10 interesting stories served every morning and every evening.

Just a moment...

reclaimthenet.org

nytimes.com

www.nytimes.com

Please en­able JS and dis­able any ad blocker

Josef Prusa (@josefprusa)

xcancel.com

On the <dl>

benmyers.dev

Introduction

The <dl>, or de­scrip­tion list, el­e­ment is un­der­rated.

It’s used to rep­re­sent a list of name–value pairs. This is a com­mon UI pat­tern that, at the same time, is in­cred­i­bly ver­sa­tile. For in­stance, you’ve prob­a­bly seen these lay­outs out in the wild…

Each of these ex­am­ples shows a list (or lists!) of name–value pairs. You might have also seen lists of name–value pairs to de­scribe lodg­ing ameni­ties, or to list out in­di­vid­ual charges in your monthly rent, or in glos­saries of tech­ni­cal terms. Each of these is a can­di­date to be rep­re­sented with the <dl> el­e­ment.

So what does that look like?

The Anatomy of a Description List

I’ve been say­ing <dl>,” when re­ally, I’m talk­ing about three sep­a­rate el­e­ments: <dl>, <dt>, and <dd>.

We start with our <dl>. This is the de­scrip­tion list,note 1 akin to us­ing a <ul> for an un­ordered list or an <ol> for an or­dered list.

<dl>

</dl>

Fancy.

Next up, we want to add a name–value pair. We’ll use a <dt>, short for de­scrip­tion term, for the name, and we’ll use a <dd>, short for de­scrip­tion de­tail, for the value.note 2

<dl> <dt>Title</dt> <dd>Designing with Web Standards</dd> </dl>

To add an­other name–value pair to our list, we add an­other <dt> and <dd>:

<dl> <dt>Title</dt> <dd>Designing with Web Standards</dd> <dt>Publisher</dt> <dd>New Riders Pub; 3rd edi­tion (October 19, 2009)</dd> </dl>

But wait — what if I have a term that has mul­ti­ple val­ues? For in­stance, what if this book has mul­ti­ple au­thors?

That’s fine! One <dt> can have mul­ti­ple <dd>s:

<dl> <dt>Title</dt> <dd>Designing with Web Standards</dd> <dt>Author</dt> <dd>Jeffrey Zeldman</dd> <dd>Ethan Marcotte</dd> <dt>Publisher</dt> <dd>New Riders Pub; 3rd edi­tion (October 19, 2009)</dd> </dl>

There’s one last piece of the de­scrip­tion list anatomy to look at for most ba­sic use cases: what if I want to wrap a <dt> and its <dd>(s) for styling rea­sons?

In this case, the specs al­low you to wrap a <dt> and its <dd>(s) in a <div>:

<dl>

<div> <dt>Title</dt> <dd>Designing with Web Standards</dd> </div>

<div> <dt>Author</dt> <dd>Jeffrey Zeldman</dd> <dd>Ethan Marcotte</dd> </div>

<div> <dt>Publisher</dt> <dd>New Riders Pub; 3rd edi­tion (October 19, 2009)</dd> </div>

</dl>

A wrap­per <div> like this is the only el­e­ment that can wrap those <dt>/<dd> groups.

And that’s it! That’s the anatomy of the de­scrip­tion list, HTMLs se­man­tic way to mark up a list of name–value groups!

Why Do We Need Semantics For This Anyways?

Before we learned about the <dl>, <dt>, and <dd> el­e­ments, my team used to use nested <div>s for this pat­tern all the time. It looked a lot like:

<div class=“book-de­tails”> <div class=“book-de­tails–item”> <div class=“book-de­tails–la­bel”> Title </div> <div class=“book-de­tails–value”> Designing with Web Standards </div> </div> <div class=“book-de­tails–item”> <div class=“book-de­tails–la­bel”> Author </div> <div class=“book-de­tails–value”> Jeffrey Zeldman </div> <div class=“book-de­tails–value”> Ethan Marcotte </div> </div> <div class=“book-de­tails–item”> <div class=“book-de­tails–la­bel”> Publisher </div> <div class=“book-de­tails–value”> New Riders Pub; 3rd edi­tion (October 19, 2009) </div> </div> </div>

This has all the in­for­ma­tion about the book, right? Why do we need se­man­tics for a list of name–value groups in the first place if some­thing like a se­ries of nested <div>s could get the job done?

When de­ter­min­ing whether a se­man­tic el­e­ment might be ap­pro­pri­ate for a given pat­tern, I find it help­ful to ask, What ben­e­fits — even the­o­ret­i­cal — could we get if com­put­ers could rec­og­nize this pat­tern?” In this case, what lift could we get if browsers could some­how rec­og­nize a list of name–value groups?

Answers to that ques­tion will be var­ied. I tend to spend a lot of time ad­vo­cat­ing for web ac­ces­si­bil­ity, so my first thought tends to be how screen­read­ers could in­ter­pret the pat­tern. Off the top of my head, I can think of a cou­ple of ben­e­fits screen­reader users could get from their screen­read­ers rec­og­niz­ing this pat­tern:

The screen­reader could tell the user how many name–value groups are in the list.

