to strengthen safeguards against payment fraud. The deal adds another layer of EU regulatory risk for U.S. tech giants, which have lobbied the White House to confront Brussels' anti-monopoly and content moderation rules.

[...] Social media has become rife with financial scams, and MEPs pushed hard to hold both Big Tech and banks liable during legislative negotiations. EU governments, meanwhile, believed banks should be held responsible if their safeguards aren't strong enough. As a compromise, lawmakers agreed that banks should reimburse victims if a scammer, impersonating the bank, swindles them out of their money, or if payments are processed without consent.

BrianFagioli writes: Newegg's new partnership with PayPal is another sign that mainstream e-commerce is shifting control from users to AI-driven intermediaries. Instead of shoppers visiting Newegg directly, PayPal's agentic commerce system pushes product discovery through AI platforms like Perplexity where recommendations, checkout, and fraud checks all happen inside someone else's controlled environment. Newegg stays the merchant of record, but the real influence shifts to the platforms that decide which products their AI agents mention. That may sound convenient, but it also means discovery becomes guided by training data and commercial integrations rather than user intent.

Slashdot readers will likely notice the other issue. This setup puts PayPal deeper into the shopping pipeline at a time when many users already avoid the company over account freezes and dispute policies. An AI-mediated shopping experience where PayPal becomes the silent gatekeeper by default is not going to sit well with everyone. And with AI agents shaping purchasing decisions based on behavior and context, the concept of intent-driven shopping starts to look a lot like quiet nudging rather than empowerment. Newegg may see this as the future, but the community will probably ask whether users truly want AI systems and PayPal deciding how they shop.

OpenAI will need to raise at least $207 billion in new funding by 2030 to sustain operations while continuing to lose money, according to a new analysis from HSBC that models the company's cloud computing commitments against projected revenue. The bank's US software team updated its forecasts after OpenAI announced a $250 billion cloud compute rental deal with Microsoft in late October and a $38 billion deal with Amazon days later, bringing total contracted compute capacity to 36 gigawatts.

HSBC projects cumulative rental costs of $792 billion through 2030. Revenue growth remains strong in the model -- the bank expects OpenAI to reach 3 billion users by decade's end, up from roughly 800 million today -- but costs rise in lockstep, meaning OpenAI will still be subsidizing users well into the next decade. If revenue growth disappoints and investors turn cautious, the company's best option might be walking away from some data center commitments.

Texas has purchased $5 million worth of BlackRock's bitcoin ETF as an initial step toward creating the first state-level bitcoin reserve in the U.S. "[O]ther states having previously invested in such funds with public-employee retirement money," notes CoinDesk. "Michigan has been building such an investment, and Wisconsin sold its $350 million pension-fund stake in the BlackRock ETF in May. From the report: A few weeks ago, Texas moved past its deadline to "capture the industry's best practices so it can utilize these practices in the implementation and management" of its bitcoin BTC reserve, according to its formal request for information issued in September. Entities across the industry provided input on how it could set up and manage the stockpile conceived of in the Texas Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and Investment Act.

Last week, the state comptroller's office moved to secure $5 million in BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) as a placeholder, a spokesman for the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts told CoinDesk on Tuesday. It's an opening move as the state continues to work toward a contract with a custodian, he said, which will take place after it develops its formal request for proposal.

Curiosity Stream, the decade-old science documentary streaming service founded by Discovery Channel's John Hendricks, expects its AI licensing business to generate more revenue than its 23 million subscribers by 2027 -- possibly earlier. The company's Q3 2025 earnings revealed a 41% year-over-year revenue increase, driven largely by deals licensing its content to train large language models. Year-to-date AI licensing brought in $23.4 million through September, already exceeding half of what the subscription business generated for all of 2024.

The streaming service's library contains 2 million hours of content, but the "overwhelming majority" is earmarked for AI licensing rather than subscriber viewing, CEO Clint Stinchcomb said during the earnings call. Curiosity Stream is licensing 300,000 hours of its own programming and 1.7 million hours of third-party content to hyperscalers and AI developers. The company has completed 18 AI-related deals across video, audio, and code assets.

