30.04.2026, 11:37 Uhr

Belgium will stop de­com­mis­sion­ing its nu­clear power plants, Prime Minister Bart De Wever an­nounced on Thursday.

The gov­ern­ment is go­ing to ne­go­ti­ate with op­er­a­tor ENGIE over the na­tion­al­iza­tion of the plants, De Wever said.

“This gov­ern­ment chooses safe, af­ford­able, and sus­tain­able en­ergy. With less de­pen­dence on fos­sil im­ports and more con­trol over our own sup­ply,” he wrote on X.

ENGIE said it signed a let­ter of in­tent with the Belgian gov­ern­ment on ex­clu­sive ne­go­ti­a­tions.

The agree­ment cov­ers the po­ten­tial ac­qui­si­tion of “the com­plete nu­clear fleet of seven re­ac­tors, the as­so­ci­ated per­son­nel, all nu­clear sub­sidiaries, as well as all as­so­ci­ated as­sets and li­a­bil­i­ties, in­clud­ing de­com­mis­sion­ing and dis­man­tling oblig­a­tions,” a press re­lease said.

A ba­sic agree­ment is ex­pected to be reached by October, it said.

Belgium orig­i­nally de­cided in 2003 to phase-out nu­clear power pro­duc­tion by 2025, but po­lit­i­cal de­bate and en­ergy se­cu­rity con­cerns have led to de­lays.

Last year the Belgian par­lia­ment voted by a large ma­jor­ity to end the nu­clear phase-out. De Wever’s gov­ern­ment also aims to build new nu­clear power plants.

Belgium has seven nu­clear re­ac­tors at two dif­fer­ent sites, al­though three re­ac­tors have al­ready been taken off the grid.

The fate of the age­ing in­stal­la­tions has been de­bated for decades. The coun­try is cur­rently heav­ily de­pen­dent on gas im­ports to cover its elec­tric­ity needs as it has been strug­gling to ex­pand re­new­able power gen­er­a­tion sig­nif­i­cantly.

Bart De Wever on X

ENGIE press re­lease

(c) 2026 dpa Deutsche Presse Agentur GmbH

Zig has one of the most strin­gent anti-LLM poli­cies of any ma­jor open source pro­ject:

No LLMs for is­sues.

No LLMs for pull re­quests.

No LLMs for com­ments on the bug tracker, in­clud­ing trans­la­tion. English is en­cour­aged, but not re­quired. You are wel­come to post in your na­tive lan­guage and rely on oth­ers to have their own trans­la­tion tools of choice to in­ter­pret your words.

No LLMs for is­sues.

No LLMs for pull re­quests.

No LLMs for com­ments on the bug tracker, in­clud­ing trans­la­tion. English is en­cour­aged, but not re­quired. You are wel­come to post in your na­tive lan­guage and rely on oth­ers to have their own trans­la­tion tools of choice to in­ter­pret your words.

The most promi­nent pro­ject writ­ten in Zig may be the Bun JavaScript run­time, which was ac­quired by Anthropic in December 2025 and, un­sur­pris­ingly, makes heavy use of AI as­sis­tance.

Bun op­er­ates its own fork of Zig, and re­cently achieved a 4x per­for­mance im­prove­ment on Bun com­pile af­ter adding “parallel se­man­tic analy­sis and mul­ti­ple code­gen units to the llvm back­end”. Here’s that code. But @bunjavascript says:

We do not cur­rently plan to up­stream this, as Zig has a strict ban on LLM-authored con­tri­bu­tions.

We do not cur­rently plan to up­stream this, as Zig has a strict ban on LLM-authored con­tri­bu­tions.

(Update: here’s a Zig core con­trib­u­tor pro­vid­ing de­tails on why they would­n’t ac­cept that par­tic­u­lar patch in­de­pen­dent of the LLM is­sue - par­al­lel se­man­tic analy­sis is a long planned fea­ture but has im­pli­ca­tions “for the Zig lan­guage it­self”.)

In Contributor Poker and Zig’s AI Ban (via Lobste.rs) Zig Software Foundation VP of Community Loris Cro ex­plains the ra­tio­nale for this strict ban. It’s the best ar­tic­u­la­tion I’ve seen yet for a blan­ket ban on LLM-assisted con­tri­bu­tions:

In suc­cess­ful open source pro­jects you even­tu­ally reach a point where you start get­ting more PRs than what you’re ca­pa­ble of pro­cess­ing. Given what I men­tioned so far, it would make sense to stop ac­cept­ing im­per­fect PRs in or­der to max­i­mize ROI from your work, but that’s not what we do in the Zig pro­ject. Instead, we try our best to help new con­trib­u­tors to get their work in, even if they need some help get­ting there. We don’t do this just be­cause it’s the “right” thing to do, but also be­cause it’s the smart thing to do.