The screen­reader could tell the user how far into the list they are.

The screen­reader could treat the list as one block that the user could skip over if they’re un­in­ter­ested in it.

All of these could make the list more us­able than a se­ries of nested <div>s, which would treat each name and value in the list as noth­ing more than a stand­alone text node.

If you can come up with a cou­ple of even the­o­ret­i­cal lifts from the user’s de­vice rec­og­niz­ing a pat­tern, then there’s a good chance that the pat­tern is a strong can­di­date for hav­ing some as­so­ci­ated se­man­tics.

For what it’s worth, these screen­reader ex­pe­ri­ences aren’t hy­po­thet­i­cal — they’re ben­e­fits that screen­reader users re­ally get from us­ing <dl> in most browser/​screen­reader com­bi­na­tions. Admittedly, how­ever, sup­port for the <dl> el­e­ment is not yet uni­ver­sal. You may de­cide that screen­read­ers’ fall­back ex­pe­ri­ence — treat­ing the list as stand­alone text nodes — is­n’t suf­fi­cient for your use case, and in­stead opt for some­thing like a <ul> un­til sup­port im­proves.

Okay, Okay, One Last Example!

My fa­vorite ex­am­ple, the one that re­ally takes the cake for me, is Dungeons & Dragons stat­blocks, which are re­ally Oops! All Name–Value Pairs!”

No, re­ally: just how many can­di­dates for <dl>s do you see in this stat­block alone?

I counted five pos­si­ble de­scrip­tion lists, per­son­ally. Here’s how I chose to mark this up:

<div> <h1>Kobold</h1> <small>Small hu­manoid (kobold), law­ful evil</​small>

<dl> <div> <dt>Armor Class</dt> <dd>12</dd> </div> <div> <dt>Hit Points</dt> <dd>5 (2d6 – 2)</dd> </div> <div> <dt>Speed</dt> <dd>30 ft.</​dd> </div> </dl>

<dl aria-la­bel=“Abil­ity Scores”> <div> <dt>STR</dt> <dd>7 (-2)</dd> </div> <div> <dt>DEX</dt> <dd>15 (+2)</dd> </div> <div> <dt>CON</dt> <dd>9 (-1)</dd> </div> <div> <dt>INT</dt> <dd>8 (-1)</dd> </div> <div> <dt>WIS</dt> <dd>7 (-2)</dd> </div> <div> <dt>CHA</dt> <dd>8 (–1)</dd> </div> </dl>

<dl aria-la­bel=“Pro­fi­cien­cies”> <div> <dt>Senses</dt> <dd>Darkvision 60 ft.</​dd> <dd>Passive Perception 8</dd> </div> <div> <dt>Languages</dt> <dd>Common</dd> <dd>Draconic</dd> </div> <div> <dt>Challenge</dt> <dd>1/8 (25 XP)</dd> </div> </dl>

<dl aria-la­bel=“Traits”> <div> <dt>Sunlight Sensitivity</dt> <dd> While in sun­light, the kobold has dis­ad­van­tage on at­tack rolls, as well as on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. </dd> </div> <div> <dt>Pack Tactics</dt> <dd> The kobold has ad­van­tage on an at­tack roll against a crea­ture if at least one of the kobold’s al­lies is within 5 ft. of the crea­ture and the ally is­n’t in­ca­pac­i­tated. </dd> </div> </dl>

<h2 id=“ac­tions”>Ac­tions</​h2> <dl aria-la­belledby=“ac­tions”> <div> <dt>Dagger</dt> <dd> <i>Melee Weapon Attack:</i> +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one tar­get. <i>Hit:</i> (1d4 + 2) pierc­ing dam­age. </dd> </div> <div> <dt>Sling</dt> <dd> <i>Ranged Weapon Attack:</i> +4 to hit, reach 30/120 ft., one tar­get. <i>Hit</i>: (1d4 + 2) blud­geon­ing dam­age. </dd> </div> </dl>

</div>

This is just one way you could have opted to mark up that stat­block.

I love this as a demon­stra­tion be­cause it re­ally goes to show just how ver­sa­tile the de­scrip­tion list pat­tern can re­ally be — the lists of abil­ity scores (STR, DEX, and so forth) and at­tacks both look very dif­fer­ent, and yet, the de­scrip­tion list pat­tern can span them all.

Takeaways

Lists of name–value pairs (or, in some cases, name–value groups) are a com­mon pat­tern across the web, in part due to their ver­sa­til­ity. HTML lets us mark up these lists with a com­bi­na­tion of three el­e­ments:

The <dl>, or de­scrip­tion list, el­e­ment, which wraps the en­tire list of name–value pairs

The <dt>, or de­scrip­tion term, el­e­ment, which rep­re­sents a name in our name–value pairs

The <dd>, or de­scrip­tion de­tail, el­e­ment, which rep­re­sents a value in our name–value pairs

Ascribing se­man­tics to pat­terns such as these gives our users’ de­vices the in­for­ma­tion they need to cu­rate use­ful, us­able ex­pe­ri­ences — of­ten­times in ways that we as de­vel­op­ers may not ex­pect.