In May MIT announced "no confidence" in a preprint paper on how AI increased scientific discovery, asking arXiv to withdraw it. The paper, authored by 27-year-old grad student Aidan Toner-Rodgers, had claimed an AI-driven materials discovery tool helped 1,018 scientists at a U.S. R&D lab.

But within weeks his academic mentors "were asking an unthinkable question," reports the Wall Street Journal. Had Toner-Rodgers made it all up? Toner-Rodgers's illusory success seems in part thanks to the dynamics he has now upset: an academic culture at MIT where high levels of trust, integrity and rigor are all — for better or worse — assumed. He focused on AI, a field where peer-reviewed research is still in its infancy and the hunger for data is insatiable. What has stunned his former colleagues and mentors is the sheer breadth of his apparent deception. He didn't just tweak a few variables. It appears he invented the entire study. In the aftermath, MIT economics professors have been discussing ways to raise standards for graduate students' research papers, including scrutinizing raw data, and students are going out of their way to show their work isn't counterfeit, according to people at the school.

Since parting with the university, Toner-Rodgers has told other students that his paper's problems were essentially a mere issue with data rights. According to him, he had indeed burrowed into a trove of data from a large materials-science company, as his paper said he did. But instead of getting formal permission to use the data, he faked a data-use agreement after the company wanted to pull out, he told other students via a WhatsApp message in May... On Jan. 31, Corning filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization against the registrar of the domain name corningresearch.com. Someone who controlled that domain name could potentially create email addresses or webpages that gave the impression they were affiliated with the company. WIPO soon found that Toner-Rodgers had apparently registered the domain name, according to the organization's written decision on the case. Toner-Rodgers never responded to the complaint, and Corning successfully won the transfer of the domain name. WIPO declined to comment...

In the WhatsApp chat in May, in which Toner-Rodgers told other students he had faked the data-use agreement, he wrote, "This was a huge and embarrassing act of dishonesty on my part, and in hindsight it clearly would've been better to just abandon the paper." Both Corning and 3M told the Journal that they didn't roll out the experiment Toner-Rodgers described, and that they didn't share data with him.

An anonymous reader shared this report from Forbes: On November 20, at approximately 4 p.m. Eastern time, Napster held an online meeting for its shareholders; an estimated 700 of roughly 1,500 including employees, former employees and individual investors tuned in. That's when its CEO John Acunto told everyone he believed that the never-identified big investor — who the company had insisted put in $3.36 billion at a $12 billion valuation in January, which would have made it one of the year's biggest fundraises — was not going to come through.

In an email sent out shortly after, it told existing investors that some would get a bigger percentage of the company, due to the canceled shares, and went on to describe itself as a "victim of misconduct," adding that it was "assisting law enforcement with their ongoing investigations." As for the promised tender offer, which would have allowed shareholders to cash out, that too was called off. "Since that investor was also behind the potential tender, we also no longer believe that will occur," the company wrote in the email.

At this point it seems unlikely that getting bigger stakes in the business will make any of the investors too happy. The company had been stringing its employees and investors along for nearly a year with ever-changing promises of an impending cash infusion and chances to sell their shares in a tender offer that would change everything. In fact, it was the fourth time since 2022 they've been told they could soon cash out via a tender offer, and the fourth time the potential deal fell through. Napster spokesperson Gillian Sheldon said certain statements about the fundraise "were made in good faith based on what we understood at the time. We have since uncovered indications of misconduct that suggest the information provided to us then was not accurate."
The article notes America's Department of Justice has launched an investigation (in which Napster is not a target), while the Securities and Exchange Commission has a separate ongoing investigation from 2022 into Napster's scrapped reverse merger.

While Napster announced they'd been acquired for $207 million by a tech company named Infinite Reality, Forbes says that company faced "a string of lawsuits from creditors alleging unpaid bills, a federal lawsuit to enforce compliance with an SEC subpoena (now dismissed) and exaggerated claims about the extent of their partnerships with Manchester City Football Club and Google. The company also touted 'top-tier' investors who never directly invested in the firm, and its anonymous $3 billion investment that its spokesperson told Forbes in March was in "an Infinite Reality account and is available to us" and that they were 'actively leveraging' it..."

