10 interesting stories served every morning and every evening.




1 1,572 shares, 57 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

MacBook Pro 14-inch and MacBook Pro 16-inch

The most pow­er­ful MacBook Pro ever is here. With the blaz­ing-fast M1 Pro or M1 Max chip — the first Apple sil­i­con de­signed for pros — you get ground­break­ing per­for­mance and amaz­ing bat­tery life. Add to that a stun­ning Liquid Retina XDR dis­play, the best cam­era and au­dio ever in a Mac note­book, and all the ports you need. The first note­book of its kind, this MacBook Pro is a beast.

Supercharged for pros.

The most pow­er­ful MacBook Pro ever is here. With the blaz­ing-fast M1 Pro or M1 Max chip — the first Apple sil­i­con de­signed for pros — you get ground­break­ing per­for­mance and amaz­ing bat­tery life. Add to that a stun­ning Liquid Retina XDR dis­play, the best cam­era and au­dio ever in a Mac note­book, and all the ports you need. The first note­book of its kind, this MacBook Pro is a beast.

Available start­ing 10.26

Watch the event

Watch the film

View in AR

The most pow­er­ful MacBook Pro ever is here. With the blaz­ing-fast M1 Pro or M1 Max chip — the first Apple sil­i­con de­signed for pros — you get ground­break­ing per­for­mance and amaz­ing bat­tery life. Add to that a stun­ning Liquid Retina XDR dis­play, the best cam­era and au­dio ever in a Mac note­book, and all the ports you need. The first note­book of its kind, this MacBook Pro is a beast.

Supercharged for pros.

The most pow­er­ful MacBook Pro ever is here. With the blaz­ing-fast M1 Pro or M1 Max chip — the first Apple sil­i­con de­signed for pros — you get ground­break­ing per­for­mance and amaz­ing bat­tery life. Add to that a stun­ning Liquid Retina XDR dis­play, the best cam­era and au­dio ever in a Mac note­book, and all the ports you need. The first note­book of its kind, this MacBook Pro is a beast.

Available start­ing 10.26

Watch the event

Watch the film

View in AR

Up to 32GB of uni­fied mem­ory

Up to 64GB of uni­fied mem­ory

M1 Pro and M1 Max scale the amaz­ing M1 ar­chi­tec­ture to new heights — and for the first time, they bring a sys­tem on a chip (SoC) ar­chi­tec­ture to a pro note­book. Both have more CPU cores, more GPU cores, and more uni­fied mem­ory than M1. Along with a pow­er­ful Neural Engine for su­per­charged ma­chine learn­ing and up­graded me­dia en­gines with ProRes sup­port, M1 Pro and M1 Max al­low pros to do things they never could be­fore.

M1 Pro takes the ex­cep­tional per­for­mance of the M1 architecture to a whole new level for pro users. Even the most am­bi­tious pro­jects are eas­ily han­dled with up to 10 CPU cores, up to 16 GPU cores, a 16‑core Neural Engine, and ded­i­cated en­code and de­code me­dia en­gines that sup­port H.264, HEVC, and ProRes codecs.

M1 Max is the most pow­er­ful chip ever cre­ated for a pro note­book, with 10 CPU cores, up to 32 GPU cores, and a 16-core Neural Engine. It de­liv­ers two times faster graph­ics pro­cess­ing and dou­ble the mem­ory band­width of M1 Pro. And it has a ded­i­cated me­dia en­gine for de­code and two for en­code — with up to two times faster video en­cod­ing — and two ProRes ac­cel­er­a­tors for even higher mul­ti­stream per­for­mance.

The new MacBook Pro is avail­able in 14- and 16-inch mod­els. Each can be con­fig­ured with the M1 Pro or M1 Max chip and of­fers un­prece­dented lev­els of pro per­for­mance. So you can ma­nip­u­late mil­lions of poly­gons in Cinema 4D, edit up to seven streams of 8K ProRes video in Final Cut Pro, or grade color in HDR on 8K 4x4 ProRes video — all miles away from the edit bay.

Ferocious per­for­mance with game‑chang­ing bat­tery life — that ef­fi­ciency is the magic of Apple sil­i­con. A sin­gle charge lets you com­pile up to four times as much code in Xcode or edit im­ages for up to twice as long in Lightroom Classic. And un­like other note­books, MacBook Pro de­liv­ers the same amaz­ing per­for­mance whether it’s plugged in or not.

The coolest part. Advanced ther­mal sys­tems move 50 percent more air, even at lower fan speeds. And thanks to the ef­fi­ciency of Apple sil­i­con, the fans never turn on for many tasks you do every day.

Fast. And vast. Get jaw-drop­ping read speeds from the up to 8TB SSD — up to 7.4GB/s or two times the pre­vi­ous gen­er­a­tion. So you can open 8K videos in­stantly or store hun­dreds of thou­sands of RAW pho­tos at once.

The new MacBook Pro is the first to put a sys­tem on a chip (SoC) into a pro note­book. Other pro sys­tems use power-hun­gry CPUs, dis­crete GPUs, and mul­ti­ple chips, each work­ing sep­a­rately. M1 Pro and M1 Max com­bine the CPU, GPU, I/O, and Neural Engine in a sin­gle SoC with uni­fied mem­ory. As a re­sult, M1 Pro and M1 Max not only crush in­ten­sive work­flows that were once im­pos­si­ble on a note­book — they also pro­vide in­cred­i­ble bat­tery life.

Connected at the chip. Other pro note­books need to copy data back and forth over a slower in­ter­face. Not the new MacBook Pro. Its CPU and GPU share a sin­gle pool of uni­fied mem­ory. That means every part of the chip con­nects to data and mem­ory with­out need­ing to copy it, so every­thing you do is faster and more ef­fi­cient.

M1 Pro and M1 Max CPUs each lever­age up to eight high-per­for­mance cores and two high-ef­fi­ciency cores to de­liver faster pro­cess­ing at a tenth of the power. Their GPUs have ac­cess to lower-la­tency data with vastly im­proved power ef­fi­ciency for un­matched per­for­mance per watt.