To learn more about de­scrip­tion lists and what’s al­lowed or not al­lowed, I rec­om­mend the MDN docs on the <dl>, or go­ing di­rectly to the specs!

Footnotes

Prior to HTML5, this was called a de­f­i­n­i­tion list. This is be­cause the <dl> was orig­i­nally only in­tended to rep­re­sent glos­saries of terms and their de­f­i­n­i­tions. | Back to [1]

Prior to HTML5, this was called a de­f­i­n­i­tion list. This is be­cause the <dl> was orig­i­nally only in­tended to rep­re­sent glos­saries of terms and their de­f­i­n­i­tions. | Back to [1]

Previously known as the de­f­i­n­i­tion term and de­f­i­n­i­tion de­tail el­e­ments re­spec­tively. | Back to [2]

Previously known as the de­f­i­n­i­tion term and de­f­i­n­i­tion de­tail el­e­ments re­spec­tively. | Back to [2]

SpaceX just launched Starship V3 &mdash; its most powerful megarocket yet &mdash; into space for the 1st time in…

www.space.com

The most pow­er­ful rocket in his­tory just roared off its launch pad in a spec­tac­u­lar show of power and tech­nol­ogy.

SpaceX launched the newest ver­sion of its gi­ant Starship rocket Friday (May 22), from a re­cently com­pleted sec­ond pad at its Starbase man­u­fac­tur­ing and test fa­cil­ity in South Texas. Liftoff oc­curred at 6:30 p.m. EDT (2230 GMT), send­ing the mas­sive 408-foot-tall (124-meter) ve­hi­cle sky­ward on its 12th sub­or­bital test flight.

It was the first Starship mis­sion since October 2025, and the first-ever flight of Starship Version 3 (V3), a next-gen­er­a­tion build of the rocket that fea­tures a com­plete de­sign over­haul meant to evolve the ve­hi­cle to­ward op­er­a­tional mis­sions. And to­day’s sub­or­bital Flight 12 was a sig­nif­i­cant step to­ward that am­bi­tious goal, even if it was a day later than planned af­ter a glitched thwarted a first launch try on Thursday.

Congratulations SpaceX team on an epic first Starship V3 launch & land­ing!,” SpaceX CEO Elon Musk wrote on X af­ter the launch. You scored a goal for hu­man­ity.”

Image

1

of

3

There were some hic­cups.

During liftoff, one of the 33 first-stage Raptor en­gines on Super Heavy shut down, and the booster missed a crit­i­cal boost back” manuever to con­trol its re­turn to Earth. Starship’s Ship 39 up­per stage also lost one of its six main en­gines dur­ing as­cent, but man­aged to reach space on the re­main­ing five.

I would­n’t call it nom­i­nal or­bital in­ser­tion, but we’re in on a tra­jec­tory that we had an­a­lyzed, and it’s within bounds,” SpaceX spokesper­son Dan Huot said in live com­men­tary. So, teams con­tin­u­ing to work through it with that en­gine out there, work­ing some through some steps on the en­gines.”

Starship con­sists of a first-stage booster called Super Heavy and an up­per stage known as Starship, or sim­ply Ship. The first no­table event af­ter the rocket cleared the tower this evening oc­curred about 2 min­utes and 20 sec­onds into flight, when Super Heavy ini­ti­ated hot stag­ing” and sep­a­ra­tion from Ship. (It’s known as hot stag­ing be­cause Ship be­gins fir­ing its en­gines be­fore sep­a­rat­ing from Super Heavy.)

Unlike its V2 pre­de­ces­sor, which fea­tured an in­ter­stage ring that fell away at sep­a­ra­tion, Starship V3 is built with sim­i­lar hard­ware se­cured to the top of the booster, like a fence around the fuel tank’s dome to give some breath­ing room to the up­per stage en­gi­nes’ ig­ni­tion and ini­tial thrust away from the booster.

After stage sep­a­ra­tion, Super Heavy re­ori­ented and at­tempted to per­form a one-minute boost­back burn to­ward Starbase. However, some­thing went wrong and the burn did­n’t go as planned, Huot said.

SpaceX has per­formed booster re­cov­er­ies at Starbase on pre­vi­ous Starship mis­sions, catch­ing the rock­et’s first stage us­ing me­chan­i­cal chopstick” arms at­tached to the site’s launch tow­ers. On Flight 12, how­ever, the com­pany planed to re­turn Super Heavy a soft splash­down in the Gulf of Mexico rather than risk a re­cov­ery mishap that could dam­age the pad on the first flight of brand-new hard­ware.

Instead, the mas­sive Super Heavy booster plum­meted back to Earth and crashed into the Gulf, beam­ing live views of its fall from space un­til the screen went black.

The booster did­n’t com­plete its full boost back,” Huot said just af­ter li­fotff. Its mis­sion ended a lit­tle bit early, but landed in the clear area that we had set in ad­vance.”