In suc­cess­ful open source pro­jects you even­tu­ally reach a point where you start get­ting more PRs than what you’re ca­pa­ble of pro­cess­ing. Given what I men­tioned so far, it would make sense to stop ac­cept­ing im­per­fect PRs in or­der to max­i­mize ROI from your work, but that’s not what we do in the Zig pro­ject. Instead, we try our best to help new con­trib­u­tors to get their work in, even if they need some help get­ting there. We don’t do this just be­cause it’s the “right” thing to do, but also be­cause it’s the smart thing to do.

Zig val­ues con­trib­u­tors over their con­tri­bu­tions. Each con­trib­u­tor rep­re­sents an in­vest­ment by the Zig core team - the pri­mary goal of re­view­ing and ac­cept­ing PRs is­n’t to land new code, it’s to help grow new con­trib­u­tors who can be­come trusted and pro­lific over time.

LLM as­sis­tance breaks that com­pletely. It does­n’t mat­ter if the LLM helps you sub­mit a per­fect PR to Zig - the time the Zig team spends re­view­ing your work does noth­ing to help them add new, con­fi­dent, trust­wor­thy con­trib­u­tors to their over­all pro­ject.

Loris ex­plains the name here:

The rea­son I call it “contributor poker” is be­cause, just like peo­ple say about the ac­tual card game, “you play the per­son, not the cards”. In con­trib­u­tor poker, you bet on the con­trib­u­tor, not on the con­tents of their first PR.

The rea­son I call it “contributor poker” is be­cause, just like peo­ple say about the ac­tual card game, “you play the per­son, not the cards”. In con­trib­u­tor poker, you bet on the con­trib­u­tor, not on the con­tents of their first PR.

This makes a lot of sense to me. It re­lates to an idea I’ve seen cir­cu­lat­ing else­where: if a PR was mostly writ­ten by an LLM, why should a pro­ject main­tainer spend time re­view­ing and dis­cussing that PR as op­posed to fir­ing up their own LLM to solve the same prob­lem?

Skip to con­tent

Secure your code as you build

We read every piece of feed­back, and take your in­put very se­ri­ously.

Include my email ad­dress so I can be con­tacted

Use saved searches to fil­ter your re­sults more quickly

To see all avail­able qual­i­fiers, see our doc­u­men­ta­tion.

Sign up

You signed in with an­other tab or win­dow. Reload to re­fresh your ses­sion.

You signed out in an­other tab or win­dow. Reload to re­fresh your ses­sion.

You switched ac­counts on an­other tab or win­dow. Reload to re­fresh your ses­sion.

Notifications

You must be signed in to change no­ti­fi­ca­tion set­tings

You can’t per­form that ac­tion at this time.

Meta in row af­ter work­ers who say they saw smart glasses users hav­ing sex lose jobs

13 hours ago

Chris VallanceSenior tech­nol­ogy re­porter

AFP via Getty Images

Meta is un­der pres­sure to ex­plain why it can­celled a ma­jor con­tract with a com­pany it was us­ing to train AI, shortly af­ter some of its Kenya-based work­ers al­leged they had to view graphic con­tent cap­tured by Meta smart glasses.

Less than two months later, Meta ended its con­tract with Sama, which Sama said would re­sult in 1,108 work­ers be­ing made re­dun­dant.

Meta says it’s be­cause Sama did not meet its stan­dards, a crit­i­cism Sama re­jects. A Kenyan work­ers’ or­gan­i­sa­tion al­leges Meta’s de­ci­sion was caused by the staff speak­ing out.

Meta has not ad­dressed that al­le­ga­tion but told BBC News in a state­ment it had “decided to end our work with Sama be­cause they don’t meet our stan­dards”.

Sama has de­fended its work.

“Sama has con­sis­tently met the op­er­a­tional, se­cu­rity and qual­ity stan­dards re­quired across our client en­gage­ments, in­clud­ing with Meta,” it said in a state­ment.

“At no point were we no­ti­fied of any fail­ure to meet those stan­dards, and we stand firmly be­hind the qual­ity and in­tegrity of our work.”

‘Naked bod­ies’

In late February, Swedish news­pa­pers Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) and Goteborgs-Posten (GP) pub­lished an in­ves­ti­ga­tion which in­cluded the ac­counts of un­named work­ers who had been asked to re­view videos filmed by Meta’s glasses.

