Looked for an app on mobilism. And a comment said something suspicious.

App name: Seven

Uploader: Balatan

About an year ago I searched on reddit about, If mobilism is safe or not. And lot of people said that it's safe. And some people even mentioned above mentioned uploader Balatan to be trustworthy.

I don't know how much true is that comment.

I am not an expert in digital forensics. So, I just leave it to your eyes.

Photographer @balsoft@lemmy.ml

Moon rising during sunset. Taken from Gombori mountain. Nikon D700, 85mm, cropped.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has until the end of June to develop new guidance for federal agencies. Federal agencies will use this guidance to create new policies that align with the Trump administration’s dubious definitions of scientific integrity and “gold standard science.”

The goals of scientific integrity policies are to (1) protect the scientific process from inappropriate (like political or corporate) influence, (2) make federal research and evidence accessible without compromising people’s personal data, (3) allow federal scientists to communicate their research without interference, and (4) to use the best available science in decision and policy making.

I mean, I think we all know what the choice will be, right?

OSTP Has a Choice to Make: Science or Politics?

Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists sent a letter to the Director of OSTP, Michael Kratsios, outlining our concerns about this EO and recommending what should be included in the new guidance President Trump requested in the recent EO.

^{The Equation}

Automation, public data repositories, standardized metadata forms, and interoperable data-sharing platforms are some of the major pushes being made in guidance for Federal agencies looking to apply the Trump administration’s “gold standard science” objectives, according to guidance issued today by the White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP).

OSTP Director Michael Kratsios delivered the memo to Federal agencies on June 23 and said the guidance will assist agencies in applying an executive order from President Donald Trump on “Restoring Gold Standard Science” by ensuring “that science is no longer manipulated or misused to justify political ends.”

That memo included methods of approaching science-related initiatives – namely those related to national security and energy innovation, according to the document – that would foster cross disciplinary collaboration and withstand scrutiny.

“In an age of rapid technological progress and heightened public scrutiny, federally-funded and federally-performed science, and its use in Federal decision-making, must be beyond reproach,” reads the document.

To support this goal, OSTP said that agencies should encourage depositing raw data and code in publicly accessible repositories to facilitate reproducibility. Other data-related pushes include requiring grant applications to include data sharing plans, and standardizing metadata formats and data-sharing platforms across agencies.

When introducing the concept of gold standard science in May, Kratsios zeroed in on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles in scientific fields, claiming that inclusive efforts pushed by DEI pose an “existential threat to the real diversity of thought that forms the foundation of the scientific community.”

Kratsios said that the “first step to restoring trust in America’s scientific establishment, and rebuilding a strong foundation for breakthrough discoveries, is a return to Gold Standard Science.”

OSTP Unveils Agency Data, AI Guidelines for ‘Gold Standard Science’

Automation, public data repositories, standardized metadata forms, and interoperable data-sharing platforms are some of the major pushes being made in guidance for Federal agencies looking to apply the Trump administration’s “gold standard science” o…

^MeriTalk

cross-posted from: lemmy.zip/post/42192609

• Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk.2, Olympus 30mm Macro
• F/8 30.0mm 1/100s ISO-1000 15 frames

I'm still figuring out how to best do this, but I'm amazed at the pictures I can get! This is the JPEG straight from the camera, so no editing other than the stacking and tweaks the camera does. I almost exclusively use natural light, but I'm probably going to need to grab something for this type of thing.

Lots of fun, and if my neighbors didn't think I was crazy before, I'm sure they do now! 😂

cross-posted from: lemmy.zip/post/42192701

cross-posted from: lemmy.zip/post/42192609

• Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk.2, Olympus 30mm Macro
• F/8 30.0mm 1/100s ISO-1000 15 frames

I'm still figuring out how to best do this, but I'm amazed at the pictures I can get! This is the JPEG straight from the camera, so no editing other than the stacking and tweaks the camera does. I almost exclusively use natural light, but I'm probably going to need to grab something for this type of thing.

Lots of fun, and if my neighbors didn't think I was crazy before, I'm sure they do now! 😂

A Republican proposal to penalize states that regulate artificial intelligence can move forward without requiring approval from 60 senators, the Senate parliamentarian decided on Saturday. But the moratorium on state AI laws did not have unanimous Republican support and has reportedly been watered down in an effort to push it toward passage.

