Join our Folding@Home team:
Main F@H site
Our team page
Support us: Subscribe Here
and buy SoylentNews Swag
We always have a place for talented people, visit the Get Involved section on the wiki to see how you can make SoylentNews better.
Modern tomatoes are a breeding success story. Generations of selection have made them bigger, firmer, more productive, and easier to ship. But that progress came at a cost. Domestication and breeding reduced much of the crop's genetic diversity, and flavor has proven stubbornly hard to breed back in.
Tomato's wild relatives still carry much of what was lost. Some pack their fruit with high levels of the red pigment lycopene, and some store sugar differently. Others, like Solanum pennellii and Solanum neorickii, never turn red at all. Breeders have long wanted to know which genetic controls produce these traits, and which ones are worth bringing back.
A new study by researchers at the Boyce Thompson Institute (BTI) offers a detailed map of those controls. The team compared how genes behave in cultivated tomato and three wild relatives, across different fruit tissues and stages of development and ripening. That let them pinpoint the genetic "dimmer switches" behind color, sweetness, bitterness, and aroma, giving breeders a list of targets for developing tastier, more nutritious tomatoes.
[...] "Wild tomatoes are an enormous reservoir of diversity for flavor, nutrition, and resilience, but bringing those traits into modern varieties can come at the expense of other traits that breeders have spent decades improving, like yield, fruit size, or shelf life. This can be countered with precise information on how the genes responsible for such traits are controlled," said Catala.
Think of each gene as a lamp. Some shine brightly, some glow faintly, and how bright they are shapes how a fruit grows, ripens, and tastes. Something can change a lamp's brightness in two ways.
One is through a dimmer built into the lamp itself. Scientists call this a cis effect: a change in the section of DNA sitting right next to the gene, which controls how strongly that one gene turns on. The other is through the building's wiring. That's a trans effect: a change somewhere else in the genome that alters the power supply, often affecting many genes at once.
From the outside, the two look the same, because either one makes a lamp dimmer or brighter. To tell them apart, the team crossed cultivated tomato with each wild species to produce hybrid plants. A hybrid carries one copy of every gene from each parent, and both copies operate within the same cells. In effect, it plugs the cultivated lamp and the wild lamp into the same outlet, on the same wiring.
"The hybrid gives us a natural controlled experiment," said Fei. "Both versions of each gene sit in the same cells and receive the same regulatory signals. If one version is more active than the other, we know the difference is written into the DNA right next to that gene."
[...] The regulatory map helps explain several well-known fruit traits. In the green-fruited species, cis changes boost genes that steer the pigment pathway away from lycopene, the red pigment that gives tomatoes their color and much of their nutritional value. That explains why these fruits stay green.
A matched pair of sugar-related genes explains the difference in sweetness. A gene that breaks down sucrose and another gene that blocks this process are regulated in a coordinated way in the green-fruited species, allowing those fruits to retain more sucrose.
The data also show a developmental switch for bitterness. Early in fruit development, trans regulation helps maintain high levels of bitter, defensive compounds called glycoalkaloids in young fruit. Later, cis changes in cultivated tomato turn those compounds into non-bitter forms as the fruit ripens—a pattern described in the study as "defense early, edibility at maturity."
"Breeders have always known wild tomatoes hold valuable traits, but their use in breeding introduces undesirable traits as well, necessitating time- and labor-intensive cleanup," said Giovannoni. "What they've lacked is a way to tell which of thousands of genetic differences is behind each trait to make selection more targeted. Now we can point to specific genes for selection, with effects in specific tissues, at specific moments in fruit development and ripening."
The team has made its data, including two newly assembled wild tomato genomes, freely available, giving breeders and researchers worldwide a head start on bringing the best traits of wild tomatoes back to the table.
Journal Reference: Zhao, J., Nicolas, P., Xu, Y. et al. Allele-specific expression reveals complex regulatory divergence underlying fruit phenotypic differences between cultivated and wild tomato species. Genome Biol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-026-04279-5
I am a US Citizen and a first generation college student. I have worked since I was 16 years old. I had 2 jobs when I was a sophomore through senior in high school and I worked my way through college as well. I struggled for decades to make a living and pay my federal student loans back. I have learned that schools not only give foreign students lot of scholarships, but actively recruit them to come here and attend. Then I complete against them for jobs and they are hired over me because they can fluently speak a second language.
Thus opens a comment by one Ecstacy Smith on a new regulation proposal by the Trump administration. Under the proposal, Optional Practical Training Fees, US Universities need to pay up to $100,000 for each international student who, after graduation, works a science job in the country.
Currently, under a program called Optional Practical Training (OPT), foreign students (F-1 or M-1 visa) are eligible to work for 3 years after graduating a US university, on condition that employment must be directly related to the student's major area of study. In 2024, there were 1.58 million foreign graduates in the United States. Twenty-six percent (418,781) of those were authorized to work via OPT.
According to a source quoted by Nature, OPT is especially important for international PhD graduates in STEM fields. The DHS/ICE claims the scheme has seen widespread fraudulent abuse:
Most recently, DHS announced an investigation that identified more than 10,000 F-1 nonimmigrant students who were engaged in OPT and were working for highly suspect employers.