SpaceX in­cluded 22 pay­loads for Ship to de­ploy dur­ing its sub­or­bital jaunt to­day — 20 dummy ver­sions of the com­pa­ny’s Starlink broad­band satel­lites and two ac­tual Starlink space­craft equipped with imag­ing sen­sors.

The pay­loads were de­ployed as planned over a 10-minute span, be­gin­ning roughly 17 min­utes af­ter launch, via Ship’s PEZ dis­penser”-like door. The two mod­i­fied Starlink satel­lites were tasked with scan­ning Starship’s heat shield tiles, in a test meant to as­sess the abil­ity to in­spect them for pos­si­ble dam­age prior to reen­try.

Shortly af­ter the fi­nal two Starlink sim­u­la­tors de­ployed (the ones with cam­eras that SpaceX nick­named Dodger Dogs” af­ter the famed hot­dogs at Dodger Stadium), SpaceX broad­cast the spec­tac­tu­lar video they cap­tured as they flew away from Starship.

That is a Starship in space,” Huot said.

Image

1

of

2

SpaceX ini­tially planned for the Ship 39 up­per stage to per­form an in-space re­light of one of its six Raptor en­gines in or­bit— an im­por­tant demon­stra­tion to prove the space­craft can re­li­ably ex­e­cute ma­neu­vers, as mix­ing and man­ag­ing cryo­genic fu­els and reignit­ing an en­gine in zero-g is nec­es­sary to al­ter Ship’s or­bit, send it on to the moon or Mars, and bring it back to Earth for re­cov­ery and reuse. But be­cause of the lost Raptor en­gine dur­ing launch, flight con­trollers skipped that test for Flight 12.

And so, the first Starship V3 space­craft be­gan its de­scent to Earth.

Ship be­gan its reen­try to Earth’s at­mos­phere about 50 min­utes into the flight, falling as its belly be­came en­gulfed in a bright plasma. During its de­scent, Ship 39 per­formed a se­ries of ex­er­cises de­signed to stress parts of the ve­hi­cle to their struc­tural limit. It also ex­e­cuted a novel bank­ing ma­neu­ver for its land­ing burn meant to mimic the tra­jec­tory and ori­en­ta­tion needed for a launch tower catch on a re­turn to Starbase.

Huge cheers rang out at SpaceX’s head­quareters and Starbase fa­cil­i­ties as the Ship 39 ig­nited two en­gines for a fi­nal land­ing burn. The manuever ini­tially called for three en­gines, but that one shut down early at liftoff. After the land­ing, Starship top­pled over into the ocean wa­ters and ex­ploded in a mag­nif­i­cent fire­ball (again, as planned) as SpaceX work­ers cheered.

Nothing Starship ac­com­plished on Flight 12 was par­tic­u­larly ground­break­ing for SpaceX; the mis­sion goals and tra­jec­to­ries were broadly sim­i­lar to those of the pre­vi­ous few test mis­sions.

However, even suc­cess­fully fol­low­ing a pre­vi­ously blazed trail was huge for Starship V3, given that it’s a brand-new ve­hi­cle with a va­ri­ety of mod­i­fi­ca­tions and up­grades over its pre­de­ces­sors. And V3′s road to the launch pad was a bit rocky.

SpaceX ran into some is­sues dur­ing the test­ing of the new V3 build in November last year, re­sult­ing in the loss of the Super Heavy booster orig­i­nally slated for the Flight 12 mis­sion. Now, with more than half a year be­tween Starship’s last two launches, SpaceX has some catch­ing up to do.

NASA is re­ly­ing on Starship as one of the crewed lu­nar lan­ders for its Artemis pro­gram, which aims to even­tu­ally es­tab­lish a per­ma­nent hu­man pres­ence on the moon. The space agency has also con­tracted Blue Moon, a Blue Origin space­craft, to land Artemis as­tro­nauts on the moon, and has in­di­cated a will­ing­ness to fly with whichever pri­vate lan­der is ready when it’s time for the mis­sions to get off the ground.

The next of those mis­sions is Artemis 3 — the fol­low-up to April’s Artemis 2, which flew four as­tro­nauts aboard NASAs Orion space­craft on a suc­cess­ful 10-day mis­sion around the moon. NASA is tar­get­ing mid to late 2027 for Artemis 3, which will launch Orion to low Earth or­bit (LEO) to ren­dezvous and dock with one or both of the pri­vate lu­nar lan­ders, and late 2028 for the first lu­nar land­ing on Artemis 4.

As if to drive that fact home, NASA chief Jared Isaacman flew to Starbase to watch the launch per­son­ally.

We’re look­ing for­ward to see­ing this thing fly, be­cause hope­fully at some point in the not too dis­tant fu­ture we’re gonna, we’re gonna join up in an earth or­bit,” Isaacman said dur­ing the live co­men­tary.

After the launch, Isaacman hailed the work of SpaceX’s Starship team.

Congrats SpaceX team and Elon Musk on a hell of a V3 Starship launch,” Isaacman wrote on X. One step closer to the Moon … one step closer to Mars.”

