Palantir launched a fellowship that recruited high school graduates directly into full-time work, bypassing college entirely. The company received more than 500 applications and selected 22 for the inaugural class. The four-month program began with seminars on Western civilization, U.S. history, and leaders including Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. Fellows then embedded in client teams working on live projects for hospitals, insurance companies, defense contractors, and government agencies.

CEO Alex Karp, who studied at Haverford and Stanford, said in August that hiring university students now means hiring people engaged in "platitudes." The program wraps up in November. Palantir executives said they had a clear sense by the third or fourth week of which fellows were succeeding in the company environment. Fellows who perform well will receive offers for permanent positions without college degrees.

"Rockstar Games fired dozens of employees," reports Bloomberg, "in a move that a British trade union said was designed to prevent the workers from unionizing. The company said they were fired for misconduct." TheGrand Theft Automaker terminatedbetween 30 and 40 staffersacross multipleoffices in the UK and Canada on Thursday, according to aspokesperson for the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain (IWGB). All of the employees were part of a private trade union chat groupon Discord and were either members of the union or attempting to organize at the company, the union spokesperson said.

"Rockstar has just carried out one of the most blatant and ruthless acts of union busting in the history of the games industry," Alex Marshall, president of theIWGB, said in a statement. "This flagrant contempt for the law and for the lives of the workers who bring in their billions is an insult to their fans and the global industry."
On BlueSky the IWGB union posted "We won't back down, and we're not scared — we will fight for every member to be reinstated."

Bloomberg notes that Grand Theft Auto VIis slated for release on May 26, 2026, "and is expected to be one of the top-selling video games of all time."

OpenAI "hasn't yet turned a profit," notes Wall Street Journal business columnist Tim Higgins. "Its annual revenue is 2% of Amazon.com's sales.

"Its future is uncertain beyond the hope of ushering in a godlike artificial intelligence that might help cure cancer and transform work and life as we know it. Still, it is brimming with hope and excitement.

"But what if OpenAI fails?" There's real concern that through many complicated and murky tech deals aimed at bolstering OpenAI's finances, the startup has become too big to fail. Or, put another way, if the hype and hope around Chief Executive Sam Altman's vision of the AI future fails to materialize, it could create systemic risk to the part of the U.S. economy likely keeping us out of recession.

That's rarefied air, especially for a startup. Few worried about what would happen if Pets.com failed in the dot-com boom. We saw in 2008-09 with the bank rescues and the Chrysler and General Motors bailouts what happens in the U.S. when certain companies become too big to fail...

[A]fter a lengthy effort to reorganize itself, OpenAI announced moves that will allow it to have a simpler corporate structure. This will help it to raise money from private investors and, presumably, become a publicly traded company one day. Already, some are talking about how OpenAI might be the first trillion-dollar initial public offering... Nobody is saying OpenAI is dabbling in anything like liar loans or subprime mortgages. But the startup is engaging in complex deals with the key tech-industry pillars, the sorts of companies making the guts of the AI computing revolution, such as chips and Ethernet cables. Those companies, including Nvidia and Oracle, are partnering with OpenAI, which in turn is committing to make big purchases in coming years as part of its growth ambitions.

Supporters would argue it is just savvy dealmaking. A company like Nvidia, for example, is putting money into a market-making startup while OpenAI is using the lofty value of its private equity to acquire physical assets... They're rooting for OpenAI as a once-in-a-generational chance to unseat the winners of the last tech cycles. After all, for some, OpenAI is the next Apple, Facebook, Google and Tesla wrapped up in one. It is akin to a company with limitless potential to disrupt the smartphone market, create its own social-media network, replace the search engine, usher in a robot future and reshape nearly every business and industry.... To others, however, OpenAI is something akin to tulip mania, the harbinger of the Great Depression, or the next dot-com bubble. Or worse, they see, a jobs killer and mad scientist intent on making Frankenstein.

But that's counting on OpenAI's success.

"It's been hard for me to understand why Atlas exists," writes MIT Technology Review. " Who is this browser for, exactly? Who is its customer? And the answer I have come to there is that Atlas is for OpenAI. The real customer, the true end user of Atlas, is not the person browsing websites, it is the company collecting data about what and how that person is browsing."

