ArduinoMania

Tesla is building a new battery factory in Shanghai. On Sunday, the automaker announced it would start construction on a new Megapack facility later this year. Once the plant is complete sometime before the second half of 2024, it will be capable of producing 10,000 Megapacks annually. Each container-sized battery can store enough energy to power about 3,600 homes for one hour. Tesla told Bloomberg it plans to sell the Megapacks it makes in China globally. The company has built Megapack installations in a few locations around the world, including Texas and South Australia.

Sunday’s announcement sees Tesla increasing its reliance on China at a time when the US is using economic policy to push automakers and other manufacturers to produce more of their products domestically. At the end of last month, the Treasury Department issued updated guidance detailing what electric vehicles qualify for the Inflation Reduction Act’s $7,500 EV tax credit. Under the updated rules, the department states companies must source the minerals in their car batteries from the US and other approved trading partners for the vehicles to qualify for the incentive. Separately, the Biden administration recently said CHIPS Act funding recipients would need to sign agreements promising they won’t expand production capacity in China.

In a reversal of a limitation the platform put in place earlier in the week, Twitter is once again allowing users to interact with Substack links freely. At least for the time being, you can retweet, reply to and like posts that feature a link to a Substack newsletter. The platform also won’t issue a safety warning if you click those links. However, as of the writing of this article, searching for “substack” still produces results involving the word “newsletter.”

“We’re glad to see that the suppression of Substack publications on Twitter appears to be over,” Substack tweeted late Saturday evening. “This is the right move for writers, who deserve the freedom to share their work.”

Twitter began throttling Substack links mere days after the company announced Substack Notes, a feature that adds a Twitter-like feed to the newsletter platform. When Elon Musk eventually addressed the situation, he claimed Substack was “trying to download a massive portion of the Twitter database to bootstrap their Twitter clone,” an assertion Chris Best, the CEO of Substrack, strongly denied. “None of this is true,” he said in a Notes post shared with The Verge. “This is very frustrating. It’s one thing to mess with Substack, but quite another to treat writers this way.” Among other outcomes, Musk’s decision to limit access to Substack led to a feud with Matt Taibbi, the journalist who worked on the so-called “Twitter Files.” On Friday afternoon, Taibbi said he was quitting Twitter over the restrictions.

For it is worth, this week’s episode doesn’t seem to have convinced Substack to alter its plans around Notes. “We look forward to making Substack Notes available soon,” the company said. “But we expect it to be a new kind of place within a subscription network, not a replacement for existing social networks.”

Respawn Entertainment and Electronic Arts have shared one final look at Star Wars Jedi: Survivor ahead of the game’s release later this month. Released on Sunday during Disney’s ongoing Star Wars Celebration event in London, the clip offers a mix of story and gameplay highlights. Specifically, you can see protagonist Cal Kestis use his new crossguard lightsaber in combat, and join forces with a few non-playable companions, including Merrin from Jedi: Fallen Order, to take out a KX-series security droid. I won’t spoil the best part of the trailer, but I will mention it involves a speeder bike. If you want to go into the game blind, note that the trailer points at a few story beats – though Respawn suggests “not all images appear in-game.”

I got a chance to preview Jedi: Survivor at the end of last month. The game feels like a better, more polished version of Jedi: Fallen Order, with more things for the player to do and discover. If you’re a fan of the first game, or Star Wars more generally, I suspect you’ll want to check the game out. Star Wars Jedi: Survivor arrives on April 28th on PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X/S and PC.

It's never been about safety as much as it has control, serving and protecting only to the benefit of the status quo. Clearview AI, PredPol, Shotspotter, they're all Carolyn Bryant Donham's testimony behind a veneer of technological validity — a shiny black box to dazzle the masses while giving the police yet another excuse to fatally bungle their search warrants. In More than a Glitch, data journalist and New York University Associate Professor of Journalism Dr. Meredith Broussard, explores how and why we thought automating aspects of already racially-skewed legal, banking, and social systems would be a good idea. From facial recognition tech that doesn't work on dark-skinned folks to mortgage approval algorithms that don't work for dark-skinned folks, Broussard points to a dishearteningly broad array of initiatives that done more harm than good, regardless of their intention. In the excerpt below, Dr. Broussard looks at America's technochauavnistic history of predictive policing. 