The current administration has good form in combating fraud and abuse this way: in 2025 Trump imposed a $100,000 levy on a visa reserved for researchers and other high-skilled workers. As a result, new applications for those visas plummeted by 90%, according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Jon Henshaw has summarized a report about Internet infrastructure. Of about two dozen critically essential infrastructure components, about half have only one or two developers and little to no public funding.
A new analysis from sheets.works, The people holding up the [I]nternet, reveals that in 2026, key pieces of software the internet depends on are still underfunded or don't receive any public funding at all. Many of those critical components are kept alive and updated by individual contributors, and it's often just one or two people.
The analysis looked at the full history of 23 pieces of software that phones, browsers, and servers rely on. It counted everyone who made ten or more changes between October 2025 and October 2026. Of those 23 projects, 11 had only one or two people doing the regular work.
Even some of the larger projects go mostly underfunded or even unfunded. For example, if OpenBSD received even a penny for each commercially deployed instance of either the OpenSSH client or server, their budget worries would be finished.
Previously:
(2025) Curl Project Founder Snaps over Deluge of Time-Sucking AI Slop Bug Reports
(2022) SQLite: Past, Present, and Future
(2022) The New Yorker on NTP Software Maintenance
(2016) Dutch Government Says "No" to Backdoors after Giving €500,000 Grant to OpenSSL
I learned of Robert X. Cringely's passing from Avram Miller, who wrote:
My friend Mark Stephens died last Saturday. Most of the world knew him as Robert X. Cringely. I knew him as the neighbor who stood with me on garage roofs in Sonoma County, pointing dish antennas at distant ridge tops in 2020, because it was not possible to get a broadband internet connection at my location. That is how we became friends, more than 25 years ago. We managed to use directional wifi and created a link to someone that had broadband several miles from my home.
Mark was creative, technically competent and a dreamer. He was a gifted writer and storyteller. One of the few historians of his time to track the development of the computer industry. Sometimes we would dream together. He and his family lived close to our home in Sonoma for many years. He had an amazing family including a wonderful wife, MaryAlyce. Eventually they moved back to South Carolina where is wife had family. With all his moving and all my moving, we did not communicate often but we meant a lot to each other.
ARTICLE: https://twothirdsdone.com/2026/10/11/goodby-mark-stephens-aka-bob-cringely/
Mark Stephen's obituary: https://www.hillandwood.com/obituaries/Mark-Stephens?obId=49806651
Robert X. Cringely's wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_X._Cringely
Understanding why our nearest star does what it does:
The European Space Agency's Solar Orbiter has enabled scientists to trace magnetic switchbacks in the solar wind's magnetic field back to their source at the Sun.
"Switchback" is the name given to an S-shaped kink in the solar wind's magnetic field – a sudden and large deflection. In 2022, the spacecraft gave scientists a full view of the structure (confirming the S-shape), but the origin remained up for debate. At the time, the probe's data suggested it might be near the Sun's surface, but a recent flight through a switchback allowed scientists to identify the source.
"Solar Orbiter flew through a very large switchback," said Jesse Coburn of the French National Center for Scientific Research / Laboratoire de Phonétique et Phonologie (CNRS/LPP. "Because of this, we were able to sample rarely observed particles there that have tell-tale fingerprints of their origin."
Solar Orbiter's Solar Wind Analyser instrument (SWA) was used to sample the switchback's plasma, and it came up with particles that could only have formed within hot magnetic loops at the surface of the Sun.
Coburn said, "There are two main competing theories for how a switchback, and by extension the solar wind, forms.
"The specific mix of particles detected by Solar Orbiter is the smoking gun for a formation process known as 'interchange reconnection'."
This occurs when parts of the Sun with different magnetic properties interact. Some have field lines that stretch away into space. Others are closed and extend into space before looping back. When the two types meet, the lines can snap open, releasing previously trapped plasma into space.
The other theory focuses on processes involving waves and turbulence.
Stephanie Yardley of Northumbria University in the UK said, "Excitingly, we also see signs of these, but likely only after the switchback heads out into space.
"Once the switchback has left the Sun, waves and turbulence take over and govern how it moves."
Data from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory was also stirred into the mix to reveal the switchback's solar source.
It's exciting stuff and shows how the Sun heats its atmosphere and accelerates solar wind particles into space. It also has implications for predicting solar storms and their severity.
Daniel Müller, ESA Project Scientist for Solar Orbiter, said, "As humans on Earth – and in space – our lives are entangled with what's happening on our star. The solar wind ties the Earth to the Sun, and our understanding of its dynamics has key implications for how we keep our planet safe from extreme space weather events.
"The more we know, the better we can prepare for solar storms to protect our space-based infrastructure and technology."
TP-Link can't sell latest routers in US, still needs exemption from FCC ban:
TP-Link is facing more legal troubles in the US as Florida and three other states filed lawsuits alleging that it lied to consumers about its connections to China and the risks of its routers being exploited by Chinese state hackers.
The lawsuits were filed yesterday, about six months after the Federal Communications Commission announced a sweeping ban on consumer-grade routers produced wholly or partly outside of the US. Numerous router makers have obtained exemptions to the ban, but the Trump administration so far has not granted one to TP-Link.
Router makers that received exemptions include Netgear, Asus, Adtran, Amazon and its Eero subsidiary, Calix, Nokia, SpaceX's Starlink division, and others. For now, TP-Link is unable to sell its latest Wi-Fi 8 routers in the US, though models approved before the ban can still be sold.