New York Magazine's "Intelligencer" column argues OpenAI wants ChatGPT in your browser because "That's where people who use computers, particularly for work, spend all their time, and through which vast quantities of valuable information flow in and out. Also, if you're a company hoping to train your models to replicate a bunch of white-collar work, millions of browser sessions would be a pretty valuable source of data."

Unfortunately, warns Fast Company, ChatGPT Atlas, Perplexity Comet, and other AI browses "include some major security, privacy, and usability trade-offs... Most of the time, I don't want to use them and am wary of doing so..." Worst of all, these browsers are security minefields. A web page that looks benign to humans can includehidden instructions for AI agents, tricking them into stealing info from other sites... "If you're signed into sensitive accounts like your bank or your email provider in your browser, simply summarizing a Reddit postcould result in an attacker being able to steal money or your private data,"Brave's security researchers wrotelast week.No one has figured out how to solve this problem.

If you can look past the security nightmares, the actual browsing features are substandard. Neither ChatGPT Atlas nor Perplexity Comet support vertical tabs — a must-have feature for me — and they have no tab search tool or way to look up recently-closed pages. Atlas also doesn't support saving sites as web apps, selecting multiple tabs (for instance, to close all at once with Cmd+W), or customizing the appearance. Compared to all the fancy new AI features, the web browsing part can feel like an afterthought. Regular web search can also be a hassle, even though you'll probably need it sometimes. When I typed "Sichuan Chili" into ChatGPT Atlas, it produced a lengthy description of the Chinese peppers, not the nearby restaurant whose website and number I was looking for.... Meanwhile, the standard AI annoyances still apply in the browser. Getting Perplexity to fill my grocery cart felt like a triumph, but on other occasions the AI has run into inexplicable walls and only ended up wasting more time.

There may be other costs to using these browsers as well. AI still has usage limits, and so all this eventually becomes a ploy to bump more people into paid tiers. Beyond that,Atlas is constantly analyzing the pages you visit to build a "memory" of who you are and what you're into. Do not be surprised if this translates to deeply targeted ads as OpenAI startslooking at ways to monetize free users. For now, I'm only using AI browsers in small doses when I think they can solve a specific problem.

Even then, I'm not going sign them into my email, bank accounts, or any other accounts for which a security breach would be catastrophic. It's too bad, because email and calendars are areas where AI agents could be truly useful, but the security risks are too great (andwell-documented).
The article notes that in August Vivaldi announced that "We're taking a stand, choosing humans over hype" with their browser: We will not use an LLM to add a chatbot, a summarization solution or a suggestion engine to fill up forms for you, until more rigorous ways to do those things are available. Vivaldi is the haven for people who still want to explore. We will continue building a browser for curious minds, power users, researchers, and anyone who values autonomy. If AI contributes to that goal without stealing intellectual property, compromising privacy or the open web, we will use it. If it turns people into passive consumers, we will not...

We're fighting for a better web.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: It's time for Xbox to eat some humble pie and perform some real soul-searching. Microsoft released its latest quarterly earnings report and proved the worst of our fears about its gaming brand. Not only are Xbox hardware sales down significantly, but the brand itself is barely treading water. Gamers are voicing their displeasure with their wallets, but Microsoft's top brass is still only thinking about the margins. Microsoft was more keen to promote the scale of its cloud and AI services revenue -- which was up 28% year over year -- than talk about its beleaguered gaming brand. The company's overall gaming revenue fell by 2% compared to the same time last year. This was precipitated by a "decline in Xbox hardware," which was down by 22% following a steady decline quarter after quarter. Its first-party games and its Game Pass subscription were doing better, though the overall growth was only up by 1%, and even that was driven by the "better-than-expected performance" of third-party games. You can give credit to titles like Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 for why Xbox isn't in an even deeper hole than it is now.

The tech giant has no expectation that its Xbox brand will start making more money anytime soon. In its earnings call with investors, Microsoft Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood said the company expects Xbox will continue to decline "in the low to mid-single digits" for the following quarter. That's mostly due to the lack of landmark first-party titles. Just this month, Xbox released Ninja Gaiden 4, The Outer Worlds 2, and Double Fine's The Keeper. Xbox also made a huge marketing push for its first handheld, made in partnership with Asus, the ROG Xbox Ally and Ally X. In any other year, this would be a big month for any gaming company. The dour outlook comes after months of bad news. After two subsequent price hikes, Xbox Series S and Series X consoles now cost between $100 to $150 more than they did at launch five years ago. Microsoft also pushed prices of its Game Pass Ultimate subscription tier from $20 to $30 per month. A full-year's subscription would now demand $360. In a separate article, Gizmodo reviews Microsoft's new ROG Xbox Ally X handheld, which "offers a better experience overall" than the "other small-scale Windows PC gaming devices released this year." However, "it's still nowhere close to what you truly want from a console."