Congrats @SpaceX team and @elonmusk on a hell of a V3 Starship launch. One step closer to the Moon…one step closer to Mars 🇺🇸 pic.twit­ter.com/​jjetQxnkiR­May 23, 2026

Congrats @SpaceX team and @elonmusk on a hell of a V3 Starship launch. One step closer to the Moon…one step closer to Mars 🇺🇸 pic.twit­ter.com/​jjetQxnkiR­May 23, 2026

Starship has a num­ber of boxes to check be­fore NASA cer­ti­fies the ve­hi­cle to fly as­tro­nauts, but V3 has been built with those goal­posts in mind.

The new Starship V3 ve­hi­cle in­cludes four pas­sive con­nec­tion ports on its back, or lee­ward, side (opposite the heat tiles on its belly), which are de­signed for dock­ing and ship-to-ship fuel trans­fers.

In or­der to fly be­yond LEO, Starship re­quires the as­sis­tance of ad­di­tional Ships to meet up in or­bit to top off its fuel tanks. This is es­pe­cially im­por­tant for its use as the Artemis moon lan­der; ex­perts have es­ti­mated that each lu­nar Starship mis­sion could re­quire a dozen or more re­fu­el­ing launches to ad­e­quately sup­ply enough pro­pel­lant to get to the moon, land and launch back to lu­nar or­bit.

Ship has yet to demon­strate in-space re­fu­el­ing, or even a launch that fully reaches Earth or­bit. And there are other boxes it needs to tick as well.

For ex­am­ple, NASA is re­quir­ing both Starship and Blue Moon to demon­strate un­crewed lu­nar land­ings be­fore they fly as­tro­nauts down to the lu­nar sur­face, putting SpaceX and Blue Origin on a short time­line to ready ve­hi­cles for the planned Artemis 4 land­ing in 2028.

Starship’s launch to­day helps put it back on track to­ward meet­ing that goal, but SpaceX will have to pick up its launch ca­dence sig­nif­i­cantly. Just over a year ago, in March 2025, SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk posted on X that he ex­pected to be launch­ing V3 at a rate of once a week in [about] 12 months.”

While that ca­dence still seems a long way off at Starship’s cur­rent state of de­vel­op­ment, the suc­cess of Flight 12 bodes well for the near fu­ture. And hope­fully the near fu­ture fea­tures an­other Starship launch — a gi­ant rocket get­ting off the ground in a mat­ter of weeks, ver­sus the seven months that sep­a­rated to­day’s mis­sion from the pre­vi­ous test flight.

Josh Dinner is Space.com’s Spaceflight Staff Writer. He is a writer and pho­tog­ra­pher with a pas­sion for sci­ence and space ex­plo­ration, and has been work­ing the space beat since 2016. Josh has cov­ered the evo­lu­tion of NASAs com­mer­cial space­flight part­ner­ships and crewed mis­sions from the Space Coast, NASA sci­ence mis­sions and more. He also en­joys build­ing 1:144-scale model rock­ets and space­craft. Find some of Josh’s launch pho­tog­ra­phy on Instagram, and fol­low him on X, where he mostly posts in haiku.

SpaceX successfully launches prototype of Starship rocket

www.nbcnews.com

There are no new alerts at this time

Oura says it gets government demands for user data. Will it share how many?

this.weekinsecurity.com

Last year, health wear­able maker Oura be­came em­broiled in a so­cial me­dia shit­storm af­ter ink­ing a deal with the Department of Defense and Palantir. Some cus­tomers feared their data would end up in the clutches of the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion. The scan­dal blew up so much that my part­ner, an Oura ring user, drew my at­ten­tion to it.

Oura rings are health-mon­i­tor­ing hard­ware wear­ables worn on a fin­ger. These bat­tery pow­ered rings keep track of a per­son’s health data, like heart rate, sleep pat­terns, men­strual cy­cles, and dozens of other data points, in­clud­ing their lo­ca­tion. Oura keeps a lot of sen­si­tive in­for­ma­tion about its users on its servers.

As a se­cu­rity and pri­vacy nerd re­porter, and the part­ner of some­one who uses hers, I won­dered: Where does all that data go, and how does it get there? You might as­sume it does­n’t mat­ter. But the way that com­pa­nies set up their prod­ucts and servers makes all the dif­fer­ence be­tween whether gov­ern­ments (or hack­ers) can also ac­cess that user data.

This was a good op­por­tu­nity to dig into how Oura rings work, how they send data and how the data is stored, and who has ac­cess to it. I wrote a de­tailed lon­gread ex­plain­ing why Oura’s se­cu­rity de­sign choices al­low gov­ern­ments to tap records from Oura’s vast banks of user in­for­ma­tion.

Oura is not unique in this, and many (if not most) com­pa­nies de­sign their sys­tems to al­low their staff to ac­cess user data, per­haps for trou­bleshoot­ing cus­tomer is­sues or be­cause it was the eas­i­est and cheap­est setup for a once cash-strapped startup. But Oura is now one of the largest health tech wear­able mak­ers to­day, val­ued at over $11 bil­lion ahead of go­ing pub­lic. The com­pany has a re­spon­si­bil­ity more than ever to en­sure that its users’ data can­not be ac­cessed. And, Oura can no longer ar­gue that it does not have the fi­nan­cial re­sources to do it.