...

Read the original on www.apple.com »

2 1,243 shares, 46 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

Missouri governor vows criminal prosecution of reporter who found flaw in state website • Missouri Independent

Missouri gov­er­nor vows crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion of re­porter who found flaw in state web­site

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch no­ti­fied a state agency and held its story while a prob­lem that risked ex­pos­ing the so­cial se­cu­rity num­bers of Missouri teach­ers was fixed

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson dur­ing a press con­fer­ence on Feb. 5, 2021 (photo cour­tesy of Missouri Governor’s Office).

On Tuesday, a re­porter with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch alerted the state that Social Security num­bers of school teach­ers and ad­min­is­tra­tors were vul­ner­a­ble to pub­lic ex­po­sure due to flaws on a web­site main­tained by Missouri’s de­part­ment of ed­u­ca­tion.

The news­pa­per agreed to hold off pub­lish­ing any story while the de­part­ment fixed the prob­lem and pro­tected the pri­vate in­for­ma­tion of teach­ers around the state.

But by Thursday, Gov. Mike Parson was la­bel­ing the Post-Dispatch re­porter a hacker” and vow­ing to seek crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion.

The state does not take this mat­ter lightly,” Parson said Thursday at a hastily called press con­fer­ence. He re­fused to take ques­tions af­ter­ward.

Parson said he had re­ferred the mat­ter to the Cole County Prosecutor and has asked the Missouri State Highway Patrol to in­ves­ti­gate.

This ad­min­is­tra­tion is stand­ing up against any and all per­pe­tra­tors who at­tempt to steal per­sonal in­for­ma­tion and harm Missourians,” he said.

According to the Post-Dispatch, one of its re­porters dis­cov­ered the flaw in a web ap­pli­ca­tion al­low­ing the pub­lic to search teacher cer­ti­fi­ca­tions and cre­den­tials. No pri­vate in­for­ma­tion was clearly vis­i­ble, but teacher Social Security num­bers were con­tained in HTML source code of the pages.

The state re­moved the search tool af­ter be­ing no­ti­fied of the is­sue by the Post-Dispatch. It was un­clear how long the Social Security num­bers had been vul­ner­a­ble.

In a press re­lease Wednesday, the Office of Administration Information Technology Services Division said that through a multi-step process, a hacker took the records of at least three ed­u­ca­tors, de­coded the HTML source code, and viewed the so­cial se­cu­rity num­ber of those spe­cific ed­u­ca­tors.”

The state is un­aware of any mis­use of in­di­vid­ual in­for­ma­tion or even whether in­for­ma­tion was ac­cessed in­ap­pro­pri­ately out­side of this iso­lated in­ci­dent.

Parson said Thursday that he was­n’t sure why the re­porter ac­cessed the in­for­ma­tion. He claimed it was part of a political game by what is sup­posed to be one of Missouri’s news out­lets.”

The state is com­mit­ted to bring to jus­tice any­one who hacked our sys­tem and any­one who aided and abet­ted them to do so,” Parson said, later ar­gu­ing that the re­porter was attempting to em­bar­rass the state and sell head­lines for their news out­let.”

Republican state Rep. Tony Lovasco, who ac­cord­ing to his leg­isla­tive bi­og­ra­phy has worked in soft­ware de­ploy­ment and main­te­nance, tweeted Thursday that it’s clear the Governor’s Office has a fun­da­men­tal mis­un­der­stand­ing of both web tech­nol­ogy and in­dus­try stan­dard pro­ce­dures for re­port­ing se­cu­rity vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties.

Journalists re­spon­si­bly sound­ing an alarm on data pri­vacy is not crim­i­nal hack­ing,” he said.

Chris Vickery, a California-based data se­cu­rity ex­pert, told The Independent that it ap­pears the de­part­ment of ed­u­ca­tion  was publishing data that it should­n’t have been pub­lish­ing.

That’s not a crime for the jour­nal­ists dis­cov­er­ing it,” he said. Putting Social Security num­bers within HTML, even if it’s non-display ren­der­ing’ HTML, is a stu­pid thing for the Missouri web­site to do and is a type of bone­headed mis­take that has been around since day one of the Internet. No ex­ploit, hack­ing or vul­ner­a­bil­ity is in­volved here.”

In ex­plain­ing how he hopes the re­porter and news or­ga­ni­za­tion will be pros­e­cuted, Parson pointed to a state statute defin­ing the crime of tam­per­ing with com­puter data. Vickery said that statute would­n’t work in this in­stance be­cause of a re­cent de­ci­sion by the U. S. Supreme Court in the case of Van Buren v. United States.

The court ruled in that case that some­one vi­o­lates the law when they ac­cess files or other in­for­ma­tion that is off-lim­its to them. In Missouri, Vickery said, the state was pub­lish­ing the HTML source to the pub­lic in­ter­net, with no hur­dles of a pass­word or other req­ui­site form of au­then­ti­ca­tion chal­lenge, means the pub­lic can rea­son­ably as­sume to be au­tho­rized to view that con­tent for the pur­poses of laws re­lated to computer tres­pass’ forms of of­fense.”

The Post-Dispatch pub­lished a state­ment in re­sponse from its at­tor­ney, say­ing the re­porter did the re­spon­si­ble thing by re­port­ing his find­ings to (the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) so that the state could act to pre­vent dis­clo­sure and mis­use.

A hacker is some­one who sub­verts com­puter se­cu­rity with ma­li­cious or crim­i­nal in­tent,” the state­ment con­tin­ued. Here, there was no breach of any fire­wall or se­cu­rity and cer­tainly no ma­li­cious in­tent. For DESE to de­flect its fail­ures by re­fer­ring to this as hacking’ is un­founded. Thankfully, these fail­ures were dis­cov­ered.”

House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, said the Post-Dispatch de­serves praise for dis­cov­er­ing a prob­lem, not threats.