The state lawsuits claim that TP-Link misled US consumers by telling them its routers are safe. The suits allege that TP-Link committed unfair and deceptive trade acts in violation of the states' consumer protection laws.
"Chinese state-sponsored hackers exploited TP-Link routers sitting in American living rooms," Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier said while announcing his lawsuit filed in a Florida county court. Uthmeier said Florida "will not allow families to be misled into handing their personal data to the Chinese Communist Party. We are seeking an injunction, restitution for Florida consumers, and [financial] penalties under Florida law."
[...] "The coordinated lawsuits are built on false premises," said Steve Kovsky, TP-Link's corporate affairs officer. "They do nothing to advance national security while unfairly penalizing an industry-leading US company." TP-Link said that for the past few months it has "provided state regulators with clear, verifiable documentation demonstrating two fundamental facts: TP-Link Systems devices sold in the US are manufactured in Vietnam and TP-Link Systems is an independent, US company that is not owned or controlled by any foreign government."
[...] The lawsuits note that even before the FCC's general router ban, US government officials "weighed banning the sale of TP-Link routers in the United States as an 'unacceptable risk' to national security." They also point to US government statements about Russian intelligence agency GRU exploiting vulnerabilities in TP-Link routers, and TP-Link's reported use of a Chinese construction contractor to expand the Vietnam plant.
"TP-Link does not disclose to consumers that it has ongoing ties to a Chinese military contractor, and that its products are vulnerable to exploitation by Russian intelligence and state-affiliated Chinese hackers," Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers' office said.
TP-Link's response to the state lawsuits said the company "complies with US privacy and data protection laws. We perform comprehensive security testing and rely on trusted third-party security labs for additional scrutiny to ensure our products meet the highest security standards and are recognized as among the most secure on the market... We do not, and will not, share customer network data with foreign governments or unauthorized third parties."
[...] US-based broadband providers are also seeking changes to the router ban so they can more easily upgrade consumer equipment. Cable industry lobby group NCTA petitioned the FCC for a waiver letting Internet providers swap in different components because of supply chain shortages, saying it is needed "to prevent disruptions in the availability of broadband for NCTA members' customers."
Ten of the world's biggest AI developers have agreed to tighten their handling of personal data following scrutiny by Britain's privacy watchdog, which is now turning its attention to autonomous AI agents that don't always play by the rules.
The recently rebranded Information Commission's Office (ICO) said Thursday that Amazon, Anthropic, Apple, Cohere, DeepSeek, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, and Stability AI have either made changes or committed to doing so after the regulator examined their compliance with UK data protection law.
These include clearer explanations of how personal information is used to train AI models, better ways for people to exercise their data rights, and tougher assessments of developers' safeguards.
The commitments follow a supervisory program launched in 2025 that initially covered 11 developers. That number dropped to ten after the ICO paused its engagement with Elon Musk's xAI to pursue a separate formal investigation into its Grok chatbot.
The watchdog isn't declaring victory just yet. It's monitoring whether developers deliver on their promises and admits that current AI training practices still pose problems under UK data protection law.
Developers still have some explaining to do over personal data buried in their models, particularly sensitive information, and how people are supposed to get their details removed once an AI has been trained on them. There's also the risk of personal information being extracted from models, including data developers never intended them to retain.
The ICO acknowledged that some of these issues will require cooperation between industry, regulators, and government. Getting companies to promise changes is one thing. Making today's AI models comply with the law is another.
"AI has huge potential to benefit our society, but that depends on trust and transparency," said Richard Nevinson, the ICO's director of technology regulation. "Our engagement with some of the biggest developers has secured real commitments that will help people better understand and control how their data is used, even in a fast-moving and complex area."
Meanwhile, the regulator is turning its attention to AI agents, which can browse websites, use tools, and carry out tasks with limited human supervision. And some aren't sticking to the rules.
The ICO confirmed it has contacted OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and the UK's AI Security Institute following reports of agents bypassing safeguards during testing and deployment earlier this year.
"These recent reports show both how fast these systems are advancing, and the risks they pose if the guardrails aren't fit for purpose," Nevinson said. "Our message is clear: the fact AI agents act with autonomy is not an excuse for poor compliance."
The regulator has also launched a six-week call for evidence on agentic AI, covering security, transparency, accountability, and the lawful use of personal data. Responses are due by November 20 and will inform future guidance and the ICO's forthcoming statutory code of practice on AI and automated decision-making.
The watchdog is separately examining how consumer chatbots and AI companions use personal information as they become increasingly personalized.
For now, the ICO has secured promises from some of the industry's biggest names, although whether they deliver remains to be seen. And with AI agents increasingly capable of acting on their own, the watchdog may have its work cut out keeping them in line.
Fidelity Investments' Eimear Coffey and TCS' Jennifer Scott explore how a diverse skillset, an open mind and adaptability can form the foundations of a strong career for school leavers and graduates.
Starting a STEM career, or indeed a career in any industry, can be a nerve-wracking experience, as the company or institution you choose to align yourself with has the potential to shape how your professional life unfolds.
It is also a time of great excitement as you get to put all that you have learned up to now to the test and start to build the foundations of what will hopefully be a long, dynamic and rewarding career. But how do you get started?