In my pre­vi­ous blog, I re­vealed that Oura data is not end-to-end en­crypted. That means that an Oura user’s health data can be un­scram­bled at cer­tain points as it trav­els from a per­son’s ring, through their phone app, over the in­ter­net, and as it lands on Oura’s servers. The com­pany con­firmed that it stores user data in a way that al­lows some staff to ac­cess it. This also means oth­ers can as well, such as a pros­e­cu­tor with a war­rant, a hacker with stolen keys, or a dis­grun­tled in­sider who wants to leave be­hind a fuster­cluck of a mess.

Out of the three, we know at least one of those things has hap­pened.

When I reached out for com­ment be­fore pub­lish­ing my last ar­ti­cle, an Oura spokesper­son told me that the com­pany does receive in­fre­quent re­quests from the gov­ern­ment.” Oura said it looks at each re­quest for le­gal­ity, scope, and ne­ces­sity,” and that it pushes back where re­quests are in­valid, over­broad, or in­con­sis­tent with our com­mit­ment to pro­tect our mem­bers’ pri­vacy.”

Oura would not say how many re­quests it re­ceives, how of­ten it turns over user data, or what kinds of data are re­quested. Oura has sold over 5.5 mil­lion rings to date as of around the time of my last ar­ti­cle, giv­ing some scale to the size of the com­pa­ny’s cus­tomer base.

I asked Oura back then if it would dis­close how of­ten it re­ceived these re­quests, such as by pub­lish­ing a trans­parency re­port. A wave of tech com­pa­nies be­gan re­leas­ing in ag­gre­gate how many gov­ern­ment de­mands they re­ceived on a semi-an­nual ba­sis. This was largely to counter the claims that they were se­cretly hand­ing over reams of user data to the gov­ern­ment upon re­quest, stem­ming from the NSA sur­veil­lance scan­dal in 2013.

There was some hope in Oura’s ini­tial re­sponse. A spokesper­son told me at the time that while Oura does not pub­lish a trans­parency re­port, the com­pany said it was actively eval­u­at­ing how to share ag­gre­gate data in a way that main­tains se­cu­rity and does not in­tro­duce risk to our mem­bers.”

It’s been eight months, dear reader.

I re­cently reached out to Oura again to see if it would re­lease a trans­parency re­port, and af­ter sev­eral fol­low-up emails, the once-re­spon­sive Oura has not yet replied to any of my in­quiries, or com­mit­ted to re­leas­ing the num­bers. I’m hope­ful that Oura will re­con­sider and pub­lish how many de­mands it re­ceives as other tech com­pa­nies have.

Without see­ing the num­bers, it is im­pos­si­ble to know how of­ten, if ever, Oura re­jects gov­ern­ment de­mands for data. As the fron­trun­ner in the health wear­ables mar­ket, Oura should share how of­ten the gov­ern­ment de­mands ac­cess to users’ in­for­ma­tion if it wants to earn or keep the trust of its cus­tomers.

~ ~

Thank you so much for read­ing ~this week in se­cu­rity~. If you liked this ar­ti­cle, please share it! Feel free to reach out with any feed­back, ques­tions, or com­ments about this ar­ti­cle: this@weekin­se­cu­rity.com.

Is AI Profitable Yet?

isaiprofitable.com

Experience: we found a baby on the subway – now he’s our 26-year-old son

www.theguardian.com

In the sum­mer of 2000, I could never have imag­ined be­com­ing a fa­ther. I was 34, liv­ing in New York City, with a good job in so­cial care, but still in a tiny apart­ment. I had been with my part­ner, Pete, for just over three years; we were se­ri­ous, but we did­n’t live to­gether. Becoming a par­ent was not on my radar.

One August evening, I had fin­ished work late and was hur­ry­ing to a din­ner reser­va­tion I had with Pete. I was rush­ing to­wards the turn­stile at Union Square sta­tion when I no­ticed a bun­dle of clothes in a cor­ner. I saw it move and stopped in my tracks. I walked over, peeled back a dark sweat­shirt, and saw him: a new­born baby, with the um­bil­i­cal cord still at­tached.

I was in shock. I sprinted up to the street and found a pay­phone to call 911. I found a baby,” I blurted out. I rushed back to the plat­form and crouched down next to the baby. I stroked his head to com­fort him but he pulled a face. OK, you don’t like that,” I said. We stared at each other. My heart was rac­ing.

It felt like hours, but it was prob­a­bly only a few min­utes be­fore the po­lice ar­rived. I had to give a state­ment, and went home for a large drink. Pete and I talked all night; why would the mother have left the baby, why had she cho­sen to leave him here, in the cen­tre of gay New York?

After a short pe­riod of me­dia in­ter­est, life re­turned to nor­mal, un­til 12 weeks later, when I was asked to tes­tify at a court hear­ing as the mother could not be found. To my sur­prise, the judge asked if I had any in­ter­est in adopt­ing the baby. The idea had­n’t even en­tered my head, but in­stantly, I desperately wanted to say yes. I told her I needed to talk to my part­ner but, in my own mind, I had de­cided that was what I wanted to do.