In early June, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed enforcing a 10-year moratorium on AI regulation by making states ineligible for broadband funding if they try to impose any limits on development of artificial intelligence. While the House previously approved a version of the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill" with an outright 10-year ban on state AI regulation, Cruz took a different approach because of the Senate rule that limits inclusion of "extraneous matter" in budget reconciliation legislation.

Under the Senate's Byrd rule, a senator can object to a potentially extraneous budget provision. A motion to waive the Byrd rule requires a vote of 60 percent of the Senate.

As originally drafted, Cruz's backdoor ban on state AI laws would have made it impossible for states to receive money from the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program if they try to regulate AI. He tied the provision into the budget bill by proposing an extra $500 million for the broadband-deployment grant program and expanding its purpose to also subsidize construction and deployment of infrastructure for artificial intelligence systems.

I covered a lot of BEAD distributions and state- and jurisdictional-level plans, and it's safe to say this is just another way to screw poor people. That's the whole fucking point of the program: Bringing broadband to those who don't yet have access.

It's not quite rural electrification, but it's the closest we've seen since then. Interestingly, rural voters, well, voted for this. And many are poor.

Bombing Iran ought to solve that, right?

Ted Cruz can’t get all Republicans to back his fight against state AI laws

Cruz plan moves ahead but was reportedly watered down amid Republican opposition.

^{Jon Brodkin (Ars Technica)}

Memo says cybersecurity office deemed WhatsApp a high risk due to ‘lack of transparency in how it protects user data’

WhatsApp messaging app banned on all US House of Representatives devices

^{Guardian staff reporter (The Guardian)}

The Trump Administration moved Monday to join a legal fight to overturn a new Washington law requiring religious leaders to report child abuse or neglect even when it is disclosed in confession.

https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2025/06/23/feds-seek-to-block-wa-law-requiring-clergy-to-report-child-abuse/

Part 2:Doom.

A decade or two ago, it was pretty common to discuss “foom & doom” scenarios, as advocated especially by Eliezer Yudkowsky. In a typical such scenario, a small team would build a system that would rocket (“foom”) from “unimpressive” to “Artificial Superintelligence” (ASI) within a very short time window (days, weeks, maybe months), involving very little compute (e.g. “brain in a box in a basement”), via recursive self-improvement. Absent some future technical breakthrough, the “Artificial Superintelligence” (ASI) would definitely be egregiously misaligned, without the slightest intrinsic interest in whether humans live or die. The Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) would be born into a world generally much like today’s, a world utterly unprepared for this new mega-mind. The extinction of humans (and every other species) would rapidly follow (“doom”). The Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) would then spend countless eons fulfilling its desires, desires which we humans would find to be bizarre and pointless.

Now, I don’t endorse every word of that foom & doom scenario above—for example, I don’t think “foom” requires recursive self-improvement. But I’m in much closer agreement with that scenario than the vast majority of AI safety & alignment researchers today, who tend to see the “foom & doom” scenario above as somewhere between “extraordinarily unlikely” and “already falsified”!

Those researchers are not asking each other “is it true?”, but rather “lol, can you believe that some people used to believe that?”. Oh well. Laugh all you want. It’s still what I believe.

Conversely, from my perspective as a foom & doomer, it’s the mainstream contemporary AI alignment discourse that feels increasingly foreign and strange. How, I ask myself, do so many seemingly reasonable people wind up with such wildly, bafflingly over-optimistic beliefs as “P(doom)≲50%”??

Anyway, my main goal in these two posts is to explore how I wind up in such a different place as most other alignment researchers do today, on the question of foom & doom. I don’t particularly expect to win skeptical readers over to my side, but would at least like to convey that foom & doom is a story that hangs together and deserves a modicum of consideration.

Part 2:Doom.

A decade or two ago, it was pretty common to discuss “foom & doom” scenarios, as advocated especially by Eliezer Yudkowsky. In a typical such scenario, a small team would build a system that would rocket (“foom”) from “unimpressive” to “Artificial Superintelligence” (ASI) within a very short time window (days, weeks, maybe months), involving very little compute (e.g. “brain in a box in a basement”), via recursive self-improvement. Absent some future technical breakthrough, the “Artificial Superintelligence” (ASI) would definitely be egregiously misaligned, without the slightest intrinsic interest in whether humans live or die. The Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) would be born into a world generally much like today’s, a world utterly unprepared for this new mega-mind. The extinction of humans (and every other species) would rapidly follow (“doom”). The Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) would then spend countless eons fulfilling its desires, desires which we humans would find to be bizarre and pointless.