Nvidia became the world's first $5 trillion company on Wednesday after its stock climbed 5% in early Wall Street trading to push its market capitalization to $5.13 trillion. The Silicon Valley chipmaker reached the milestone three months after hitting $4 trillion and three years after it was valued at roughly $400 billion before the debut of ChatGPT.

Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang said Tuesday that Nvidia had secured half a trillion dollars in orders for its AI chips over the next five quarters. The stock had already gained 5% on Tuesday and added more than $200 billion to its market value. President Donald Trump said Wednesday he planned to discuss Nvidia's Blackwell chip with China's President Xi Jinping when the two leaders meet later this week. Nvidia's latest generation of graphics processing units is not currently available in China because of US export controls. The company's shares have risen more than 85% in the past six months.

China is accelerating its biotech ambitions by pushing the limits of animal testing and gene editing (source paywalled; alternative source) while Western countries tighten ethical restrictions. "Editing the genes of large animals such as pigs, monkeys and dogs faces scant regulation in China," reports Bloomberg. "Meanwhile, regulators in the US and Europe demand layers of ethical reviews, rendering similar research involving large animals almost impossible." From the report: Backing the work of China's scientists is not only permissiveness but state money. In 2023 alone, the Chinese government funneled an estimated $3 billion into biotech. Its sales of cell and gene therapies are projected to reach $2 billion by 2033 from $300 million last year. On the Chinese researchers' side are government-supported breeding and research centers for gene-edited animals and a public largely in approval of pushing the boundaries of animal testing.

The country should become "a global scientific and technology power," Xi said, declaring biotechnology and gene editing a strategic priority. For decades, the country's pharmaceutical companies specialized in generics, reproducing drugs already pioneered elsewhere. Delving head first into gene editing research may be key to China's plan to develop innovative drugs as well as reduce its dependence on foreign pharmaceutical companies.

The result is a country that now dominates headlines with stories of large, genetically modified animals being produced for science -- and the catalog is startling. Its scientists have created monkeys with schizophrenia, autism and sleep disorders. They were the first to clone primates. They've engineered dogs with metabolic and neurological diseases, and even cloned a gene-edited beagle with a blood-clotting disorder.

hackingbear shares a report from Crypto News: Two Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) models, DeepSeek V3.1 and Alibaba's Qwen3-Max, have taken a commanding lead over their US counterparts in a live real-world real-money cryptocurrency trading competition, posting triple-digit gains in less than two weeks. According to Alpha Arena, a real-market trading challenge launched by US research firm Nof1, DeepSeek's Chat V3.1 turned an initial $10,000 into $22,900 by Monday, a 126% increase since trading began on October 18, while Qwen 3 Max followed closely with a 108% return.

In stark contrast, US models lagged far behind. OpenAI's GPT-5 posted the worst performance, losing nearly 60% of its portfolio, while Google DeepMind's Gemini 2.5 Pro showed a similar 57% decline. xAI's Grok 4 and Anthropic's Claude 4.5 Sonnet fared slightly better, returning 14% and 23% respectively. "Our goal with Alpha Arena is to make benchmarks more like the real world -- and markets are perfect for this," Nof1 said on its website.

The Python Software Foundation rejected a $1.5 million U.S. government grant because it required them to renounce all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. "The non-profit would've used the funding to help prevent supply chain attacks; create a new automated, proactive review process for new PyPI packages; and make the project's work easily transferable to other open-source package managers," reports The Register. From the report: The programming non-profit's deputy executive director Loren Crary said in a blog post today that the National Science Founation (NSF) had offered $1.5 million to address structural vulnerabilities in Python and the Python Package Index (PyPI), but the Foundation quickly became dispirited with the terms (PDF) of the grant it would have to follow. "These terms included affirming the statement that we 'do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion], or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws,'" Crary noted. "This restriction would apply not only to the security work directly funded by the grant, but to any and all activity of the PSF as a whole."