The gov­er­nor should di­rect his anger to­wards the fail­ure of state gov­ern­ment to keep its tech­nol­ogy se­cure and up to date and to work to fix the prob­lem,” she said, not threaten jour­nal­ists with pros­e­cu­tion for un­cov­er­ing those fail­ures.”

▪ You must give Missouri Independent credit, in­clud­ing https://​mis­souri­in­de­pen­dent.com and au­thor.▪ If you pub­lish on­line, in­clude the links from the story, and a link to Missouri Independent.▪ Stories may be edited for in-house style or to shorten. More sub­stan­tial changes should be noted as ad­di­tional and con­ducted by your pub­li­ca­tion.▪ You can pub­lish our graph­ics and any pho­tos that are cred­ited to Missouri Independent with the sto­ries with which they orig­i­nally ap­peared. For any other uses, you must seek per­mis­sion from us at [email protected]▪ If you share the story on so­cial me­dia, please men­tion @MO_Independent on Twitter and mis­souri­in­de­pen­dent on Facebook.▪ Don’t sell ads against the story. Feel free, how­ever, to pub­lish it on a page with ads you’ve al­ready sold.▪ Content should not be pub­lished be­hind a pay­wall; please reach out to the ed­i­tor-in-chief if you have ques­tions about your par­tic­u­lar pay­wall sys­tem.Mis­souri gov­er­nor vows crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion of re­porter who found flaw in state web­site

<h1>Missouri gov­er­nor vows crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion of re­porter who found flaw in state web­site</​h1>

<p class=“by­line”>by Jason Hancock, <a href=“https://​mis­souri­in­de­pen­dent.com>Missouri Independent</a> <br />October 14, 2021</p>

On Tuesday, a re­porter with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch alerted the state that Social Security num­bers of school teach­ers and ad­min­is­tra­tors were vul­ner­a­ble to pub­lic ex­po­sure due to flaws on a web­site main­tained by Missouri’s de­part­ment of ed­u­ca­tion.

The news­pa­per agreed to hold off pub­lish­ing any story while the de­part­ment fixed the prob­lem and pro­tected the pri­vate in­for­ma­tion of teach­ers around the state.

But by Thursday, Gov. Mike Parson was la­bel­ing the Post-Dispatch re­porter a hacker” and vow­ing to seek crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion.

The state does not take this mat­ter lightly,” Parson said Thursday at a hastily called press con­fer­ence. He re­fused to take ques­tions af­ter­ward.

Parson said he had re­ferred the mat­ter to the Cole County Prosecutor and has asked the Missouri State Highway Patrol to in­ves­ti­gate.

This ad­min­is­tra­tion is stand­ing up against any and all per­pe­tra­tors who at­tempt to steal per­sonal in­for­ma­tion and harm Missourians,” he said.

According to the Post-Dispatch, one of its re­porters dis­cov­ered the flaw in a web ap­pli­ca­tion al­low­ing the pub­lic to search teacher cer­ti­fi­ca­tions and cre­den­tials. No pri­vate in­for­ma­tion was clearly vis­i­ble, but teacher Social Security num­bers were con­tained in HTML source code of the pages.

The state re­moved the search tool af­ter be­ing no­ti­fied of the is­sue by the Post-Dispatch. It was un­clear how long the Social Security num­bers had been vul­ner­a­ble.

In a press re­lease Wednesday, the Office of Administration Information Technology Services Division said that through a multi-step process, a hacker took the records of at least three ed­u­ca­tors, de­coded the HTML source code, and viewed the so­cial se­cu­rity num­ber of those spe­cific ed­u­ca­tors.”

The state is un­aware of any mis­use of in­di­vid­ual in­for­ma­tion or even whether in­for­ma­tion was ac­cessed in­ap­pro­pri­ately out­side of this iso­lated in­ci­dent.

Parson said Thursday that he was­n’t sure why the re­porter ac­cessed the in­for­ma­tion. He claimed it was part of a political game by what is sup­posed to be one of Missouri’s news out­lets.”

The state is com­mit­ted to bring to jus­tice any­one who hacked our sys­tem and any­one who aided and abet­ted them to do so,” Parson said, later ar­gu­ing that the re­porter was attempting to em­bar­rass the state and sell head­lines for their news out­let.”

Republican state Rep. Tony Lovasco, who ac­cord­ing to his leg­isla­tive bi­og­ra­phy has worked in soft­ware de­ploy­ment and main­te­nance, tweeted Thursday that it’s clear the Governor’s Office has a fun­da­men­tal mis­un­der­stand­ing of both web tech­nol­ogy and in­dus­try stan­dard pro­ce­dures for re­port­ing se­cu­rity vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties.

Journalists re­spon­si­bly sound­ing an alarm on data pri­vacy is not crim­i­nal hack­ing,” he said.

Chris Vickery, a California-based data se­cu­rity ex­pert, told The Independent that it ap­pears the de­part­ment of ed­u­ca­tion  was publishing data that it should­n’t have been pub­lish­ing.

That’s not a crime for the jour­nal­ists dis­cov­er­ing it,” he said. Putting Social Security num­bers within HTML, even if it’s non-display ren­der­ing’ HTML, is a stu­pid thing for the Missouri web­site to do and is a type of bone­headed mis­take that has been around since day one of the Internet. No ex­ploit, hack­ing or vul­ner­a­bil­ity is in­volved here.”

In ex­plain­ing how he hopes the re­porter and news or­ga­ni­za­tion will be pros­e­cuted, Parson pointed to a state statute defin­ing the crime of tam­per­ing with com­puter data. Vickery said that statute would­n’t work in this in­stance be­cause of a re­cent de­ci­sion by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Van Buren v. United States.