For those looking for the most straightforward route, Jennifer Scott, the head of cyber delivery and operations, at Tata Consultancy Services Ireland (TCS), explained that young people who enjoy STEM subjects and are interested in a tech, engineering or science career should look into a Bachelor of Science degree.
She told SiliconRepublic.com, “This is definitely the most linear entry path to a career in STEM. Organisations, such as TCS, looking to onboard fresh talent into STEM roles, look to universities for graduates. Some organisations contribute to course and curriculum content so are invested in the graduates who pass through these courses.”
It is worth noting that this is not the only route. Scott explained that individuals who have left school, who have drive, ambition and the support of an organisation with early-career starter resources, can start out by making a strong impact in an operational role, before moving on to a more technical position.
She said, “This is a longer route to landing a job in STEM but the opportunity for growth is definitely there.”
For Eimear Coffey, the vice-president of technology management and the engineering leader at Fidelity Investments, “The best way to start in STEM is to get involved and stay curious.”
She said, “Areas that a young professional could focus on include gaining hands-on experience and building a strong foundation through coursework or gaining skills through certifications or self-directed learning to build their technical skills.”
Networking is also key and she advised early-career starters to seek out opportunities to expand their circles by engaging with internships, apprenticeships, hackathons, project-based work and other hands-on learning experiences.
She said, “Networking with company representatives at career events, conferences, identifying a mentor, or participating in programmes can be good opportunities to build relationships and create valuable opportunities.
“Most importantly, staying curious, continuously learning, and being willing to explore different STEM disciplines can help individuals discover where their interests and strengths align.”
Similarly, for those in college or who have recently graduated, Scott recommends getting some part-time work experience in a people facing role, prior to committing to a STEM career, in an area such as hospitality.
She explained, “I have observed that colleagues at TCS who have worked in the hospitality sector previously are more confident and comfortable with the human interaction and professional aspects of the role.
“So, I always advise graduates to seek out these opportunities, to grow and develop their inter-personal skillset where possible prior to starting their professional career in STEM.”
Of the skills early-career starters and graduates should prioritise, Coffey is of the opinion that a balance between technical and soft skills is crucial. “It is not a choice between one or the other”, she finds, adding that the strongest professionals in the STEM space are the ones who can combine both.
Coffey said, “The technical skills are the foundation for a career in technology but if you can’t collaborate with a team, understand customer needs or communicate ideas it won’t be enough to contribute or perform in the role effectively. As someone is starting their career, it’s important to invest time into both types of skillsets and make advancements in both.”
Scott shared Coffey’s opinion that neither one is more important, in actuality, they both complement each other. She said, “ No STEM role is ever purely technical, they require strong communication skills and many other soft skills. Time management, conflict resolution, communication and teamwork are critical no matter how technically talented you are.
“With the advancement of AI, many roles such as programming, alert monitoring and analysis, can be supported by AI but this does not negate the need for strong human technical talent.
“Technical skills are extremely valuable and I always recommend continuous learning throughout your career to hone skills that align with your technical role. But maintaining the balance between technical and soft skills development ensures you will always be a sought-after professional in my opinion.”
For both experts, graduate opportunities at organisations such as Fidelity and TCS are an ideal way for younger people to get their foot in the door and start their professional lives.
As noted by Scott, while the space itself is subject to near endless evolution, it will always be a prominent sector of employment in Ireland and as a result, will offer a variety of possibilities to those progressing their careers.
She said, “Whether you see yourself working long-term in a management or leadership role or remaining in the technical side of things and becoming a subject matter expert or technical architect, I would advise any young person to be open to all career opportunities that come your way.
“Use this time early in your career to get exposure to different technologies and roles and learn about different career path options. The early years in your career can be such an exciting time and I suggest people use this time to figure out what aspect of STEM they enjoy and where their strengths lie.
“The more exposure you get early in your career to new opportunities, the more selective you can be with opportunities as your career progresses.”
She concluded, “The sky is the limit in STEM.”
Ernst Abbe worked out in 1873 that even a perfect lens cannot separate details smaller than about half a wavelength of light, which is why a galaxy millions of light-years away photographs cleanly while a virus does not. The limit was not beaten by better glass. It was beaten two other ways: hold a probe closer to the surface than one wavelength and catch the evanescent field (near-field microscopy, ~6 nm lateral resolution demonstrated), or make fluorescent molecules blink one at a time so their centers can be found precisely (super-resolved fluorescence microscopy, 2014 Nobel Prize in Chemistry). Short writeup with sources:
https://telegra.ph/The-Near-Is-Blurrier-Than-the-Far-10-12
https://www.axios.com/2026/10/09/ai-companies-day-after-major-attack
Top executives at Anthropic, OpenAI and other AI companies are privately gaming out scenarios for a public and political revolt after a catastrophic AI event.
The first example of significant real-world harm caused by unsafe AI would turn an already wary public further against the technology and its leaders, including Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, as well as President Trump for his reluctance to regulate it.
Many AI industry insiders told Axios they believe a major event will occur in the next six to 12 months.
The plan for WHEN, not if, their product f*cks over humanity.
When do you think it will happen?
By whom?
Outcome?
Decades before the modern web, the BBC Domesday Project dared to archive an entire nation using.... what else – massive LV-ROM (LaserVision Read Only Memory) LaserDiscs.