To make matters worse, the terms included a provision that if the PSF was found to have voilated that anti-DEI diktat, the NSF reserved the right to claw back any previously disbursed funds, Crary explained. "This would create a situation where money we'd already spent could be taken back, which would be an enormous, open-ended financial risk," the PSF director added. The PSF's mission statement enshrines a commitment to supporting and growing "a diverse and international community of Python programmers," and the Foundation ultimately decided it wasn't willing to compromise on that position, even for what would have been a solid financial boost for the organization. "The PSF is a relatively small organization, operating with an annual budget of around $5 million per year, with a staff of just 14," Crary added, noting that the $1.5 million would have been the largest grant the Foundation had ever received - but it wasn't worth it if the conditions were undermining the PSF's mission. The PSF board voted unanimously to withdraw its grant application.

Nearly three out of every four restaurant orders are no longer eaten in a restaurant, according to the National Restaurant Association. The share of customers using delivery more than doubled from 2019 to 2024, and 41% of respondents in a recent poll said delivery was an essential part of their lifestyle. The transformation has fundamentally altered restaurant economics. Delivery companies charge restaurants commissions between 5 and 30%, along with fees for payment processing, advertising, and search placement.

Shannon Orr runs an eight-restaurant group on the West Coast. One of her restaurants generated $1.7 million in delivery sales last year. Of that, $400,000 went to delivery companies. The restaurant, previously among her most profitable, made no money in 2024, she told the Atlantic.

About a third of full-service restaurants have modified their physical spaces to accommodate the delivery boom, installing dedicated entrances, bike parking, and banks of lockers.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: The number of victims paying ransomware threat actors has reached a new low, with just 23% of the breached companies giving in to attackers' demands. With some exceptions, the decline in payment resolution rates continues the trend that Coveware has observed for the past six years. In the first quarter of 2024, the payment percentage was 28%. Although it increased over the next period, it continued to drop, reaching an all-time low in the third quarter of 2025.

One explanation for this is that organizations implemented stronger and more targeted protections against ransomware, and authorities increasing pressure for victims not to pay the hackers. [...] Over the years, ransomware groups moved from pure encryption attacks to double extortion that came with data theft and the threat of a public leak. Coveware reports that more than 76% of the attacks it observed in Q3 2025 involved data exfiltration, which is now the primary objective for most ransomware groups. The company says that when it isolates the attacks that do not encrypt the data and only steal it, the payment rate plummets to 19%, which is also a record for that sub-category.

The average and median ransomware payments fell in Q3 compared to the previous quarter, reaching $377,000 and $140,000, respectively, according to Coveware. The shift may reflect large enterprises revising their ransom payment policies and recognizing that those funds are better spent on strengthening defenses against future attacks. The researchers also note that threat groups like Akira and Qilin, which accounted for 44% of all recorded attacks in Q3 2025, have switched focus to medium-sized firms that are currently more likely to pay a ransom. "Cyber defenders, law enforcement, and legal specialists should view this as validation of collective progress," Coveware says. "The work that gets put in to prevent attacks, minimize the impact of attacks, and successfully navigate a cyber extortion -- each avoided payment constricts cyber attackers of oxygen."

Apple is preparing to roll out a new Apple Wallet feature that lets U.S. users create digital IDs linked to their passports, usable at select TSA checkpoints. TechCrunch reports: The feature, previously announced as part of the iOS 26 release, comes on the heels of Apple's expansion of Wallet as more than a payment mechanism or ticket holder, but also a secure place to store a user's digital identity. Currently, support for government IDs in Apple Wallet has rolled out to 12 states and Puerto Rico, or roughly a third of U.S. license holders. However, the passport-tied Digital ID feature didn't arrive with the debut of iOS 26, as Apple said it would come in a future software update. [...]

The coming launch of passport-associated Digital IDs was announced on Sunday by Jennifer Bailey, VP of Apple Pay and Apple Wallet, at the Money 20/20 USA conference, where the exec also shared other stats about Wallet's adoption.

Countries signed their first UN treaty targeting cybercrime in Hanoi on Saturday, despite opposition from an unlikely band of tech companies and rights groups warning of expanded state surveillance. From a report: The new global legal framework aims to strengthen international cooperation to fight digital crimes, from child pornography to transnational cyberscams and money laundering. More than 60 countries were seen to sign the declaration Saturday, which means it will go into force once ratified by those states. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres described the signing as an "important milestone", but that it was "only the beginning".