Pete was fu­ri­ous. We had never talked about start­ing a fam­ily. We were in debt — there were a hun­dred rea­sons why bring­ing a child into our lives did not seem sen­si­ble. But I was convinced.

Pete agreed to visit the baby in fos­ter care with me. As soon as I saw him, I took him in my arms. Remember me?” I said. Pete says when he held the baby, every morsel of re­sis­tance in­stantly evap­o­rated. We left that house united.

We were called back to court on 20 December, and granted cus­tody. How would you like him for the hol­i­days?” the judge asked. We bought par­ent­ing books and read them cover to cover in 24 hours, and I moved into Pete’s flat.

We named him Kevin. Pete had an older brother named Kevin who had died be­fore he was born, and his par­ents al­ways said he had a guardian an­gel named Kevin watch­ing over him.

Taking baby Kevin home was in­cred­i­ble but ter­ri­fy­ing, as it is for any new par­ent; but, un­like them, we’d had just a day to pre­pare. For weeks, we took it in turns to sit up round the clock with him to make sure he was still breath­ing.

We wanted to make sure Kevin knew he was wanted and loved, so we wrote a story for him about how we be­came a fam­ily. He made us read it over and over, and took it to school.

When Kevin was 11, New York le­galised same-sex mar­riage, and we told Kevin we would like to get mar­ried. He said, Don’t judges marry peo­ple?”, and sug­gested the judge who asked us if we wanted to adopt him. We were de­lighted when she agreed to do so.

Not every­thing has been easy. When he was a teenager, he had a lot of ques­tions about his birth mother. He wanted to put up posters in the sub­way, and we would no­tice him look­ing at strangers’ faces to see if they looked like him. He’s made peace with the sit­u­a­tion now, though.

Pete’s writ­ten a mem­oir, and we also turned the story we wrote for Kevin into a chil­dren’s book and had a short an­i­ma­tion made. We want other chil­dren to un­der­stand there are lots of ways to be­come a fam­ily.

Now, Kevin is an in­cred­i­ble young man and we are tremen­dously proud of him. He works out of state as a soft­ware de­vel­oper but, for­tu­nately, he is still happy to spend time with his dads.

Even 26 years later, we can’t quite be­lieve that, by some mir­a­cle, it was us who were given the priv­i­lege of be­ing part of Kevin’s life. How lucky we are.

As told to Heather Main

Do you have an ex­pe­ri­ence to share? Email ex­pe­ri­ence@the­guardian.com

The spell that wouldn't leave · mahl.me

www.mahl.me

There is a the­ory, not nec­es­sar­ily a re­ally good the­ory, but a the­ory nev­er­the­less, that all mem­o­ries are a kind of fur­ni­ture in the head. The good ones are arm­chairs. The painful ones are fil­ing cab­i­nets, usu­ally full. And then there are the mem­o­ries that are nei­ther: the ones that ar­rive un­in­vited, set­tle in, and start ter­ror­is­ing the other oc­cu­pants by kick­ing over the chairs.

Sir Terry Pratchett, who knew more about fur­ni­ture1 than most, put it this way:

Rincewind tried to force the mem­ory out of his mind, but it was rather en­joy­ing it­self there, ter­ror­iz­ing the other oc­cu­pants and kick­ing over the fur­ni­ture.

Rincewind tried to force the mem­ory out of his mind, but it was rather en­joy­ing it­self there, ter­ror­iz­ing the other oc­cu­pants and kick­ing over the fur­ni­ture.

I was six­teen when I first read that sen­tence. I was sit­ting in the back row of a French class­room, next to my friend Mathieu, and the teacher was ex­plain­ing some­thing im­por­tant about a comma. The pocket edi­tion was cheap, the cover was a weird mix of grey and lurid colours, and Mathieu and I had read every Pratchett the school li­brary would lend us, plus sev­eral it would not.

The sen­tence has been in my head ever since. It re­fuses to leave. Occasionally it kicks over the fur­ni­ture.

The li­brary at the back of the class

There is a kind of read­ing you only do at fif­teen, and only re­ally in places you are not sup­posed to be read­ing. The back of a class­room counts. So does the bot­tom of a sleep­ing bag, the wrong bus, and the ten min­utes be­tween some­one an­nounc­ing din­ner and din­ner ac­tu­ally ar­riv­ing. The book has to be small enough to dis­ap­pear when a teacher looks up. Pocket edi­tions, as their name sug­gests, were en­gi­neered for this. Pratchett’s were small, thin, and printed on a kind of flimsy pa­per that made it eas­ier to dis­re­spect, and there­fore ended up slightly bat­tered.

He wrote books that were the right size for hid­ing. A whole cos­mol­ogy, a whole flat world bal­anced on a tur­tle, and you could slide it (poorly) in­side a maths text­book with a cen­time­tre to spare.

