What makes some runners faster than all the rest, and can we calculate how the factors interact? CC-licensed photo by Helgi Halldórsson on Flickr.
You can sign up to receive each day’s Start Up post by email. You’ll need to click a confirmation link, so no spam.
A selection of 10 links for you. Faster, pussycat! I’m @charlesarthur on Twitter. On Threads: charles_arthur. On Mastodon: https://newsie.social/@charlesarthur. Observations and links welcome.
Analysis: global CO2 emissions could peak as soon as this year, IEA data reveals • Carbon Brief
Carbon Brief Staff:
»
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy use and industry could peak as soon as this year, according to Carbon Brief analysis of figures from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The IEA’s latest World Energy Outlook 2023 says it now expects CO2 emissions to peak “in the mid-2020s” and an accompanying press release says this will happen “by 2025”.
Yet the IEA’s own data shows the peak in global CO2 coming as early as this year, partly due to what the outlook describes as the “legacy” of the global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Other highlights from Carbon Brief’s in-depth examination of the outlook include:
• Global fossil fuel use peaking in 2025, two years earlier than expected last year
• For the first time, coal, oil and gas each peaking before 2030 under current policies
• Fossil fuel peaks being driven by the “unstoppable” growth of low-carbon technologies
• The IEA boosting its outlook for global solar capacity in 2050 by 69% since last year
• The IEA expecting 20% more electric vehicles on the road in 2030 than it did last year
• A key focus on slowing economic growth and faster low-carbon uptake in China, where fossil fuel demand is now expected to peak in 2024.Yet climate policies remain far from sufficient to limit warming to 1.5C, the IEA warns.
«
Good news! Apart from the last bit. Crouching ovation?
unique link to this extract
People are speaking with ChatGPT for hours, bringing 2013’s Her closer to reality • Ars Technica
Benj Edwards:
»
Last week, we related a story in which AI researcher Simon Willison spent a long time talking to ChatGPT verbally. “I had an hourlong conversation while walking my dog the other day,” he told Ars for that report. “At one point, I thought I’d turned it off, and I saw a pelican, and I said to my dog, ‘Oh, wow, a pelican!’ And my AirPod went, ‘A pelican, huh? That’s so exciting for you! What’s it doing?’ I’ve never felt so deeply like I’m living out the first ten minutes of some dystopian sci-fi movie.”
When we asked Willison if he had seen Her, he replied, “I actually watched that movie for the first time the other day because people kept talking about that,” Willison said. “And yeah, the AirPod plus ChatGPT voice mode thing really is straight out of that movie.”
It turns out that Willison’s experience is far from unique. Others have been spending hours talking to ChatGPT using its voice recognition and voice synthesis features, sometimes through car connections. The realistic nature of the voice interaction feels largely effortless, but it’s not flawless. Sometimes, it has trouble in noisy environments, and there can be a pause between statements. But the way the ChatGPT voices simulate vocal ticks and noises feels very human. “I’ve been using the voice function since yesterday and noticed that it makes breathing sounds when it speaks,” said one Reddit user. “It takes a deep breath before starting a sentence. And today, actually a minute ago, it coughed between words while answering my questions.”
ChatGPT is also apparently useful as a brainstorming partner. Speaking things out with other people has long been recognized as a helpful way to re-frame ideas in your mind, and ChatGPT can serve a similar role when other humans aren’t around.
On Sunday, an X user named “stoop kid” posted advice for having a creative development session with ChatGPT on the go. After prompting about helping with world-building and plotlines, he wrote, “turn on speaking mode, put in headphones, and go for a walk.” In a reply, he described going on a one hour walk in which he “fully thought out an idea for a novel” with the help of ChatGPT. “It flowed out so naturally from the questioning, and walking and talking is sooooo easy.”
«
Maybe we should all rewatch Her, because it seems to be coming true at quite a rate.
unique link to this extract
Why Apple’s weather app isn’t accurate • Vox
Alex Abad-Santos:
»
My needs are simple: I want to know if it’s going to rain, how much it’s going to rain, when the rain will start and when it’ll stop. Ideally, I would like to not have to go outside to check if it’s raining, because why else would I have a powerful computer in my hand if it couldn’t tell me things that were happening around me?