The court ruled in that case that some­one vi­o­lates the law when they ac­cess files or other in­for­ma­tion that is off-lim­its to them. In Missouri, Vickery said, the state was pub­lish­ing the HTML source to the pub­lic in­ter­net, with no hur­dles of a pass­word or other req­ui­site form of au­then­ti­ca­tion chal­lenge, means the pub­lic can rea­son­ably as­sume to be au­tho­rized to view that con­tent for the pur­poses of laws re­lated to computer tres­pass’ forms of of­fense.”

The Post-Dispatch pub­lished a state­ment in re­sponse from its at­tor­ney, say­ing the re­porter did the re­spon­si­ble thing by re­port­ing his find­ings to (the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) so that the state could act to pre­vent dis­clo­sure and mis­use.

A hacker is some­one who sub­verts com­puter se­cu­rity with ma­li­cious or crim­i­nal in­tent,” the state­ment con­tin­ued. Here, there was no breach of any fire­wall or se­cu­rity and cer­tainly no ma­li­cious in­tent. For DESE to de­flect its fail­ures by re­fer­ring to this as hacking’ is un­founded. Thankfully, these fail­ures were dis­cov­ered.”

House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, said the Post-Dispatch de­serves praise for dis­cov­er­ing a prob­lem, not threats.

The gov­er­nor should di­rect his anger to­wards the fail­ure of state gov­ern­ment to keep its tech­nol­ogy se­cure and up to date and to work to fix the prob­lem,” she said, not threaten jour­nal­ists with pros­e­cu­tion for un­cov­er­ing those fail­ures.”

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a net­work of news bu­reaus sup­ported by grants and a coali­tion of donors as a 501c(3) pub­lic char­ity. Missouri Independent main­tains ed­i­to­r­ial in­de­pen­dence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for ques­tions: info@mis­souri­in­de­pen­dent.com. Follow Missouri Independent on Facebook and Twitter.

Our sto­ries may be re­pub­lished on­line or in print un­der Creative Commons li­cense CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, pro­vide proper at­tri­bu­tion and link to our web site. Please see our re­pub­lish­ing guide­lines for use of pho­tos and graph­ics.

Jason Hancock has been writ­ing about Missouri since 2011, most re­cently as lead po­lit­i­cal re­porter for The Kansas City Star. He has spent nearly two decades cov­er­ing pol­i­tics and pol­icy for news or­ga­ni­za­tions across the Midwest, and has a track record of ex­pos­ing gov­ern­ment wrong­do­ing and hold­ing elected of­fi­cials ac­count­able.MORE FROM AUTHOR

...

Read the original on missouriindependent.com »

3 1,007 shares, 36 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

Apple’s new M1 Pro and M1 Max processors take its in-house Arm-based chips to new heights

Apple has of­fi­cially an­nounced its most pow­er­ful chips ever: the M1 Pro and M1 Max, souped-up ver­sions of the M1 chip that it de­buted last fall and the heart of its new MacBook Pro mod­els.

The orig­i­nal M1 chip was an­nounced a lit­tle less than a year ago as Apple’s first in-house, Arm-based chip for lap­tops. At launch, it was fea­tured in Apple’s re­vamped MacBook Air, 13-inch MacBook Pro, and the en­try-level Mac Mini, in ad­di­tion to the 2021 iMac and iPad Pro re­freshes.

But as good as the M1 chip was, it was only a so­lu­tion for re­plac­ing Intel on Apple’s en­try-to-mid level hard­ware, with its high-end MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac Mini mod­els (meant for de­vel­op­ers, pro­gram­mers, graphic de­sign­ers, and other more de­mand­ing work­loads) all no­tably still stick­ing with Intel’s chips for the last year.

The M1 Pro and M1 Max are Apple’s long-awaited an­swer to that is­sue: while both are built on the same 5nm process, Apple is promis­ing big jumps in per­for­mance here.

For the M1 Pro, Apple promises 70 per­cent bet­ter CPU per­for­mance and twice the graph­ics per­for­mance com­pared to the M1. While the ba­sic ar­chi­tec­ture is still the same on the M1 Pro, Apple is up­ping the hard­ware here in a big way, with a 10-core CPU that of­fers eight per­for­mance cores and two ef­fi­ciency cores, along with a 16-core GPU with 2,048 ex­e­cu­tion units.

The new chip also sup­ports more RAM, with con­fig­u­ra­tion op­tions up to 32GB (although, like the M1, mem­ory is still in­te­grated di­rectly into the chip it­self, in­stead of user-upgrad­able) with 200GB/s mem­ory band­width. In to­tal, the M1 Pro has 33.7 bil­lion tran­sis­tors, roughly twice that num­ber of tran­sis­tors that the M1 has.

But Apple is­n’t stop­ping there: it also an­nounced the even more pow­er­ful M1 Max, which has the same 10-core CPU con­fig­u­ra­tion, with eight per­for­mance cores and two ef­fi­ciency cores. But the M1 Max dou­bles the mem­ory band­width (to 400GB/s), RAM (up to 64GB of mem­ory) and GPU (with 32 cores, 4,096 ex­e­cu­tion units and four times the GPU per­for­mance of the orig­i­nal M1.) The M1 Max fea­tures 57 bil­lion tran­sis­tors, mak­ing it the largest chip that Apple has made yet. The new chip also means that you can con­nect up to four ex­ter­nal dis­plays to a sin­gle de­vice.

For com­par­i­son, the orig­i­nal M1 of­fered a clas­sic Arm mix of eight CPU cores: four per­for­mance cores for more de­mand­ing tasks and four high-ef­fi­ciency cores for ex­tend­ing bat­tery life. The M1 also of­fered ei­ther a seven-core or eight-core GPU, de­pend­ing on the com­puter model, and only al­lowed ei­ther 8GB or 16GB of RAM.

Apple also promised that the new M1 Pro and M1 Max chips of­fer up to 1.7 times bet­ter CPU per­for­mance per watt com­pared to both the reg­u­lar M1 and un­spec­i­fied four-core and eight-core PC lap­top chips — al­though the com­pany did­n’t give hard num­bers, or iden­tify what other chips it was com­par­ing things to, mak­ing it dif­fi­cult to as­cer­tain just how the new chips will hold up in the real world.