To mark the impending 40th anniversary of the BBC Domesday Project's release, the UK's Centre for Computing History (CCH) hosted a celebration at its museum on September 19, bringing together several of the original team members responsible for the system.
One was Mike Tibbetts, an assistant to Peter Armstrong, the BBC producer behind the project. Tibbetts revealed that the UK's domestic intelligence service, MI5, took an interest in the system, but "they didn't understand a word of what we were doing!"
"And on one occasion, Peter and I had to give a presentation, or Peter gave the presentation to [former prime minister] Margaret Thatcher, and well, I'm not sure she understood what we were doing either..."
What they were doing was compiling a trove of data that will prove invaluable to historians in the years to come, even if the politicians of the era looked nervously on at the amount of data being handed over to the public.
The Domesday Project was intended to be a modern version of the Domesday Book, compiled after the 1066 Norman invasion of England. The original book surveyed most of England and parts of Wales and was used by the King to assess dues owed to him. 900 years later, the name was given to a project in which more than a million people participated to provide a snapshot of life in the UK.
Participants (many of whom were school children) contributed content, which was linked with maps, photographs, and other data. It was all compiled onto a pair of LaserDiscs – the Community Disc and the National Disc – and accessed via a BBC Master computer and a Philips VP415 LaserVision player.
Armstrong came up with the idea, and the team compiled the project between 1984 and 1986. The system was eventually released at the end of 1986, and was aimed at schools, libraries, and universities. It was, alas, not a roaring sales success – the exact price per unit is difficult to pin down, but approximately £5,000 is a fair estimate. Government subsidies lowered the cost to around £3,000, but it was still out of reach for much of its audience.
As a resource, however, it has huge value, which will only increase as the years pass. Tibbetts drew parallels to the original Domesday Book, which took centuries for historians to recognize as a vital resource. "Perhaps," he mused, "40 years is simply too short a time for historians to perceive the Domesday Project as a sufficiently distant benchmark of useful research."
Perhaps. However, while hundreds of years have passed since the Domesday Book was compiled, the years have not been kind to the Domesday Project, thanks to technology's inexorable march.
"The original Domesday Book had one huge advantage over the Domesday Project when it comes to future-proofing and longevity," explained Tibbetts. "The vellum pages of the original Domesday have been preserved for 940 years so far, and it's likely to continue to exist well into the future.
"It took very few years for the bespoke technology of the BBC Domesday Project to be overtaken by universal media technologies."
However, they chose the technology at the time for good technical reasons. The BBC Micro could output a 625-line television picture. The Philips LaserVision system could be re-engineered to store alphanumeric data. There wasn't much in the way of authoring and playback systems, so, as Tibbetts explained, the team had to invent everything. "In technological terms," he said, "the world of 1984 really couldn't be more different from the instant-access, media-rich world of today."
And so, inevitably, within a few short years, that technology began to show its age.
"As was entirely predictable, our discs aged and became difficult to read. The expensive LV-ROM player was quickly superseded by cheaper and more widely available CD-ROM and DVD systems."
And, worse, "Largely because of the lack of any great academic interest in preserving our massive resource for the future, the BBC Domesday Project was in grave danger of disappearing without a trace."
Several initiatives have kicked off over the years to preserve the project, and the CCH's event was as much about celebrating those as it was about looking at the project's genesis.
Tibbetts dropped some nuggets of information about the project, estimating that 60 people reported directly to him and Armstrong, with another 60 in subcontracted teams. He also discussed the frustration the team felt as doubt was cast about whether the project was even possible.
"We came back from Christmas in January 1986," Tibbetts recalled, "we sat down for our first team meeting, and I was forced to point out that our little VAX minicomputer didn't have one byte of data that was ready to go onto the Domesday discs, so we did the whole thing in a few months!"
As far as hardware was concerned, Andy Finney, who handled mastering the discs, remembered that the original plan for the Domesday Project was for it to be mouse-based, rather than the trackball the system used for navigation. The mouse was still a relatively novel concept, alien to many users. "I remember vividly one chap who was navigating with this mouse on the table, and he moved the mouse towards him, and by the time he got to the edge of the table, he hadn't actually reached the bottom of the screen. So he went on the edge and underneath..."
Tibbetts added, "I always feel guilty about the mouse, because we got that wrong ... the decision came down in favor of the trackball because that is much more easy for somebody with movement disabilities to use rather than a mouse."
"But boy, did we get that wrong..."
As Tibbetts noted, even with little interest from some parts of the academic community, enthusiasts have continued to put in a huge amount of effort over the years to keep the resource accessible. Simon Inns of the Domesday86 project described it as "a race against time" – not just for hardware, but to get data off discs before bit rot rendered them unreadable.
The good news is that the Domesday discs have been preserved, and reside in the Internet Archive. "Anyone," said Inns, "can go to the Internet Archive and download a Domesday Disc. This is, like, groundbreaking stuff. 10 years ago, this was a laugh, right? Now you can actually do this."
While there might not be many functioning examples of the hardware around anymore, the preservation efforts mean that the Domesday Project will endure. "Our hope," said Inns, "is that within the next couple of years, everyone in this room [at The Centre for Computing History] will be able to have a Domesday system and be able to experience what it was like."