A brief the­ory of why he worked on teenagers

Most fan­tasy, at the time, took it­self ex­tremely se­ri­ously. It had maps. It had ap­pen­dices. It had Heroes, cap­i­tal H, walk­ing grimly to­wards their Destiny across a land­scape that smelled of dwarves. Pratchett had a wooden chest with legs.

His the­sis, more or less, was that the uni­verse was very large and very ridicu­lous, and the two facts were re­lat­ed2. He also treated his read­ers as if they were in­tel­li­gent, which, to a teenager be­ing treated as any­thing else by al­most every­body else, is the clos­est thing to a love let­ter. And you could buy it in a train sta­tion book­store.

The trou­ble with hav­ing an open mind, of course, is that peo­ple will in­sist on com­ing along and try­ing to put things in it.”

The trou­ble with hav­ing an open mind, of course, is that peo­ple will in­sist on com­ing along and try­ing to put things in it.”

I read that line at an age when adults were en­thu­si­as­ti­cally try­ing to put things in mine. It did not stop them. But it did mean that, from then on, I no­ticed them do­ing it.

Rincewind, and the City Watch, and the Witches I never quite got to

I loved Rincewind. Mathieu loved Rincewind. Rincewind, I should clar­ify, did not love any­one, in­clud­ing him­self, and would have run away from the feel­ing if it had ever cor­nered him.

He was the per­fect pro­tag­o­nist for a mil­lenial teenage boy: a cow­ard, an un­der­achiever, tech­ni­cally a wiz­ard but only on a tech­ni­cal­ity, and the most pow­er­ful spell in the uni­verse was lodged in his head against his will.

The City Watch came later, the way read­ing the Watch books al­ways comes a lit­tle later than read­ing the Rincewind ones, on the same shelf but a lit­tle fur­ther along. Vimes, who started as a drunk and be­came, slowly, painfully, and with a great deal of swear­ing, the moral spine of an en­tire city. Carrot, who was tech­ni­cally a king and de­cided, with some em­bar­rass­ment, not to be one. Angua. Detritus. Reg Shoe, who had voted, and con­tin­ued to vote, de­spite a num­ber of in­con­ve­nient deaths.

I never quite found my way into the Witches. I think you need to have known a small vil­lage from the in­side, and to have been afraid of an old woman who saw too much, and I had not yet been ei­ther. Granny Weatherwax is wait­ing for me. She is good at wait­ing. I will get there.

The em­bug­ger­ance

He called it that, be­cause he called every­thing what it was. The Alzheimer’s, the long fade, the slow theft. He gave a lec­ture called Shaking Hands With Death, which re­mains the best thing any­one has writ­ten about dy­ing since sev­eral Stoics gave up try­ing.

He scripted his own end­ing, which is a Pratchettian act in it­self. There was even a steam­roller (six-and-a-half tonne Lord Jericho”), and a hard drive, and in­struc­tions to be fol­lowed ex­actly.

What we lost, and what teenagers lost

Terry Pratchett died in 2015. I was no longer six­teen. Mathieu was no longer sit­ting next to me. The class­room was some­body else’s now, and the comma had long since been ex­plained.

What I miss, self­ishly, is the next book. There were al­ways go­ing to be more.

What I miss, less self­ishly, is what­ever Pratchett-shaped ob­ject is sup­posed to be reach­ing teenagers now, and is­n’t. The on-ramp to read­ing, for a kid who finds school bor­ing and home­work worse, used to be a small, thin, slightly bat­tered book with a lurid cover and foot­notes that talked back. I don’t see them, lately, in the back of any class­room I walk past. It is pos­si­ble I am not walk­ing past the right ones.

But some­where, pre­sum­ably, there is a six­teen-year-old who has just read a sen­tence that will not leave their head. It is kick­ing over the fur­ni­ture even now. I hope they pass the book to the per­son sit­ting next to them.

In the be­gin­ning there was noth­ing, which ex­ploded.”

In the be­gin­ning there was noth­ing, which ex­ploded.”

A note from later: this post met the in­ter­net, which is to say it met sev­eral hun­dred peo­ple with strong opin­ions about com­mas, and AI. The ver­sion above re­moved or rephrased some sen­tences that peo­ple found to be non­sen­si­cal. The orig­i­nal is kept on the prin­ci­ple that crush­ing one’s own first drafts un­der a steam­roller is a priv­i­lege re­served for Terry.

Footnotes

Especially one huge wood chest that would oc­ca­sion­ally move on its own and start wreak­ing chaos. ↩

Especially one huge wood chest that would oc­ca­sion­ally move on its own and start wreak­ing chaos. ↩

He also be­lieved that if you put any two things next to each other for long enough they would be­gin to de­velop a per­son­al­ity, and quite pos­si­bly griev­ances. This is par­tic­u­larly cor­rect about cats. ↩

He also be­lieved that if you put any two things next to each other for long enough they would be­gin to de­velop a per­son­al­ity, and quite pos­si­bly griev­ances. This is par­tic­u­larly cor­rect about cats. ↩

To add this web app to your iOS home screen tap the share button and select "Add to the Home Screen".

10HN is also available as an iOS App

If you visit 10HN only rarely, check out the the best articles from the past week.

Visit pancik.com for more.