Now, I don’t endorse every word of that foom & doom scenario above—for example, I don’t think “foom” requires recursive self-improvement. But I’m in much closer agreement with that scenario than the vast majority of AI safety & alignment researchers today, who tend to see the “foom & doom” scenario above as somewhere between “extraordinarily unlikely” and “already falsified”!

Those researchers are not asking each other “is it true?”, but rather “lol, can you believe that some people used to believe that?”. Oh well. Laugh all you want. It’s still what I believe.

Conversely, from my perspective as a foom & doomer, it’s the mainstream contemporary AI alignment discourse that feels increasingly foreign and strange. How, I ask myself, do so many seemingly reasonable people wind up with such wildly, bafflingly over-optimistic beliefs as “P(doom)≲50%”??

Anyway, my main goal in these two posts is to explore how I wind up in such a different place as most other alignment researchers do today, on the question of foom & doom. I don’t particularly expect to win skeptical readers over to my side, but would at least like to convey that foom & doom is a story that hangs together and deserves a modicum of consideration.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-23/tesla-robotaxi-videos-show-speeding-driving-into-wrong-lane

4.4 miles roundtrip (to falls only)
Easy, 475 ft elevation gain

This trail starts by crossing the N Saskatchewan river over a large pedestrian bridge. From there you will continue upstream from where the Siffleur river ends up to the main waterfall area, passing through an expansive grassland and above the canyon carved by the river. Trail may be extended well beyond the falls, I turned it into a 9.4 mile total, which I’ll post some pics for tomorrow. This trail probably doesn’t need splitting, but I’m gonna do it anyways haha.

Siffleur falls roars its way down into the canyon.

A fraction of the overall falls can be seen from this upper viewpoint. The majority is diverted behind the rock in frame.

Looking along the deep trench walls at the end of the canyon as the Siffleur river continues on.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/apple-sued-by-shareholders-over-ai-disclosures-2025-06-20/

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/apple-sued-by-shareholders-over-ai-disclosures-2025-06-20/

1. Corrupt BEAD Revisions Are Undermining Affordable Broadband Access
2. Forcing States to Choose Between Broadband Funding and AI Regulation
3. Auctioning Spectrum at the Expense of Wi-Fi
4. Defunding the Digital Equity Act

4 Ways the Trump Administration Has Sabotaged America’s Broadband Future - Public Knowledge

The Trump administration's broadband policies clearly prioritize economic and political gain over the American public interest.

^{Sara Collins (Public Knowledge)}

1. Corrupt BEAD Revisions Are Undermining Affordable Broadband Access
2. Forcing States to Choose Between Broadband Funding and AI Regulation
3. Auctioning Spectrum at the Expense of Wi-Fi
4. Defunding the Digital Equity Act

4 Ways the Trump Administration Has Sabotaged America’s Broadband Future - Public Knowledge

The Trump administration's broadband policies clearly prioritize economic and political gain over the American public interest.

^{Sara Collins (Public Knowledge)}

If so, which one works or did your account get banned?

I've included a link for an app but it appears to be a couple of years old now and might not work.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=how+to+earn+microsoft+points+using+bing&mid=60A16201CE8354E3558060A16201CE8354E35580

Right now, somewhere, a company you’ve never talked to — maybe never even heard of — might be deciding whether you get a loan, an apartment, or even how long you spend in prison.

We already know the power of algorithms to shape what we see and who we talk to on social media. But that’s just the surface. Algorithms are deeply embedded in dozens of other industries and often make decisions with life-changing impacts. And they rely on data they get from data brokers.

But how does it work? What exactly is the role of data brokers in feeding these algorithms? What are the real-world consequences of this shadowy business? And most important: What can we do to ensure fairness and accountability, especially as we hurtle toward a future in which AI-driven decision-making grows exponentially?

How data brokers shape your life | Proton

You might be surprised how much of your life is affected by AI decision-making using data from data brokers. We explain its issues and how to protect yourself.

^Proton