If there was a year the world began waking up to climate change, it might have been 1988. That June, the NASA climatologist James Hansen testified to Congress that the climate was warming and would continue to do so as long as humans pumped fossil fuel pollution into the atmosphere. Months later, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
And, just weeks before the U.N. vote, Frank Sprow of Exxon's corporate research department warned his colleagues in an internal memo, "If a worldwide consensus emerges that action is needed to mitigate against Greenhouse gas effects, substantial negative impacts on Exxon could occur."
Sprow's memo is part of a batch of previously undisclosed documents released earlier this year without fanfare as part of an ongoing lawsuit Massachusetts filed against ExxonMobil in 2019. While the memo was quoted in a 2023 article by The Wall Street Journal, it has not been published in full. Several other documents included in the filings are being reported on here for the first time, including more recent statements from Exxon scientists challenging the company's climate-solution claims about its work on biofuels and carbon capture and storage.
While the documents align with hundreds of confidential files that have previously come to light through reporting by Inside Climate News and other news organizations, as well as lawsuits and other sources, experts say they provide new details on internal deliberations at Exxon from the 1980s to the 2010s.
The release of the documents comes at a pivotal time for the oil industry and for efforts to hold it accountable for its role fueling climate change. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments from Exxon and oil producer Suncor Energy that a lawsuit filed by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, should be halted. The outcome of that decision could decide whether more than two dozen other claims against oil companies proceed.
Aaron Regunberg, director of climate accountability at the advocacy group Public Citizen, said the documents from the Massachusetts case underscore why Exxon and other companies are fighting to block the lawsuits from even proceeding to the discovery phase.
"They are really scared of the public finding out about this reality," Regunberg said of oil companies. The Massachusetts filings, he said, suggest "that we have seen just a sliver of the evidence that they actually have that they've spent decades knowingly deceiving the public about this crisis. How many more reports are they sitting on?"
Most of the lawsuits assert that oil companies should help pay the escalating costs being imposed on the public by climate-fueled extreme weather because they knew the risks their products posed but worked to publicly question climate science and stymie efforts to curb emissions. Those costs have surged, topping $100 billion in the U.S. in four of the last five years. Exxon, meanwhile, reported nearly $19 billion in earnings over the first six months of this year alone.
Exxon did not respond to requests for comment, but it has denied misleading the public or investors about climate change. In its annual securities filing, the company said of the lawsuits, "We believe the legal and factual theories set forth in these proceedings are meritless and represent an inappropriate attempt to use the court system to usurp the proper role of policymakers in addressing the societal challenges of climate change."
The case brought by the Massachusetts attorney general's office in state court is slightly different from others, arguing that the company deceived the state's consumers and investors into thinking it was taking action to limit warming when those efforts were more about public relations than real action. The state is seeking fines and an injunction blocking Exxon's allegedly deceptive practices.
The new documents, filed as part of a dispute over whether Exxon should be forced to hand over more files and testimony, help lay out the state's case.
Take biofuels. For years, Exxon ran a sustained public relations campaign touting its research into using algae to make fuel, which it said could be a sustainable alternative to petroleum.
In March, The Wall Street Journal reported on internal documents that showed Exxon's scientists told executives the company's targets were not feasible. The new disclosures in the Massachusetts case add to the evidence with excerpts from a deposition by an Exxon scientist who worked on the program.
Asked whether a 2018 press release, which said Exxon anticipated "10,000 barrels of algae biofuel per day could be produced by 2025," was misleading, the scientist said "yes," adding, "All the clauses in there are patently false."
The scientist testified that the 10,000-barrel-per-day target was "completely impossible to achieve," and that he told this to others at the company before the press release was issued.
In another instance, the scientist said a research development on algae that Exxon publicly claimed as a breakthrough was, in fact, "a dead end."
Exxon later dropped its research into algae biofuels but has continued to promote carbon capture and storage as a climate solution. The documents include some statements which, according to the attorney general's office, show Exxon knew that technology was also unlikely to present a scalable solution to cutting emissions.
A 2014 presentation on Exxon's carbon capture portfolio included a slide listing challenges to reaching commercial scale. It noted widespread deployment would require a "massive investment" and an eventual storage rate "comparable to current oil and gas production." It said costs were high and there were no market-based incentives.
Three years later, a different Exxon scientist was asked by a colleague to record an advertisement for the technology. He noted that the company was calling itself a leader in carbon capture but said he was "not a big fan" of the claim. At the time, Exxon's carbon capture operations were largely restricted to gas processing plants that stripped the climate pollutant out of methane and injected it into oil or gas fields. That technology, he said, "has nothing to do" with the type of carbon capture that Exxon and others were promoting for power plants and industrial facilities.
That scientist later appeared in an ad promoting research he was conducting on carbon capture without any claim that Exxon was a leader in the technology.
Another presentation from 2017 appears to show the advertisements for algae and carbon capture were among the company's highest performing, calling them "All-Around Winners."
In 2021, Exxon was still promoting its work in carbon capture. An internal presentation about an advertising campaign targeting political and financial leaders said its objective was to get people to "believe ExxonMobil is committed to helping solve climate change" and to proving the company and carbon capture and storage "play an indispensable role in facilitating the transition to a lower carbon energy system."
Under a header of "what we're doing," the presentation listed a proposed hub for carbon capture in Houston that Exxon no longer promotes.