Developing… we’re adding more to this post, but you can fol­low along with our MacBook Pro event live blog to get the news even faster.

...

Read the original on www.theverge.com »

4 906 shares, 36 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

Canon sued for disabling scanner when printers run out of ink

Canon USA is be­ing sued for not al­low­ing own­ers of cer­tain print­ers to use the scan­ner or fax­ing func­tions if they run out of ink.

David Leacraft, a cus­tomer of Canon, filed the class ac­tion law­suit on Tuesday al­leg­ing de­cep­tive mar­ket­ing and un­just en­rich­ment by the printer man­u­fac­turer.

While us­ing his Pixma MG6320 printer from Canon, the plain­tiff was sur­prised to dis­cover that the all-in-one” ma­chine would refuse to scan or fax doc­u­ments if the printer ran out of ink.

As ink is not nec­es­sary to per­form scans or faxes, the ar­gu­ment is that the printer fea­tures should con­tinue to work even if there is no ink in the de­vice.

Plaintiff Leacraft would not have pur­chased the de­vice or would not have paid as much for it had he known that he would have to main­tain ink in the de­vice in or­der to scan doc­u­ments,” reads the com­plaint for the class ac­tion law­suit.

Since at least 2016, other cus­tomers have con­tacted Canon about this ex­act prob­lem [1, 2] and were told by sup­port agents that ink car­tridges must be in­stalled and con­tain ink to use the print­er’s fea­tures, as shown by the agen­t’s re­sponse be­low.

The com­plaint fur­ther il­lus­trates with im­ages of a Pixma MG2522 box that Canon ad­ver­tises its All-in-One print­ers as in­clud­ing three dis­tinct fea­tures - print, copy­ing, and scan­ning.

However, there is no warn­ing to show that ink is re­quired for all of these fea­tures.

Further posts [1. 2] found by BleepingComputer also shows Canon telling cus­tomers that all inks tanks must con­tain ink if they wish to print in greyscale, as it may dam­age the printer.

The PIXMA MX710 must have all ink tanks in­stalled and they all must con­tain ink. If you at­tempt to print with no ink or an empty ink, you would risk dam­ag­ing the printer,” a sup­port agent posted to the Canon fo­rums.

As such, the class ac­tion law­suit states that con­sumers had been de­ceived into buy­ing a prod­uct that was de­signed to ar­ti­fi­cially and un­eth­i­cally in­tro­duce func­tional bot­tle­necks by ty­ing them to ink lev­els, even if there’s no prac­ti­cal link be­tween them.

As op­posed to the single func­tion” print­ers it sells, Canon calls these mul­ti­func­tion de­vices a 3-in-1” or 4-in-1” for the fact they pur­port­edly pro­vide three or four func­tions,” reads the class ac­tion com­plaint against Canon USA.

In truth, the All-in-One Printers do not scan or fax doc­u­ments when the de­vices have low or empty ink car­tridges (the Design Issue”), and Canon’s ad­ver­tis­ing claims are false, mis­lead­ing, and rea­son­ably likely to de­ceive the pub­lic.”

According to the law­suit, Canon is only do­ing this to in­crease its prof­its by sell­ing re­place­ment ink car­tridges, hence the ac­cu­sa­tions for un­just en­rich­ment.

Considering that printer inks ex­pire typ­i­cally af­ter two or three years, even if some­one rarely or never prints on these all-in-one ma­chines, they would be prac­ti­cally forced to keep buy­ing new ink just to use all func­tions of the de­vice.

There is no rea­son or tech­ni­cal ba­sis for man­u­fac­tur­ing the All-in-One Printers with an ink level de­tec­tion func­tion that causes the scan­ner to stop func­tion­ing when ink is low or empty. Canon de­signed the All-in-One Printers in such a way to re­quire con­sumers to main­tain ink in their de­vices re­gard­less of whether they in­tend to print,” con­tin­ues the com­plaint.

The re­sult is an in­crease in ink sales from which Canon ob­tains sig­nif­i­cant prof­its.”

The law­suit was filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York and seeks at least $5,000,000 in awards, ex­clu­sive of in­ter­est, fees, and lit­i­ga­tion costs.

The al­leged vi­o­la­tions al­leged in the com­plaint are:

If you have bought an all-in-one printer from Canon and faced sim­i­lar prob­lems, you could be el­i­gi­ble for re­ceiv­ing com­pen­sa­tion in the fu­ture.

However, it is im­por­tant to note that this class ac­tion was filed this week and is not ap­proved by the court yet, so it’s too early in the process right now.

BleepingComputer con­tacted Canon USA with ques­tions re­gard­ing this law­suit but did not re­ceive a re­sponse.

...

Read the original on www.bleepingcomputer.com »

5 799 shares, 29 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

Apple joins Blender Development Fund — blender.org

The Blender Foundation, the or­ga­ni­za­tion be­hind the pop­u­lar open source 3D cre­ation tool Blender”, to­day an­nounced that Apple has joined the Blender Development Fund as a Patron Member to sup­port con­tin­ued core de­vel­op­ment for Blender.

Alongside a con­tri­bu­tion to the Development Fund, Apple will pro­vide en­gi­neer­ing ex­per­tise and ad­di­tional re­sources to the Blender HQ and de­vel­op­ment com­mu­nity to help sup­port Blender artists and de­vel­op­ers.

What is the Blender Development Fund?

The Blender Development Fund ac­cepts do­na­tions to sup­port ac­tiv­i­ties to pro­vide free and open ac­ces­si­ble ser­vices for all Blender con­trib­u­tors — in­clud­ing pro­fes­sion­als and cor­po­ra­tions — on the blender.org web­sites. Support ac­tiv­i­ties in­clude bug fix­ing, code re­views, tech­ni­cal doc­u­men­ta­tion and on­board­ing.