MIT Press

Excerpted from More than a Glitch: Confronting Race, Gender, and Ability Bias by Meredith Broussard. Reprinted with permission from The MIT Press. Copyright 2023.

Predictive policing comes from the “broken windows” era of policing and is usually credited to William Bratton, former New York City police commissioner and LAPD chief. As NYC police commissioner, Bratton launched CompStat, which is perhaps the best-known example of data-driven policing because it appeared as an antagonist called “Comstat” on season three of HBO’s The Wire. “CompStat, a management model linking crime and enforcement statistics, is multifaceted: it serves as a crime control strategy, a personnel performance and accountability metric, and a resource management tool,” writes sociologist Sarah Brayne in her book Predict and Surveil. “Crime data is collected in real time, then mapped and analyzed in preparation for weekly crime control strategy meetings between police executives and precinct commanders.” CompStat was widely adopted by police forces in major American cities in the 1990s and 2000s. By relying heavily on crime statistics as a performance metric, the CompStat era trained police and bureaucrats to prioritize quantification over accountability. Additionally, the weekly meetings about crime statistics served as rituals of quantification that led the participants to believe in the numbers in a way that created collective solidarity and fostered what organizational behaviorists Melissa Mazmanian and Christine Beckman call “an underlying belief in the objective authority of numbers to motivate action, assess success, and drive continuous organizational growth.” In other words: technochauvinism became the culture inside departments that adopted CompStat and other such systems. Organizational processes and controls became oriented around numbers that were believed to be “objective” and “neutral.” This paved the way for the adoption of AI and computer models to intensify policing—and intensify surveillance and harassment in communities that were already over-policed.

Computer models are only the latest trend in a long history of people imagining that software applied to crime will make us safer. In Black Software, Charlton McIlwain traced the history of police imagining that software equals salvation as far back as the 1960s, the dawn of the computational era. Back then, Thomas J. Watson, Jr., the head of IBM, was trying to popularize computers so more people would buy them. Watson had also committed (financially and existentially) to the War on Poverty declared by President Lyndon Johnson upon his election in 1964. “Watson searched for opportunities to be relevant,” McIlwain writes. “He said he wanted to help address the social ills that plagued society, particularly the plight of America’s urban poor... He didn’t know what he was doing.”6 Watson wanted to sell computers and software, so he offered his company’s computational expertise for an area that he knew nothing about, in order to solve a social problem that he didn’t understand using tools that the social problem experts didn’t understand. He succeeded, and it set up a dynamic between Big Tech and policing that still persists. Software firms like Palantir, Clearview AI, and PredPol create biased targeting software that they label “predictive policing,” as if it were a positive innovation. They convince police departments to spend taxpayer dollars on biased software that ends up making citizens’ lives worse. In the previous chapter, we saw how facial recognition technology leads police to persecute innocent people after a crime has been committed. Predictive policing technology leads police to pursue innocent people before a crime even takes place.

It’s trIcky to write about specific policing software because what Chicago’s police department does is not exactly the same as what LAPD or NYPD does. It is hard to say exactly what is happening in each police agency because the technology is changing constantly and is being deployed in different ways. The exact specifications tend to be buried in vendor contracts. Even if a police department buys software, it is not necessarily being used, nor is it being used in precisely the way it was intended. Context matters, and so does the exact implementation of technology, as well as the people who use it. Consider license plate readers, which are used to collect tolls or to conduct surveillance. Automated license plate readers used by a state transportation authority to automatically collect tolls is probably an acceptable use of AI and automated license plate reader technology—if the data is not stored for a long time. The same license plate reader tech used by police as part of dragnet surveillance, with data stored indefinitely, is problematic.

Every time the public has become aware of some predictive policing measure, controversy has erupted. Consider the person-based predictive policing enacted by the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office in Florida, which created a watchlist of people it considered future criminals. Tampa Bay Times reporters Kathleen McGrory and Neil Bedi won a Pulitzer for their story about how the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office generated lists of people it considered likely to break the law. The list was compiled by using data on arrest histories and unspecified intelligence, coupled with arbitrary decisions by police analysts. The sheriff’s department sent deputies to monitor and harass the people on the watchlist. Often, the deputies lacked probable cause, search warrants, or evidence of a crime. In five years, almost 1,000 people were caught up in the systematic harassment labeled “Intelligence-Led Policing.” Notably, a large percentage of the people on the watchlist were BIPOC.