“We see every­thing - from liv­ing rooms to naked bod­ies,” one worker re­port­edly said.

At the time of the pub­li­ca­tion, Meta ad­mit­ted sub­con­tracted work­ers might some­times re­view con­tent filmed on its smart glasses when peo­ple shared it with Meta AI.

It said this was for the pur­pose of im­prov­ing the cus­tomer ex­pe­ri­ence, and was a com­mon prac­tice among other com­pa­nies.

However, the rev­e­la­tions have prompted reg­u­la­tors to act.

Shortly af­ter the Swedish in­ves­ti­ga­tion, the UK data watch­dog, the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) wrote to Meta about what it called a “concerning” re­port.

The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner in Kenya also an­nounced it was com­menc­ing an in­ves­ti­ga­tion into pri­vacy con­cerns raised by the glasses.

In a state­ment in re­sponse to news of the re­dun­dan­cies a Meta spokesper­son told the BBC, “last month, we paused our work with Sama while we looked into these claims.

“We take them se­ri­ously. Photos and videos are pri­vate to users. Humans re­view AI con­tent to im­prove prod­uct per­for­mance, for which we get clear user con­sent.”

‘Standards of se­cre­cy’

Features can in­clude trans­lat­ing text, or re­spond­ing to ques­tions about what the user is look­ing at - par­tic­u­larly use­ful for those who are blind or par­tially sighted.

However, as the de­vices have grown in pop­u­lar­ity, so too have con­cerns about their mis­use.

The work­ers the Swedish news­pa­pers spoke to were data an­no­ta­tors, teach­ing Meta’s AI to in­ter­pret im­ages by man­u­ally la­belling con­tent.

The work­ers said they also re­viewed tran­scripts of in­ter­ac­tions with the AI to check it had an­swered ques­tions ad­e­quately.

In one in­stance, a worker told the news­pa­pers, a man’s glasses were left record­ing in a bed­room where they later filmed a woman, ap­par­ently the man’s wife, un­dress­ing.

Meta’s glasses have a light in the cor­ner of the frames that is turned on when the built-in cam­era is record­ing.

Sama, a US head­quar­tered out­sourc­ing busi­ness, which be­gan as a non-profit or­gan­i­sa­tion with the aim of in­creas­ing em­ploy­ment through the pro­vi­sion of tech jobs, is now an “ethical” B-corp.

But this is not the first time a con­tract with Meta has soured.

An ear­lier deal to mod­er­ate Facebook posts at­tracted crit­i­cism, along­side le­gal ac­tion by for­mer em­ploy­ees - some of whom de­scribed be­ing ex­posed to graphic, trau­ma­tis­ing con­tent.

Sama later said it re­gret­ted tak­ing the work.

Naftali Wambalo of the Africa Tech Workers Movement, who is a pe­ti­tioner in the con­tin­u­ing le­gal ac­tion around that case, told the BBC he had also spo­ken with work­ers in­volved in the smart glasses con­tract.

Wambalo be­lieved the rea­son for Meta’s end­ing the work was that it did­n’t want work­ers speak­ing out about hu­man work­ers some­times re­view­ing con­tent cap­tured by the smart glasses.

“What I think are the stan­dards they are talk­ing about here are stan­dards of se­crecy,” he told BBC News.

The BBC has asked Meta to re­spond to this point.

The tech gi­ant has pre­vi­ously said that users were made aware of the pos­si­bil­ity of hu­man re­view in the its terms of ser­vice.

Mercy Mutemi a lawyer rep­re­sent­ing the pe­ti­tion­ers, who is also ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor of cam­paign group the Oversight Lab, said Meta’s state­ment should be a warn­ing to the Kenyan gov­ern­ment.

“We’ve been told that this is our en­try route into the AI ecosys­tem,” she told the BBC. “This is a very flimsy foun­da­tion to build your en­tire in­dus­try on.”

La Jolla, California—April 29, 2026—The J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) an­nounced that J. Craig Venter, Ph.D., the Institute’s founder, board chair, and chief ex­ec­u­tive of­fi­cer, died to­day in San Diego fol­low­ing a brief hos­pi­tal­iza­tion for un­ex­pected side ef­fects that arose from treat­ment of re­cently di­ag­nosed can­cer.