While the Massachusetts case focuses on these more recent campaigns, the filings include earlier records that serve as concise roadmaps for what would become Exxon's climate strategy in the following decades, said Geoffrey Supran, an associate professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami. He has published studies comparing Exxon's public statements with its internal documents and is a consulting expert on some climate-related legal actions.
It was November 1988, five months after Hansen's congressional testimony, when Sprow filed his draft memo.
With the threat of climate action looming, he wrote, the company's research and development on "Greenhouse" should have two primary goals: "Protect the value of our resources (oil, gas, coal)," and "Preserve Exxon's business options."
Sprow then laid out an agenda for how to achieve those ends.
With modeling critical to climate science, he wrote, "it could be considered important to be at the forefront of this modeling effort." Sprow proposed "supporting a person on staff at one of the leading modeling centers (e.g. Princeton) or by sending one of our people to work in such a center."
Sprow also recommended monitoring alternative energy technologies, including nuclear, solar and biofuels, to understand their viability as alternatives to fossil fuels or, eventually, for possible business development. Finally, he added, Exxon could look for "a research breakthrough" in one of these areas that would align with the company's business.
Sprow did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Climate News, but he told The Wall Street Journal that his memo was adopted as corporate policy.
By the late 1990s, Exxon and other oil companies were working assertively to convince the public and government officials that enacting policies to limit climate pollution would impose grave costs on society.
One newly published Exxon memo summarizing a 1997 meeting of a climate steering group at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group, outlines many key elements of the strategy.
With governments poised to negotiate an international climate agreement in Kyoto, the steering group would recommend that API "continue to question the scientific basis and cite the high economic cost" of policies to address climate change and "avoid pressures to negotiate a compromise."
The memo cited polling about which arguments would "resonate with the public."
It also said Exxon was planning to fund a climate change project by Jonathan Adler of the free-market oriented Competitive Enterprise Institute, who had come to the meeting seeking support. Exxon asked Adler to "focus their project more narrowly" on the impacts of climate policy proposals on individuals and trade competitiveness. The memo outlined a grassroots campaign and efforts with labor unions, and said API continued to work with the American Enterprise Institute, another conservative think tank, to arrange a seminar about a letter written by economists. The goal was to "prevent its misuse by advocates or near-term action."
"These are sophisticated strategies to use and weaponize experts in order to perpetuate their denial," said Supran, who co-authored an amicus brief supporting Boulder in the case against Exxon and Suncor. "This is the playbook all in one place."
In an interview, Adler rejected the argument that he was promoting climate denial. "I can't speak to what API or Exxon's motivations were," said Adler, now a professor at William & Mary Law School. "What I can say is the work we did at CEI at the time was very much focused on what was accurate and correct and consistent with the principles the organization was founded on."
He said it was natural for his organization to seek funding from companies and entities that also supported limited government regulation.
This year, Adler wrote a brief supporting Boulder in the case before the Supreme Court, arguing that its claims were not preempted by federal law and should be allowed to proceed in state court. He did not take a position on the merits of Boulder's claims.
By 2005, when Exxon was facing public criticism for its support for groups that questioned climate science, a company spokesperson told Mother Jones magazine that Exxon believed "the scientific evidence on greenhouse gas emissions remains inconclusive and that studies must continue." She also said Exxon had devoted large sums to university research programs, including a planned $100 million to Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project.
The following year, documents from the Massachusetts case now show, a colleague arranged a meeting for the spokesperson with two self-identified global warming skeptics.
By the 2010s, Exxon's public position on climate change had evolved. It was no longer questioning science, a position that became harder to maintain as scientists' conclusions grew stronger and the United States joined the Paris Agreement in 2015. In fact, following Sprow's advice, the company had one of its research scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Exxon was fending off concerns from shareholders that it was failing to prepare its business for the risks posed by climate change, so it began work on a "climate risk matrix," the documents show. In 2016, the Exxon scientist who contributed to the U.N. climate panel warned colleagues of the risk of climate tipping points, the probability of which were "poorly understood but probability is expected to rise with temperature change." He noted that failure to limit emissions would have a growing influence on temperatures beyond 2040 and cited concerns that the impacts of hitting tipping points "would be significantly larger" than the direct effects of heat.
And yet, the Massachusetts case shows, Exxon continued to promote solutions that its own scientists said were unlikely to reach commercial scale. The vast majority of its money instead went to oil and gas, the production of which Exxon plans to expand more than 15 percent by 2030.
This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.
Samsung Electronics expects third-quarter revenue to more than double and operating profit to reach nearly nine times last year's level as the AI infrastructure boom fuels demand for memory.
The South Korean company is among the major memory manufacturers benefiting from demand for chips used in datacenter servers and GPUs.
Although Samsung will not report its full earnings until the end of this month, its guidance puts sales at between ₩194 trillion and ₩196 trillion (about $145 billion) for the quarter ended September 30, 2026. This is more than double the ₩86.1 trillion ($63 billion) for the same period last year.
The company expects operating profit of between ₩107.3 trillion and ₩107.5 trillion (about $80 billion), compared with just ₩12.2 trillion ($9 billion) for Q3 2025, roughly 8.8 times last year's figure.
Samsung's brief guidance note does not break down performance by business division. Demand for memory, including high-bandwidth memory (HBM) used alongside AI processors, is likely to be a major contributor.