The Pasco program started in 2011, shortly after Chris Nocco took office as sheriff. Nocco came up with the idea to “reform” the department with data-driven initiatives. “For 10 years, nobody really understood how this worked, and the public wasn’t aware of what was going on,” said Bedi, explaining the reporting project.8 The sheriff built a “controversial data-driven approach to policing. He also built a wide circle of powerful friends,” including local and national politicians, who didn’t question his actions.

The harassment didn’t stop there, however. Separately, the Sheriff’s Office created a list of schoolchildren it considered likely to become future criminals. The office gathered data from local schools, including protected information like children’s grades, school attendance records, and child welfare histories. Parents and teachers were not told that children were designated as future criminals, nor did they understand that the students’ private data was being weaponized. The school system’s superintendent initially didn’t realize the police had access to student data, said Kathleen McGrory.

Once the investigation was published, civil liberties groups denounced the intelligence programs. Thirty groups formed a coalition to protest, and four of the targeted people brought lawsuits against the agency. Two bills were proposed to prevent this kind of invasion and misuse in the future. The federal Department of Education opened an investigation into the data sharing between the Sheriff’s Office and the local school district. Fortunately, as a result, police analysts will no longer have access to student grades.

Many people imagine that using more technology will make things “fairer.” This is behind the idea of using machines instead of judges, an idea that surfaces periodically among lawyers and computer scientists. We see it in the adoption of body-worn cameras, an initiative that has been growing since LAPD officers brutally assaulted Rodney King in 1991 and the attack was captured on a home camcorder. There’s an imaginary world where everything is captured on video, there are perfectly fair and objective algorithms that adjudicate what happens in the video feed, facial recognition identifies bad actors, and the heroic police officers go in and save the day and capture the bad guys. This fantasy is taken to its logical conclusion in the film Minority Report, where Tom Cruise plays a police officer who arrests people before they commit crimes, on the recommendation of some teenagers with precognition who are held captive in a swimming pool full of goo. “It’s just like Minority Report,” a police officer marveled to sociologist Sarah Brayne, when the two were discussing Palantir’s policing software.

What makes this situation additionally difficult is the fact that many of the people involved in the chain are not malevolent. For example, my cousin, who is white, was a state police officer for years. He’s wonderful and kind and honest and upstanding and exactly the person I would call on if I were in trouble. He and his family are very dear to me and I to them. I believe in the law, and I believe in law enforcement in the abstract, in the way that many people do when they have the privilege of not interacting with or being targeted by law enforcement or the courts.

But the origins of policing are problematic for Black people like me, and the frequency of egregious abuses by police is out of control in today’s United States. Police technology and machine fairness are the reasons why we need to pause and fix the human system before implementing any kind of digital system in policing.

The current system of policing in the United States, with the Fraternal Order of Police and the uniforms and so on, began in South Carolina. Specifically, it emerged in the 1700s in Charleston, South Carolina, as a slave patrol. “It was quite literally a professional force of white free people who came together to maintain social control of black, enslaved people living inside the city of Charleston,” said ACLU Policing Policy Director Paige Fernandez in a 2021 podcast. “They came together for the sole purpose of ensuring that enslaved black people did not organize and revolt and push back on slavery. That is the first example of a modern police department in the United States.” In her book Dark Matters: Surveillance of Blackness, scholar Simone Brown connects modern surveillance of Black bodies to chattel slavery via lantern laws, which were eighteenth-century laws in New York City requiring Black or mixed-race people to carry a lantern if out at night unaccompanied by a white person. Scholar Josh Scannell sees lantern laws as the precedent for today’s policy of police using floodlights to illuminate high-crime areas all night long. People who live in heavily policed neighborhoods never get the peaceful cloak of darkness, as floodlights make it artificially light all night long and the loud drone of the generators for the lights makes the neighborhood noisier.