“The Apple weather app is not good for specifics,” says John Homenuk, the meteorologist behind NY Metro Weather. Homenuk has gained a loyal New York City following for his accurate and jaunty daily weather forecasts. “And, unfortunately, specifics is what we need if we’re planning our life. ‘Do I need a jacket tonight? Is it gonna rain when I go to sit on the rooftop later?’ It struggles with that type of stuff.”
Homenuk explained to me that Apple’s weather app, and weather apps in general, work by using algorithms to interpret data — weather models, location, current observations — culled from various sources. Other experts I spoke to said apps don’t disclose what data they’re using nor how frequently they source the data, which can lead to imprecise readings.
These algorithms also have limits. In weather forecasting, these limits show up because those equations are based on models that meteorologists understand to be imperfect.
“There’s one big model that is used not only in apps, but weather data around the United States. It’s called the GFS, the Global Forecast System,” Homenuk said, adding that the GFS tends to err on the side of speed, sometimes projecting storms going out to sea and out of the area faster than anticipated. Meteorologists who understand the GFS know its faults, and use those faults and what the GFS is predicting to provide a more accurate forecast.
«
They cracked the code to a locked USB drive worth $235m in bitcoin. Then it got weird • WIRED
Andy Greenberg:
»
IronKeys are designed to permanently erase their contents if someone tries just 10 incorrect password guesses. But Unciphered’s hackers had developed a secret IronKey password-cracking technique—one that they’ve still declined to fully describe to me or anyone else outside their company—that gave them essentially infinite tries. My USB stick had reached Unciphered’s lab on Tuesday, and I was somewhat surprised to see my three-word passphrase texted back to me the very next morning. With the help of a high-performance computer, Smith told me, the process had taken only 200 trillion tries.
Smith’s demonstration was not merely a hacker party trick. He and Unciphered’s team have spent close to eight months developing a capability to crack this specific, decade-old model of IronKey for a very particular reason: They believe that in a vault in a Swiss bank 5,000 miles to the east of their Seattle lab, an IronKey that’s just as vulnerable to this cracking technique holds the keys to 7,002 bitcoins, worth close to $235 million at current exchange rates.
For years, Unciphered’s hackers and many others in the crypto community have followed the story of a Swiss crypto entrepreneur living in San Francisco named Stefan Thomas, who owns this 2011-era IronKey, and who has lost the password to unlock it and access the nine-figure fortune it contains. Thomas has said in interviews that he’s already tried eight incorrect guesses, leaving only two more tries before the IronKey erases the keys stored on it and he loses access to his bitcoins forever.
Now, after months of work, Unciphered’s hackers believe they can open Thomas’ locked treasure chest, and they’re ready to use their secret cracking technique to do it. “We were hesitant to reach out to him until we had a full, provable, reliable attack,” says Smith, who asked WIRED not to reveal his real name due to the sensitivities of working with secret hacking techniques and very large sums of cryptocurrency. “Now we’re in that place.”
The only problem: Thomas doesn’t seem to want their help.
«
Thomas has other people helping him. You wouldn’t know them, they go to a different cryptography school.
unique link to this extract
The race to destroy PFAS, the forever chemicals • MIT Technology Review
John Wiegand:
»
PFAS stands for “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances,” a family of upwards of 15,000 or more human-made and incredibly durable chemical compounds that have been used in countless industrial and consumer applications for decades. Firefighting foams, waterproof hiking boots, raincoats, nonstick frying pans, dental floss, lipstick, and even the ink used to label packaging—all can contain PFAS. The compounds are ubiquitous in drinking water and soil, even migrating to Arctic sea ice. PFAS are called forever chemicals because once present in the environment, they do not degrade or break down. They accumulate, are transferred throughout the watershed, and ultimately persist.
The quest to reduce the amount of PFAS in the environment is what led me to an industrial park in a southern suburb of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The jar of PFAS concentrate in my hand is part of a demonstration arranged by my hosts, Revive Environmental, during a tour of the company’s PFAS destruction site, one of the first in the country to operate commercially and at scale. A few yards in front of me sits the company’s PFAS “Annihilator” in a white shipping container.
The Annihilator represents just one of several technologies now vying to break down and destroy PFAS. These span the gamut from established processes like electrochemical oxidation and supercritical water oxidation to emerging techniques relying on ultraviolet light, plasma, ultrasound, or catalyst-driven thermal processes. Some are deployed in field tests. Other companies are actively running pilot programs, many with various divisions of the US Department of Defense and other government agencies. And many other technologies are still undergoing laboratory research.