Dr. Venter was a vi­sion­ary sci­en­tific leader whose work helped de­fine mod­ern ge­nomics and launch the field of syn­thetic bi­ol­ogy. He drove sci­en­tific and tech­no­log­i­cal change by build­ing in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary teams, push­ing for bold ideas and faster meth­ods, and in­sist­ing that dis­cov­ery should trans­late into real-world im­pact. He was also a fierce ad­vo­cate for ro­bust fed­eral sci­ence fund­ing and for part­ner­ships that ac­cel­er­ate progress across gov­ern­ment, acad­e­mia, and in­dus­try.

“Craig be­lieved that sci­ence moves for­ward when peo­ple are will­ing to think dif­fer­ently, move de­ci­sively, and build what does­n’t yet ex­ist,” said Anders Dale, pres­i­dent of JCVI. “His lead­er­ship and vi­sion re­shaped ge­nomics and helped ig­nite syn­thetic bi­ol­ogy. We will honor his legacy by con­tin­u­ing the mis­sion he built—ad­vanc­ing ge­nomic sci­ence, cham­pi­oning the pub­lic in­vest­ments that make dis­cov­ery pos­si­ble, and part­ner­ing broadly to turn knowl­edge into im­pact.”

Across his ca­reer, Dr. Venter helped move ge­nomics from slow, gene-by-gene dis­cov­ery to scal­able, data-dri­ven sci­ence—and then helped take the next step: demon­strat­ing that genomes could be de­signed and con­structed.

At the National Institutes of Health, he helped pi­o­neer gene dis­cov­ery us­ing ex­pressed se­quence tags (ESTs), en­abling rapid iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of large num­bers of hu­man genes and ac­cel­er­at­ing genome map­ping ef­forts.

He went on to lead ef­forts that pro­duced the first draft se­quences of the hu­man genome, a mile­stone that helped usher bi­ol­ogy into the dig­i­tal age. He and col­leagues later pub­lished the first high-qual­ity diploid hu­man genome, demon­strat­ing the im­por­tance of cap­tur­ing ge­netic vari­a­tion in­her­ited from both par­ents.

In syn­thetic bi­ol­ogy, Dr. Venter and his teams achieved a land­mark by con­struct­ing the first self-repli­cat­ing bac­te­r­ial cell con­trolled by a chem­i­cally syn­the­sized genome—proof that genomes could be de­signed dig­i­tally, built from chem­i­cal com­po­nents, and “booted up” to run a liv­ing cell.

He also pur­sued sci­en­tific dis­cov­ery at global scale. Through the Sorcerer II Global Ocean Sampling Expedition, Dr. Venter and his teams used metage­nomics to re­veal ex­tra­or­di­nary mi­cro­bial di­ver­sity, re­port­ing the dis­cov­ery of mil­lions of new genes and ex­pand­ing the known uni­verse of pro­tein fam­i­lies—work that deep­ened un­der­stand­ing of the ocean mi­cro­biome and its role in plan­e­tary sys­tems.

Beyond his sci­en­tific achieve­ments, Dr. Venter was a builder: of teams, plat­forms, and in­sti­tu­tions de­signed to take big sci­en­tific bets. In ad­di­tion to found­ing JCVI, he was a se­r­ial en­tre­pre­neur who co-founded Synthetic Genomics, Inc., Human Longevity, Inc., and most re­cently Diploid Genomics, Inc., ad­vanc­ing ef­forts to trans­late ge­nomics and syn­thetic bi­ol­ogy into tools for health and so­ci­ety.

The Institute asks that the pri­vacy of Dr. Venter’s fam­ily be re­spected. Additional in­for­ma­tion re­gard­ing memo­r­ial arrange­ments will be shared when avail­able.

About J. Craig Venter Institute

The J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) is a not-for-profit re­search in­sti­tute in Rockville, Maryland and La Jolla, California ded­i­cated to the ad­vance­ment of the sci­ence of ge­nomics; the un­der­stand­ing of its im­pli­ca­tions for so­ci­ety; and com­mu­ni­ca­tion of those re­sults to the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity, the pub­lic, and pol­i­cy­mak­ers. Founded by J. Craig Venter, Ph.D., JCVI is home to ap­prox­i­mately 120 sci­en­tists and staff with ex­per­tise in syn­thetic bi­ol­ogy, hu­man and evo­lu­tion­ary bi­ol­ogy, ge­net­ics, bioin­for­mat­ics/​in­for­mat­ics, in­for­ma­tion tech­nol­ogy, high-through­put DNA se­quenc­ing, ge­nomic and en­vi­ron­men­tal pol­icy re­search, and pub­lic ed­u­ca­tion in sci­ence and sci­ence pol­icy. JCVI is a 501(c)(3) or­ga­ni­za­tion. For ad­di­tional in­for­ma­tion, please visit www.jcvi.org.