The ACLU’s Fernandez draws a line from slave patrols maintaining control over Black people to the development of police departments to the implementation of Jim Crow–era rules and laws to police enforcing segregation during the civil rights era and inciting violence against peaceful protestors to escalating police violence against Black and Brown people and leading to the Black Lives Matter movement. Fernandez points out that the police tear-gassed and pepper-sprayed peaceful protestors in the summer of 2020, fired rubber bullets at protestors, charged at protestors, and used techniques like kettling to corner protestors into closed spaces where violence could be inflicted more easily.

The statistics paint a grim picture. “Black people are 3.5 times more likely than white people to be killed by police when Blacks are not attacking or do not have a weapon. George Floyd is an example,” writes sociologist Rashawn Ray in a 2020 Brookings Institute policy brief about police accountability.14 “Black teenagers are 21 times more likely than white teenagers to be killed by police. That’s Tamir Rice and Antwon Rose. A Black person is killed about every 40 hours in the United States. That’s Jonathan Ferrell and Korryn Gaines. One out of every one thousand Black men can expect to be killed by police violence over the life course. This is Tamir Rice and Philando Castile.” When Derek Chauvin, the police officer who killed George Floyd, was found guilty, it was remarkable because police are so rarely held accountable for violence against Black and Brown bodies.

Reform is needed. That reform, however, will not be found in machines.

Twitter has removed a label that designated NPR as a “US state-affiliated” media outlet mere days after first applying the label earlier this week. As of Saturday, the company now lists the public broadcaster as a “government funded” organization. NPR tech reporter Bobby Allyn was the first to report on the change. He said Elon Musk told him Twitter would apply the “government funded” designation to other institutions in the coming days. “Tesla, which has received billions of dollars in government subsidies over the years, does not appear to have the label,” Allyn added.

The main NPR account has not tweeted since Twitter first applied the state-affiliated label on Wednesday. After NPR CEO John Lansing issued a statement pointing out that the “state-affiliate” did not apply to the public broadcaster under Twitter’s own guidelines, the company changed those guidelines. "State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media," the page said before Tuesday. By Wednesday, the company had removed the section of text that had referenced NPR. According to NPR, less than one percent of its annual operating budget comes from government grants. Over the last five years, the majority of the non-profit’s revenue, about 70 percent, has come from corporate sponsorships and programming fees.

Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi is heading back to theaters. At its Star Wars Celebrations event in London, Disney announced today it would rerelease the classic film in cinemas in the US, UK and other parts of the world on April 28th. The theatrical rerun will give Star Wars fans the chance to celebrate the movie ahead of its 40th anniversary on May 25th.

Return of the Jedi won’t be the first time Disney has brought an old Star Wars film to theaters. Last year saw the brief return of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story to the silver screen in anticipation of the debut of Andor on Disney+. In 2020, it was also possible to see The Empire Strikes Back in theaters in between Covid-19 lockdowns. Looking to the future, fans can look forward to three new Star Wars films, one of which will feature the return of Daisy Ridley as Rey.

Separately, Disney announced on Saturday that a new season of Tales of the Jedi is in production. Creator Dave Filoni shared the news during a Star Wars Celebrations panel dedicated to The Clone War. “Tales of the Jedi was so fun the first time, I decided to do some more,” he told event attendees. Filoni didn't say when the new season would debut, but between all the new live-action series coming to Disney+ over the next year-and-a-half, there won’t be a dearth of Star Wars content anytime soon.

Joseph Staten, one of the creatives most closely associated with the Halo franchise, is leaving Microsoft. News of the departure was first reported on Friday by IGN. “We’re grateful for Joseph’s contributions to the Halo franchise and Xbox as a whole," Microsoft told the outlet. “We wish him all the best in his new adventure.” Staten later confirmed the news that same day. "Hey folks, I am indeed leaving Microsoft,” he said on Twitter. “I'll have more info to share soon, but for now, I'd just like to thank all my Xbox colleagues for all their understanding and support as I embark on a new adventure."