The demand for DRAM and NAND for AI applications is driving profits across the semiconductor industry. Analyst Gartner forecast that the sector as a whole will bring in $1.6 trillion during 2026, almost double the revenue seen in 2025.
Rival chipmaker Micron posted similar gains last week, and the other Korean memory giant, SK hynix, will likely have the same story to tell when it discloses its own quarterly figures later this month.
The boom is proving costly for buyers of everyday electronics. Memory manufacturers' shift towards more lucrative AI products is squeezing supplies for PCs, smartphones, and other devices, driving up component prices.
As The Register previously reported, rising component costs are pricing budget PCs out of the market. US sales in that bracket fell 18.7 percent year-on-year in the first quarter, while average PC selling prices were forecast to rise by up to 12 percent by December. Smartphone makers face similar pressures, with budget devices becoming increasingly difficult to produce profitably.
Samsung warned earlier this year that it expected the memory supply crunch to deepen in 2027 and potentially persist through 2028, leaving buyers with little to smile about.
On Friday, Amazon committed to donating more than $1 billion over the next five years to communities neighboring data centers.
In a press release, Amazon Web Services' CEO Matt Garman said that communities would decide how to prioritize funds across "education, job training, energy affordability, water, and energy preservation, and local priorities."
Laying out other community commitments, Amazon also promised to ensure data centers wouldn't increase power bills or wipe out local water supplies. Regarding the latter, Amazon promised to be "water positive" by 2030, while claiming that 75 percent of projects have already met this goal.
Rolling out these commitments, Amazon seemed bent on convincing Americans that the swelling data center backlash is based on lies. Echoing Donald Trump's claims that foreign disinformation campaigns are fueling widespread protests, Garman urged that calls for data moratoriums must end or else American frontier AI might fall behind China's.
According to Garman, US rivals are trying to "trick us into slowing down," and Amazon's commitments are meant to reassure Americans that everything's okay and that we should instead plow ahead, as Trump endlessly advocates.
However, advocates at Stand.Earth—a global nonprofit that's been fighting for environmental protections in communities hosting data centers—told Ars that Amazon is the one being "misleading" by spreading "corporate propaganda." Seemingly in crisis mode as billions of dollars in data center projects have been blocked nationwide, Amazon's promised donations represent "a flailing attempt at damage control for the harm its data center build-out has already caused," Stand.Earth said.
Most problematic, Stand.Earth suggested, is Amazon's plan to back a power plant that experts expect will become the largest source of US climate pollution. Glaringly, Amazon's data center commitments don't mention the power plant and scarcely address pollution, apart from promising to exclusively rely on back-up generators that use the lowest possible emissions.
"For all the claims Amazon makes about investing in carbon-free energy, it conveniently leaves out that it is constructing the single-largest source of climate emissions in the United States in Pecos, Texas," Stand.Earth said. "Communities will face 33 million tons of harmful air pollution every year—with the power plant using the same amount of energy needed to run more than 1.9 million homes."
Additionally, Stand.Earth called out Amazon for claiming that most data center generators sparking pollution fears in communities typically sit "idle." Although Amazon emphasized that most generators only run for "roughly 10 hours per year," Stand.Earth cited cases where "Amazon data centers ran on diesel back-up power for days at a time."
At least one part of Amazon's deal is promising, Stand.Earth suggested. The company ending its practice of using nondisclosure agreements when building new data centers will likely help make projects more transparent.
However, "many of the key concerns communities have are not addressed," Stand.Earth found. For example, Amazon's promises to replace all water used for data centers seemingly won't address "the massive water footprint left by energy infrastructure powering its data centers" or "the potential for forever-chemical contamination from nascent cooling technologies," Stand.Earth told Ars.
The total amount Amazon is investing also doesn't seem like much compared to what the company has spent. In the press release, Garman said that Amazon contributed the same amount, more than $1 billion, to data center communities over the past three years.
"Compared to the $220 billion the company is investing in data centers in 2026 alone, Amazon's commitment of $1 billion over five years for community support is a drop in the bucket," Stand.Earth said. "It is difficult to read this statement as anything other than a plea from Amazon to continue exploiting communities at minimal cost."
https://www.righto.com/2026/10/ML10-switched-capacitor-filter.html
Sometimes it's easier to identify an IC with a microscope. While sorting a box of old ICs, CuriousMarc came across some Harris ICs labeled "F1-10-5", a mysterious part number that didn't show up in any databooks. Since unidentifiable ICs are useless, he gave me one to analyze. Conveniently, it was in a ceramic package, so I could open it up with a quick tap from a chisel. Under the microscope, the chip's most striking feature was a grid of square capacitors. With all those capacitors, I guessed that it was a switched-capacitor filter. The die provided another clue: the part number HF-10. With this information, we quickly found that the chip was Harris's version of the standard MF10 switched-capacitor filter chip.
Switched-capacitor filters were a popular way to implement analog filters in the 1980s. Rapidly switching capacitors in and out of a circuit enabled the construction of single-chip filters that were easy to use and performed well. The MF10, introduced by National Semiconductor in 1981, provides two flexible filters on a chip; each filter acts as a low-pass filter, band-pass filter, or a high-pass filter. The filter's characteristics are simple to control with a few external resistors.