Media Contact

Matthew LaPointe, mla­pointe@jcvi.org, 301 – 795-7918

Products

Openwall GNU/*/Linux   server OS

Linux Kernel Runtime Guard

John the Ripper   pass­word cracker

Free & Open Source for any plat­form

in the cloud

Pro for Linux

Pro for ma­cOS

Wordlists   for pass­word crack­ing

pass­wdqc   pol­icy en­force­ment

Free & Open Source for Unix

Pro for Windows (Active Directory)

yescrypt   KDF & pass­word hash­ing

yespower   Proof-of-Work (PoW)

cryp­t_blow­fish   pass­word hash­ing

ph­pass   ditto in PHP

tcb   bet­ter pass­word shad­ow­ing

Pluggable Authentication Modules

scan­logd   port scan de­tec­tor

popa3d   tiny POP3 dae­mon

blists   web in­ter­face to mail­ing lists

msu­lo­gin   sin­gle user mode lo­gin

ph­p_mt_seed   mt_rand() cracker

Openwall GNU/*/Linux   server OS

Linux Kernel Runtime Guard

John the Ripper   pass­word cracker

Free & Open Source for any plat­form

in the cloud

Pro for Linux

Pro for ma­cOS

Free & Open Source for any plat­form

in the cloud

Pro for Linux

Pro for ma­cOS

Wordlists   for pass­word crack­ing

pass­wdqc   pol­icy en­force­ment

Free & Open Source for Unix

Pro for Windows (Active Directory)

Free & Open Source for Unix

Pro for Windows (Active Directory)

yescrypt   KDF & pass­word hash­ing

yespower   Proof-of-Work (PoW)

cryp­t_blow­fish   pass­word hash­ing

ph­pass   ditto in PHP

tcb   bet­ter pass­word shad­ow­ing

Pluggable Authentication Modules

scan­logd   port scan de­tec­tor

popa3d   tiny POP3 dae­mon

blists   web in­ter­face to mail­ing lists

msu­lo­gin   sin­gle user mode lo­gin

ph­p_mt_seed   mt_rand() cracker

Services

Publications

Articles

Presentations

Articles

Presentations

Resources

Mailing lists

Community wiki

Source code repos­i­to­ries (GitHub)

File archive & mir­rors

How to ver­ify dig­i­tal sig­na­tures

OVE IDs

Mailing lists

Community wiki

Source code repos­i­to­ries (GitHub)

File archive & mir­rors

How to ver­ify dig­i­tal sig­na­tures

OVE IDs

What’s new

Message-ID: <87se8dgicq.fsf@gentoo.org>

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:52:37 +0100

From: Sam James <sam@…too.org>

To: oss-se­cu­rity@…ts.open­wall.com

Cc: Jan Schaumann <jschauma@…meister.org>

Subject: Re: CVE-2026 – 31431: CopyFail: linux lo­cal priv­i­lege

sca­la­tion

Eddie Chapman <eddie@…k.net> writes:

> On 29/04/2026 21:23, Jan Schaumann wrote:

>> Affected and fixed ver­sions

>> ===========================

>> Issue in­tro­duced in 4.14 with com­mit

>> 72548b093ee38a6d4f2a19e6ef1948ae05c181f7 and fixed in

>> 6.18.22 with com­mit

>> fafe0­fa2995a0f7073c1c358d7d3145bc­c9aedd8

>> Issue in­tro­duced in 4.14 with com­mit

>> 72548b093ee38a6d4f2a19e6ef1948ae05c181f7 and fixed in

>> 6.19.12 with com­mit

>> ce42ee423e58df­fa5ec03524054c9d8bfd4f6237

>> Issue in­tro­duced in 4.14 with com­mit

>> 72548b093ee38a6d4f2a19e6ef1948ae05c181f7 and fixed in

>> 7.0 with com­mit

>> a664bf3d603d­c3b­d­cf9ae47c­c21e0­daec706d7a5

>> https://​git.ker­nel.org/​sta­ble/​c/​fafe0­fa2995a0f7073c1c358d7d3145bc­c9aedd8

>> https://​git.ker­nel.org/​sta­ble/​c/​ce42ee423e58df­fa5ec03524054c9d8bfd4f6237

>> https://​git.ker­nel.org/​sta­ble/​c/​a664bf3d603d­c3b­d­cf9ae47c­c21e0­daec706d7a5

>

> So this is one of the worst make-me-root vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties in the ker­nel

> in re­cent times. I see that on the 11th of April 6.19.12 & 6.18.22