The fund will also pro­vide grants and sub­si­dies to de­vel­op­ers on generic and widely agreed de­vel­op­ment pro­jects.

...

Read the original on www.blender.org »

6 789 shares, 33 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

‘Dislike’ button would improve Spotify’s recommendations

Spotify’s whole busi­ness model re­lies on keep­ing you lis­ten­ing and be­ing able to pre­dict what songs you’ll want to hear next. But Cornell re­searchers re­cently asked the ques­tion: Why do they still not let you vote down a song?

The re­search team re­cently de­vel­oped a rec­om­men­da­tion al­go­rithm that shows just how much more ef­fec­tive Spotify would be if it could, in the style of plat­forms like Pandora, in­cor­po­rate both likes and dis­likes.

Specifically, they demon­strated that a lis­tener is roughly 20 per­cent more likely to like” a song if the al­go­rithm is trained on 400,000 likes and dis­likes, com­pared to an al­go­rithm trained only on that amount of likes.

An al­go­rithm that only has likes’ may help you dis­cover songs that you re­ally en­joy, but it also has a greater chance of rec­om­mend­ing songs you don’t like,” said Sasha Stoikov, se­nior re­search as­so­ci­ate at Cornell Financial Engineering Manhattan, part of Cornell Engineering’s School of Operations Research and Information Engineering, and lead au­thor on a new pa­per about the sys­tem, which he calls Piki” (as in picky”).

The pa­per,  was pub­lished Sept. 15 and will be pre­sented at the ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. The pa­per was co-au­thored with Hongyi Wen, a doc­toral stu­dent at Cornell Tech.

Piki se­lects mu­sic from a data­base of roughly 5 mil­lion songs and in­cen­tivizes users by giv­ing them $1 for every 25 songs they rate. The Piki in­ter­face plays a song, and then gives the lis­tener the abil­ity to rate it af­ter dif­fer­ent amounts of time. Specifically, the user can dislike” the song af­ter 3 sec­onds, like” the song af­ter 6 sec­onds and superlike” it af­ter 12 sec­onds.

This in­cen­tivizes the user to vote truth­fully,” Stoikov said. To dis­like a song is easy — to like one, you have to ac­tu­ally in­vest time in it.”

Spotify’s al­go­rithms im­pact more than just lis­ten­ers. The re­search also shows how they make it more dif­fi­cult for lesser-known artists to break through, be­cause their songs don’t have enough likes to be rec­om­mended to a wide au­di­ence.

Since al­go­rithms of­ten are trained on whether or not an in­di­vid­ual lis­tens to a song rather than if the lis­tener likes or dis­likes the song, they fa­vor well-known artists who are more of­ten heard, rec­om­mended on playlists and re­mem­bered at the search bar,” Stoikov said.

The team’s ul­ti­mate goal with Piki is to work with record la­bels to help them de­ter­mine which songs are more at­trac­tive to lis­ten­ers be­fore they go live on larger mu­sic plat­forms.

Stoikov said fu­ture re­search may fo­cus on other stream­ing plat­forms such as Netflix, in­cor­po­rat­ing more ad­vanced al­go­rithms or mod­el­ing how the al­go­rith­m’s ob­jec­tives are tied to the busi­ness ob­jec­tives of other im­por­tant stake­hold­ers such as stream­ing plat­forms and record la­bels.

Adam Conner-Simons is di­rec­tor of com­mu­ni­ca­tions at Cornell Tech.

...

Read the original on news.cornell.edu »

7 761 shares, 30 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

A viable solution for Python concurrency [LWN.net]

The fol­low­ing sub­scrip­tion-only con­tent has been made avail­able to you by an LWN sub­scriber. Thousands of sub­scribers de­pend on LWN for the best news from the Linux and free soft­ware com­mu­ni­ties. If you en­joy this ar­ti­cle, please con­sider sub­scrib­ing to LWN. Thank you for vis­it­ing LWN.net!

Concerns over the per­for­mance of pro­grams writ­ten in Python are of­ten over­stated — for some use cases, at least. But there is no get­ting around the prob­lem im­posed by the in­fa­mous global in­ter­preter lock (GIL), which se­verely lim­its the con­cur­rency of multi-threaded Python code. Various

ef­forts to re­move the GIL have been made over the years, but none have come any­where near the point where they would be con­sid­ered for in­clu­sion into the CPython in­ter­preter. Now, though, Sam Gross has en­tered

the arena with a proof-of-con­cept im­ple­men­ta­tion that may solve the prob­lem for real.

The con­cur­rency re­stric­tions in the CPython in­ter­preter are dri­ven by its garbage-col­lec­tion ap­proach, which uses ref­er­ence counts on ob­jects to de­ter­mine when they are no longer in use. These counts are busy; many types of ac­cess to a Python ob­ject re­quire a ref­er­ence-count in­cre­ment and (eventually) decre­ment. In a multi-threaded pro­gram, ref­er­ence-count op­er­a­tions must be per­formed in a thread-safe man­ner; the al­ter­na­tive is to risk cor­rupted counts on ob­jects. Given the fre­quency of these op­er­a­tions, cor­rup­tion in multi-threaded pro­grams would be just a mat­ter of time, and per­haps not much time at that. To avoid such prob­lems, the GIL only al­lows one thread to be run­ning in the in­ter­preter (i.e. to ac­tu­ally be run­ning Python code) at a time; that takes away al­most all of the ad­van­tage of us­ing threads in any sort of com­pute-in­ten­sive code.

The ref­er­ence-count prob­lem can be triv­ially solved (for a rel­a­tively ad­vanced value of trivially”) by us­ing atomic op­er­a­tions to in­cre­ment and decre­ment the counts. There is just one lit­tle prob­lem with this so­lu­tion, as out­lined in this

de­sign doc­u­ment posted by Gross:

The sim­plest change would be to re­place non-atomic ref­er­ence count

op­er­a­tions with their atomic equiv­a­lents. However, atomic

in­struc­tions are more ex­pen­sive than their non-atomic

coun­ter­parts. Replacing Py_INCREF and Py_DECREF with atomic

vari­ants would re­sult in a 60% av­er­age slow­down on the

pyper­for­mance bench­mark suite.