There’s good reason for this. Not only are PFAS everywhere around us; they’re also in us. Humans can’t break down PFAS, and our bodies struggle to clear them from our systems. Studies suggest they’re in my blood and yours—the majority of Americans’, in fact—and they have been linked to increased risks of kidney and testicular cancer, decreased infant birthweights, and high blood pressure. And that’s only what we know about now: researchers continue to grapple with the full impacts of PFAS on human and environmental health.
«
Norway EV sales data • Robbie Andrew
Andrew compiles and graphs data from Norway about EV sales. The latest shows that ICE (petrol and diesel) vehicles can been just 4% of sales so far in 2023. A perhaps more interesting statistic is that “the average EV is driven further each year than the average car with an internal combustion engine.”
In fact his graph shows that distance travelled by ICE passenger cars in Norway peaked in 2014; total distance has remained about the same, but more than a third is now covered by electrics and hybrids.
It’s a fascinating page, worth musing over, and wondering if someone would be able to do anything comparable for the UK and/or other countries.
unique link to this extract
Self-checkout is a failed experiment • The Atlantic
Amanda Mull:
»
All is not rosy in the world of self-checkout, and some companies seem to realize it. Walmart has removed the kiosks entirely from a handful of stores, and is redesigning others to involve more employee help. Costco is stationing more staffers in its self-checkout areas. ShopRite is adding cashiers back into stores where it had trialed a self-checkout-only model, citing customer backlash. None of this is an indication that self-checkout is over, exactly. But several decades in, the kiosks as Americans have long known them are beginning to look like a failure.
Before self-checkout’s grand promise could be sold to the general public, it had to be sold to retailers. Third-party firms introduced the kiosks starting in the 1980s, but they didn’t take off at first. In 2001, when the machines were finally winning over major retailers in masse, K-Mart was frank about its motivations for adopting them: Kiosks would cut wait times and allow the company to hire fewer clerks. Self-checkout is expensive to install—the average four-kiosk setup runs around $125,000, and large stores can have 10 or more kiosks apiece. But write one big check up front, the logic goes, and that investment eventually pays off. Human employees get sick, ask for raises, want things. Computerized kiosks always show up for work, and customers do the job of cashiers for free.
Except, as the journalist Nathaniel Meyersohn wrote for CNN last year , most of this theory hasn’t exactly panned out. The widespread introduction of self-checkout kiosks did enable shoestring staffing inside many stores, but it created plenty of other expenses too. Self-checkout machines might always be at work, but, on any given day, lots of them aren’t actually working. The technology tends to be buggy and unreliable, and the machines’ maintenance requires a lot of expensive IT workers.
«
This is pretty amazing to me, in the UK. Self-checkout (and “unexpected item in bagging area”) is an absolute staple of every* large supermarket and many lesser convenience stores – partly because it works, and also because people aren’t paying with cash, but with cards. When I went to America I was consistently amazed by the presence of people who put your shopping into bags at the checkout, which strikes me as possibly the most unproductive job it’s possible to have: literally moving items a few centimetres into containers, which almost any customer can do.
* except where petty crime is a serious problem, but then you have bigger problems than self-checkout not working.
unique link to this extract
One year on, Twitter continues to burn a hole through bank balance sheets • WSJ
Alexander Saeedy and Cara Lombardo:
»
Seven banks including Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Barclays lent Musk around $13bn to buy Twitter a year ago this coming Friday. Under normal circumstances, they would have unloaded the debt to Wall Street investment firms soon thereafter. But investor appetite for Twitter, which Musk has since renamed X, has cooled since the billionaire took over, forcing the banks to hold the debt on their own balance sheets at a discounted value.
The banks currently expect to take a hit of at least 15%, or roughly $2bn, when they sell the debt, people familiar with the matter said. That would mean hundreds of millions in losses for those holding the largest pieces, which include Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays and MUFG. BNP Paribas, Société Générale and Mizuho were also involved.
After holding the debt for a year—an eternity in the corporate-finance world—the banks, which had hoped they could sell it by Labor Day, have recently begun preparations to try to unload at least some of it, the people said.