Staten was a writer and director of cinematics for Bungie’s first three Halo games and later served as a co-creative director for Destiny. He left the studio in 2013 and joined Microsoft the following year as a senior creative director on the Xbox Games Studios team. In 2020, he moved over to 343 Industries to help the studio complete work on Halo Infinite. Staten’s departure from Microsoft comes following months of uncertainty around 343 and the future of Halo. In January, the company reassigned Staten to its Xbox publishing division at the same time that it “cut at least” 95 jobs at the studio. Later that same month, Bloomberg reported the studio was “starting from scratch” on a new Halo game following its struggle to maintain interest in Infinite. 

SpaceX could conduct Starship’s first orbital flight test as early as the week after next. On Thursday, the private space firm tweeted new photos of the super heavy-lift rocket at its Boca Chica facility in Texas. “Starship fully stacked at Starbase,” SpaceX said of the images. “Team is working towards a launch rehearsal next week followed by Starship’s first integrated flight test ~week later pending regulatory approval.” That same day, SpaceX owner Elon Musk offered an even more aggressive timeline. “Starship is stacked & ready to launch next week, pending regulatory approval,” he said on Twitter.

The date of Starship’s first orbital flight has been a moving target for nearly two years. At the start of February, a week after SpaceX successfully carried out the rocket’s first-ever stacked fueling test, Musk said the company would attempt to launch Starship in March if its remaining tests went well. Days later, SpaceX attempted to static fire all of the vehicle’s 33 first-stage Raptor engines, something it had not tried to do before. The trial was a critical step toward Starship’s first orbital flight, though the rocket didn’t exactly ace the test, with two engines failing before the end of the firing.

Still, the timeline Musk shared this week may be overly optimistic. According to Space.com, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) set a provisional April 17th launch window for Starship. However, the outlet reports the FAA has yet to grant SpaceX a launch license for the rocket, something it will need to do before Starship can legally fly.

If you missed the chance to buy the PlayStation 5 God of War: Ragnarok bundle when it was $50 off last month, now you have another opportunity to do so. Amazon is again offering the bundle for $509, down from $560. With the discount, you’re effectively getting God of War: Ragnarok for $10 since the disc variant of the PS5 will set you back $499 on its own.

Before this year, Sony’s latest console was notoriously tricky to find in stores and online due to pandemic-related supply shortages. That meant the console rarely went on sale, so while $50 off is not much of a discount, it is an all-time low price for the disc version of the PS5. The fact you get God of War: Ragnarok, one of the PlayStation 5’s best games, in the bundle makes this an even better deal. Now is also the perfect time to play the game. Sony’s Santa Monica Studio recently released a hefty update for Ragnarok that added an NG+ mode, alongside new armor and enhancements for players to collect.

Follow @EngadgetDeals on Twitter and subscribe to the Engadget Deals newsletter for the latest tech deals and buying advice.

On the surface, ChatGPT might seem like a tool that can come in useful for an array of work tasks. But before you ask the chatbot to summarize important memos or check your work for errors, it's worth remembering that anything you share with ChatGPT could be used to train the system and perhaps even pop up in its responses to other users. That's something several Samsung employees probably should have been aware of before they reportedly shared confidential information with the chatbot.

Soon after Samsung's semiconductor division started allowing engineers to use ChatGPT, workers leaked secret info to it on at least three occasions, according to The Economist Korea (as spotted by Mashable). One employee reportedly asked the chatbot to check sensitive database source code for errors, another solicited code optimization and a third fed a recorded meeting into ChatGPT and asked it to generate minutes.

Reports suggest that, after learning about the security slip-ups, Samsung attempted to limit the extent of future faux pas by restricting the length of employees' ChatGPT prompts to a kilobyte, or 1024 characters of text. The company is also said to be investigating the three employees in question and building its own chatbot to prevent similar mishaps. Engadget has contacted Samsung for comment.

ChatGPT's data policy states that, unless users explicitly opt out, it uses their prompts to train its models. The chatbot's owner OpenAI urges users not to share secret information with ChatGPT in conversations as it's “not able to delete specific prompts from your history.” The only way to get rid of personally identifying information on ChatGPT is to delete your account — a process that can take up to four weeks.

The Samsung saga is another example of why it's worth exercising caution when using chatbots, as you perhaps should with all your online activity. You never truly know where your data will end up.