Given that the vast ma­jor­ity of Python pro­grams are sin­gle-threaded (and likely to re­main so), it is not sur­pris­ing that there has never been much ap­petite for so­lu­tions that im­pose this sort of cost.

Gross has taken three dif­fer­ent ap­proaches to the CPython ref­er­ence-count prob­lem, the first of which is called biased ref­er­ence counts” and is de­scribed in this

pa­per by Jiho Choi et al. With this scheme, the ref­er­ence count in each ob­ject is split in two, with one local” count for the owner (creator) of the ob­ject and a shared count for all other threads. Since the owner has ex­clu­sive ac­cess to its count, in­cre­ments and decre­ments can be done with fast, non-atomic in­struc­tions. Any other thread ac­cess­ing the ob­ject will use atomic op­er­a­tions on the shared ref­er­ence count.

Whenever the own­ing thread drops a ref­er­ence to an ob­ject, it checks both ref­er­ence counts against zero. If both the lo­cal and the shared count are zero, the ob­ject can be freed, since no other ref­er­ences ex­ist. If the lo­cal count is zero but the shared count is not, a spe­cial bit is set to in­di­cate that the own­ing thread has dropped the ob­ject; any sub­se­quent decre­ments of the shared count will then free the ob­ject if that count goes to zero.

This al­go­rithm im­proves ref­er­ence-count per­for­mance be­cause, of all the ob­jects that any thread will cre­ate, few will be shared with other threads. So, most of the time, the shared ref­er­ence count will be un­used and the cost of us­ing atomic op­er­a­tions to ma­nip­u­late that count will be avoided.

There are, nat­u­rally, some sub­tleties in how the ref­er­ence counts are han­dled. One of those is that, for rea­sons to be de­scribed next, the two least-sig­nif­i­cant bits of the lo­cal ref­er­ence count are re­served. An in­cre­ment to the lo­cal ref­er­ence count, thus, adds four to that count. These de­tails are hid­den in the and

macros, so most code need not be aware of them.

Some ob­jects are heav­ily shared be­tween threads, though; these in­clude sin­gle­tons like , , and , as well as small in­te­ger val­ues, some type ob­jects, and more. These ob­jects will also never go away dur­ing the ex­e­cu­tion of the pro­gram — they are immortal” ob­jects for which ref­er­ence count­ing is a waste. Gross’s CPython in­ter­preter marks these ob­jects by set­ting the low­est sig­nif­i­cant bit in the lo­cal ref­er­ence count. If that bit is set, the in­ter­preter does­n’t bother track­ing ref­er­ences for the rel­e­vant ob­ject at all. That avoids con­tention (and cache-line bounc­ing) for the ref­er­ence counts in these heav­ily-used ob­jects. This optimization” ac­tu­ally slows sin­gle-threaded ac­cesses down slightly, ac­cord­ing to the de­sign doc­u­ment, but that penalty be­comes worth­while once multi-threaded ex­e­cu­tion be­comes pos­si­ble.

Other ob­jects in Python pro­grams may not be im­mor­tal, but they are still long-lived; func­tions and mod­ules fall into this cat­e­gory. Here, too, it can make sense to avoid the cost of ref­er­ence count­ing. The idea makes even more sense when one re­al­izes that many func­tion and mod­ule ob­jects, by virtue of ap­pear­ing in the dic­tio­nary, es­sen­tially form ref­er­ence-count cy­cles any­way and their counts will never go to zero. For these ob­jects, a tech­nique called deferred ref­er­ence count­ing” is used; the sec­ond-least-sig­nif­i­cant bit in the lo­cal ref­er­ence count is set, and (most) ref­er­ence count­ing is skipped. Instead, a garbage-col­lec­tion pass is used to find and free un­used ob­jects.

Most” ref­er­ence count­ing is skipped be­cause the CPython in­ter­preter does not, on its own, have a com­plete pic­ture of whether an ob­ject us­ing de­ferred ref­er­ence count­ing is truly un­used. Specifically, ex­ten­sion code writ­ten in C could be hold­ing ref­er­ences that the in­ter­preter can­not see. For this rea­son, ref­er­ence count­ing is only skipped within the in­ter­preter it­self; any other code will ma­nip­u­late the ref­er­ence counts as usual.

The ref­er­ence-count­ing changes are a key part of Gross’s work, but not all of it. The in­ter­preter’s mem­ory al­lo­ca­tor has been re­placed with mi­mal­loc, which is thread-safe, fast, and is able to eas­ily sup­port garbage-col­lec­tion op­er­a­tions. The garbage col­lec­tor it­self has been mod­i­fied to take ad­van­tage of mi­mal­loc, but is still a sin­gle-threaded, stop-the-world im­ple­men­ta­tion”. A lot of work has gone into the list and dict im­ple­men­ta­tions to make them thread-safe. And so on.

Gross has also put some sig­nif­i­cant work into im­prov­ing the per­for­mance of the CPython in­ter­preter in gen­eral. This was done to ad­dress the con­cern that has blocked GIL-removal work in the past: the per­for­mance im­pact on sin­gle-threaded code. The end re­sult is that the new in­ter­preter is 10%

faster than CPython 3.9 for sin­gle-threaded pro­grams. That will cer­tainly sweeten the pot when it comes to ac­cep­tance of this work, though, as Guido van Rossum noted, the Python de­vel­op­ers could al­ways just take the per­for­mance im­prove­ments with­out the con­cur­rency work and be even faster yet.

That seems like an un­likely out­come, though, if this work stands up to closer scrutiny. When pointed to the ccbench” bench­mark, Gross re­ported

speedups of 18-20x when run­ning with 20 threads. That is the kind of con­cur­rency speedup that Python de­vel­op­ers have been want­ing for a long time, so it is un­sur­pris­ing that this work has seen an en­thu­si­as­tic re­cep­tion.