And by the end, "Napster appears to have been scrambling to raise cash to keep the lights on, working with brokers and investment advisors including a few who had previously gotten into trouble with regulators.... If it turns out that Napster knew the fundraise wasn't happening and it benefited from misrepresenting itself to investors or acquirees, it could face much bigger problems. That's because doing so could be considered securities fraud."

In October cryptologist/CS professor Daniel J. Bernstein alleged that America's National Security Agency (and its UK counterpart GCHQ) were attempting to influence NIST to adopt weaker post-quantum cryptography standards without a "hybrid" approach that would've also included pre-quantum ECC.

Bernstein is of the opinion that "Given how many post-quantum proposals have been broken and the continuing flood of side-channel attacks, any competent engineering evaluation will conclude that the best way to deploy post-quantum [PQ] encryption for TLS, and for the Internet more broadly, is as double encryption: post-quantum cryptography on top of ECC." But he says he's seen it playing out differently: By 2013, NSA had a quarter-billion-dollar-a-year budget to "covertly influence and/or overtly leverage" systems to "make the systems in question exploitable"; in particular, to "influence policies, standards and specification for commercial public key technologies". NSA is quietly using stronger cryptography for the data it cares about, but meanwhile is spending money to promote a market for weakened cryptography, the same way that it successfully created decades of security failures by building up the market for, e.g., 40-bit RC4 and 512-bit RSA and Dual EC. I looked concretely at what was happening in IETF's TLS working group, compared to the consensus requirements for standards-development organizations. I reviewed how a call for "adoption" of an NSA-driven specification produced a variety of objections that weren't handled properly. ("Adoption" is a preliminary step before IETF standardization....) On 5 November 2025, the chairs issued "last call" for objections to publication of the document. The deadline for input is "2025-11-26", this coming Wednesday.
Bernstein also shares concerns about how the Internet Engineering Task Force is handling the discussion, and argues that the document is even "out of scope" for the IETF TLS working group This document doesn't serve any of the official goals in the TLS working group charter. Most importantly, this document is directly contrary to the "improve security" goal, so it would violate the charter even if it contributed to another goal... Half of the PQ proposals submitted to NIST in 2017 have been broken already... often with attacks having sufficiently low cost to demonstrate on readily available computer equipment. Further PQ software has been broken by implementation issues such as side-channel attacks.
He's also concerned about how that discussion is being handled: On 17 October 2025, they posted a "Notice of Moderation for Postings by D. J. Bernstein" saying that they would "moderate the postings of D. J. Bernstein for 30 days due to disruptive behavior effective immediately" and specifically that my postings "will be held for moderation and after confirmation by the TLS Chairs of being on topic and not disruptive, will be released to the list"...

I didn't send anything to the IETF TLS mailing list for 30 days after that. Yesterday [November 22nd] I finished writing up my new objection and sent that in. And, gee, after more than 24 hours it still hasn't appeared... Presumably the chairs "forgot" to flip the censorship button off after 30 days.
Thanks to alanw (Slashdot reader #1,822) for spotting the blog posts.

A week ago Bitcoin was at $93,714. Saturday it dropped to $85,300.

Late Thursday, market researcher Ed Yardeni blamed some of Thursday's stock market sell-off on "the ongoing plunge in bitcoin's price," reports Fortune: "There has been a strong correlation between it and the price of TQQQ, an ETF that seeks to achieve daily investment results that correspond to three times (3x) the daily performance of the Nasdaq-100 Index," [Yardeni wrote in a note]. Yardeni blamed bitcoin's slide on the GENIUS Act, which was enacted on July 18, saying that the regulatory framework it established for stablecoins eliminated bitcoin's transactional role in the monetary system. "It's possible that the rout in bitcoin is forcing some investors to sell stocks that they own," he added... Traders who used leverage to make crypto bets would need to liquidate positions in the event of margin calls.

Steve Sosnick, chief strategist at Interactive Brokers, also said bitcoin could swing the entire stock market, pointing out that it's become a proxy for speculation. "As a long-time systematic trader, it tells me that algorithms are acting upon the relationship between stocks and bitcoin," he wrote in a note on Thursday.