First they must secure a rating from the likes of Moody’s and S&P, a quality seal investors such as mutual funds and loan managers typically require. If X receives a low credit rating, it would be hard for the banks to sell the debt to a broad investor base without taking an even bigger loss than what they are already anticipating. Bankers close to the deal say that Musk’s capricious management and a weakening advertising market could point to a junk-bond rating, a designation reserved for companies at higher risk of defaulting.
«
There’s also the story from the user (or perhaps management) side, told in charts, which all basically go to the right and down, which is not the direction usually desired.
One has to wonder if anyone is going to get fired at those banks. Equally, junk bonds attract high coupon rates, though that might just mean the same interest payments (so nothing changes for better or worse at Twitter) but a lower bond price.
unique link to this extract
Why are you so slow? • Probably Overthinking It
Allen Downey:
»
If you are a fan of the Atlanta Braves, a Major League Baseball team, or if you watch enough videos on the internet, you have probably seen one of the most popular forms of between-inning entertainment: a foot race between one of the fans and a spandex-suit-wearing mascot called the Freeze.
The route of the race is the dirt track that runs across the outfield, a distance of about 160 meters, which the Freeze runs in less than 20 seconds. To keep things interesting, the fan gets a head start of about 5 seconds. That might not seem like a lot, but if you watch one of these races, this lead seems insurmountable. However, when the Freeze starts running, you immediately see the difference between a pretty good runner and a very good runner. With few exceptions, the Freeze runs down the fan, overtakes them, and coasts to the finish line with seconds to spare.
But as fast as he is, the Freeze is not even a professional runner; he is a member of the Braves’ ground crew named Nigel Talton. In college, he ran 200 meters in 21.66 seconds, which is very good. But the 200 meter collegiate record is 20.1 seconds, set by Wallace Spearmon in 2005, and the current world record is 19.19 seconds, set by Usain Bolt in 2009.
[After showing a graph of how racers’ speeds tends towards a Gaussian distribution]: I have a theory, based on the following assumptions:
• First, everyone has a maximum speed they are capable of running, assuming that they train effectively
• Second, these speed limits can depend on many factors, including height and weight, fast- and slow-twitch muscle mass, cardiovascular conditioning, flexibility and elasticity, and probably more
• Finally, the way these factors interact tends to be multiplicative; that is, each person’s speed limit depends on the product of multiple factors.Here’s why I think speed depends on a product rather than a sum of factors. If all of your factors are good, you are fast; if any of them are bad, you are slow. Mathematically, the operation that has this property is multiplication.
«
Multiplicativity is obvious once explained, but not before. The video in the post of the Freeze running people down is remarkable, and really shows how big the gap between “good” and “very good” is. And yet there’s a far bigger gap to “great”.
unique link to this extract
How to catch iMessage impersonators with Contact Key Verification in iOS 17.2 • 9to5Mac
Michael Potuck:
»
Apple has delivered the first iOS 17.2 beta and with it comes a brand new security feature for iMessage. Called Contact Key Verification (CKV), the capability gives users more certainty they’re messaging with the people they think they are.
When enabled, the opt-in Contact Key Verification gives automatic alerts if the iMessage key distribution services return device keys that have not been verified (e.g. if an unrecognized device has been added to an iMessage account).
And even more security is available by using CKV in person, on FaceTime, or via another secure method. You can read more on the details of how CKV works in our full coverage here.
Apple has not seen an attack like this – which would be quite advanced – but CKV arriving with iOS 17.2 means Apple is staying a step ahead of hackers and giving users more peace of mind.
Even though a very small percentage of iPhone users may need security of this level, the neat part is turning it on doesn’t reduce the functionality of your iPhone or iMessage – so it could end up being more widely used than something like Lockdown Mode.
«
This seems like it would require a very advanced attack – someone who has your login details so they can just add a device to your account – but might work for those potentially being attacked by state actors.
unique link to this extract
| • Why do social networks drive us a little mad? • Why does angry content seem to dominate what we see? • How much of a role do algorithms play in affecting what we see and do online? • What can we do about it? • Did Facebook have any inkling of what was coming in Myanmar in 2016? Read Social Warming, my latest book, and find answers – and more. |
Errata, corrigenda and ai no corrida: none notified
The Overspill: when there's more that I want to say 