As an added bonus, al­most all Python pro­grams will run on the mod­i­fied in­ter­preter with­out changes. The biggest source of prob­lems might be multi-threaded pro­grams with con­cur­rency-re­lated bugs that have been masked by the GIL un­til now. Extensions writ­ten in C will need to be re­com­piled, but most of them will not need to be changed un­less they (as some ev­i­dently do) ac­cess ref­er­ence counts di­rectly rather than us­ing the pro­vided macros.

The end re­sult thus ap­pears to be a GIL-removal ef­fort that has a rather bet­ter-than-av­er­age chance of mak­ing it into the CPython in­ter­preter. That would be cause for a lot of re­joic­ing among Python de­vel­op­ers. That said, a change this fun­da­men­tal is un­likely to be rushed into the CPython main­line; it will take a lot of test­ing to con­vince the com­mu­nity that it is ready for pro­duc­tion use. Interested de­vel­op­ers may be able to has­ten that process by test­ing this work with their pro­grams and re­port­ing the re­sults.

(Log in to post com­ments)

...

Read the original on lwn.net »

8 743 shares, 29 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

basti564/Oculess: Removes account requirements and telemetry from Oculus Quest devices

Sign up

Permalink

Download and in­stall the lat­est apk of from the re­leases tab on your Quest

Restart your Quest

(If you want your ac­count back just restart your Quest and con­nect with the Oculus Phone App)

Download and in­stall the lat­est apk of from the re­leases tab on your Quest

Follow the steps in Remove Accounts sec­tion first.

!Warning! You won’t be able to re­move this app with­out a fac­tory re­set af­ter run­ning the fol­low­ing com­mand

Run this com­mand (if you haven’t be­fore) adb shell dpm set-de­vice-owner com.bos.ocu­less/.​De­vAd­min­Re­ceiver

Click on TELEMETRY in the app

Download and in­stall the lat­est apk of from the re­leases tab on your Quest

Follow the steps in Remove Accounts sec­tion first.

!Warning! You won’t be able to re­move this app with­out a fac­tory re­set af­ter run­ning the fol­low­ing com­mand

Run this com­mand (if you haven’t be­fore) adb shell dpm set-de­vice-owner com.bos.ocu­less/.​De­vAd­min­Re­ceiver

Click on DISABLE UPDATES in the app

Only use for to dis­able teleme­try and up­dates

Download and in­stall the lat­est apk of from the re­leases tab on your Quest

Click on every ac­count (typically only Oculus and Facebook)

Click REMOVE ACCOUNT

(Your ac­counts should re­turn af­ter like 5 min­utes or a restart)

You can’t per­form that ac­tion at this time.

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.

...

Read the original on github.com »

9 741 shares, 29 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

Eating the Cloud from Outside In ∊ swyx.io

Cloudflare launched on September 27, 2010, and every year since, it has made it a point to cel­e­brate Birthday Week” with a raft of launches. By far, the show-stop­per this year was the an­nounce­ment of R2 Storage, an S3-compatible Object Storage ser­vice that di­rectly takes aim at AWS Hotel California” busi­ness model. This has been ex­tremely well re­ceived, go­ing by the re­sponse on HN and Twitter. In its past 5 birth­days, Cloudflare has gone from world-class CDN to of­fer­ing:

…and de­clar­ing that they will be the fourth ma­jor pub­lic cloud”. When your mar­ket cap is $36 bil­lion and your next biggest com­peti­tor is worth $1.6 tril­lion (~45x larger, al­beit not pure-play), this is a bold state­ment. Many star­tups are try­ing by of­fer­ing spe­cial­ized Cloud Distros, but all build­ing with AWS as the pre­sump­tive win­ner of the first layer cloud” rather than try­ing to com­pete.

My re­al­iza­tion: The big 3 clouds are play­ing Chess, but Cloudflare is play­ing Go.

While the tech in­dus­try is used to come-from-be­low dis­rup­tion, and the soft­ware in­dus­try is in­creas­ingly grasp­ing class-for-the-masses atomic con­cepts, I be­lieve Cloudflare is writ­ing a new play­book that is the lit­tle-guy coun­ter­part of the em­brace, ex­tend, ex­tin­guish model used by Microsoft.

Because it in­volves API com­pat­i­bil­ity, this play­book is par­tic­u­larly rel­e­vant to de­vel­oper tools, and is pro­tected by the Supreme Court rul­ing in Google v Oracle. If I were to sum­ma­rize it in three words, look­ing over Cloudflare’s his­tory and an­nual re­port, I might call it:

Establish: Establish a foothold in some­thing in­cum­bents don’t care enough about

Envelop: Reverse-proxy some­thing that in­cum­bents don’t serve cus­tomers well on

Expand: cross-sell other pre­mium prod­ucts and ser­vices un­til they are more cus­tomers of you than they are cus­tomers of the in­cum­bent.

Given Cloudflare’s fun­da­men­tally less-cen­tral­ized ap­proach to grow­ing its cloud, it is no sur­prise that it an­nounced its first Ethereum prod­uct this Birthday Week; al­though it re­mains to be seen if a Web2-native com­pany can re­ally drop enough of its as­sump­tions to han­dle Web3 threats or op­por­tu­ni­ties. If we are truly in the early Internet” days of Web3, only the para­noid might sur­vive here. Fortunately, Prince seems to be a vo­cal fan of Andy Grove as well.

...

Read the original on www.swyx.io »

10 636 shares, 25 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

An extremely fast JavaScript bundler

Our cur­rent build tools for the web are 10-100x slower than they could be. The main goal of the es­build bundler pro­ject is to bring about a new era of build tool per­for­mance, and cre­ate an easy-to-use mod­ern bundler along the way.

Check out the get­ting started in­struc­tions if you want to give es­build a try.

...

Read the original on esbuild.github.io »

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.

If you like 10HN please leave feedback and share

Visit pancik.com for more.