"Every day, sophisticated scams, destroy families, steal migrants and drain billions of dollars from our economy... We need a strong, connected global response," he said at the opening ceremony in Vietnam's capital on Saturday. The UN Convention against Cybercrime was first proposed by Russian diplomats in 2017, and approved by consensus last year after lengthy negotiations. Critics say its broad language could lead to abuses of power and enable the cross-border repression of government critics.

OpenAI's rival Anthropic has a different approach — and "a clearer path to making a sustainable business out of AI," writes the Wall Street Journal. Outside of OpenAI's close partnership with Microsoft, which integrates OpenAI's models into Microsoft's software products, OpenAI mostly caters to the mass market... which has helped OpenAI reach an annual revenue run rate of around $13 billion, around 30% of which it says comes from businesses.

Anthropic has generated much less mass-market appeal. The company has said about 80% of its revenue comes from corporate customers. Last month it said it had some 300,000 of them... Its cutting-edge Claude language models have been praised for their aptitude in coding: A July report from Menlo Ventures — which has invested in Anthropic — estimated via a survey that Anthropic had a 42% market share for coding, compared with OpenAI's 21%. Anthropic is also now ahead of OpenAI in market share for overarching corporate AI use, Menlo Ventures estimated, at 32% to OpenAI's 25%. Anthropic is also surprisingly close to OpenAI when it comes to revenue. The company is already at a $7 billion annual run rate and expects to get to $9 billion by the end of the year — a big lead over its better-known rival in revenue per user.

Both companies have backing in the form of investments from big tech companies — Microsoft for OpenAI, and a combination of Amazon and Google for Anthropic — that help provide AI computing infrastructure and expose their products to a broad set of customers. But Anthropic's growth path is a lot easier to understand than OpenAI's. Corporate customers are devising a plethora of money-saving uses for AI in areas like coding, drafting legal documents and expediting billing. Those uses are likely to expand in the future and draw more customers to Anthropic, especially as the return on investment for them becomes easier to measure...

Demonstrating how much demand there is for Anthropic among corporate customers, Microsoft in September said Anthropic's leading language model, Claude, would be offered within its Copilot suite of software despite Microsoft's ties to OpenAI.
"There is also a possibility that OpenAI's mass-market appeal becomes a turnoff for corporate customers," the article adds, "who want AI to be more boring and useful than fun and edgy."

America's largest university system, with 460,000 students, is the 22-campus "Cal State" system, reports the New York Times. And it's recently teamed with Amazon, OpenAI and Nvidia, hoping to embed chatbots in both teaching and learning to become what it says will be America's "first and largest AI-empowered" university" — and prepare students for "increasingly AI-driven" careers.

It's part of a trend of major universities inviting tech companies into "a much bigger role as education thought partners, AI instructors and curriculum providers," argues the New York Times, where "dominant tech companies are now helping to steer what an entire generation of students learn about AI, and how they use it — with little rigorous evidence of educational benefits and mounting concerns that chatbots are spreading misinformation and eroding critical thinking..."

"Critics say Silicon Valley's effort to make AI chatbots integral to education amounts to a mass experiment on young people." As part of the effort, [Cal State] is paying OpenAI $16.9 million to provide ChatGPT Edu, the company's tool for schools, to more than half a million students and staff — which OpenAI heralded as the world's largest rollout of ChatGPT to date. Cal State also set up an AI committee, whose members include representatives from a dozen large tech companies, to help identify the skills California employers need and improve students' career opportunities... Cal State is not alone. Last month, California Community Colleges, the nation's largest community college system, announced a collaboration with Google to supply the company's "cutting edge AI tools" and training to 2.1 million students and faculty. In July, Microsoft pledged $4 billion for teaching AI skills in schools, community colleges and to adult workers...

[A]s schools like Cal State work to usher in what they call an "AI-driven future," some researchers warn that universities risk ceding their independence to Silicon Valley. "Universities are not tech companies," Olivia Guest and Iris van Rooij, two computational cognitive scientists at Radboud University in the Netherlands, recently said in comments arguing against fast AI adoption in academia. "Our role is to foster critical thinking," the researchers said, "not to follow industry trends uncritically...."

Some faculty members have pushed back against the AI effort, as the university system faces steep budget cuts. The multimillion-dollar deal with OpenAI — which the university did not open to bidding from rivals like Google — was wasteful, they added. Faculty senates on several Cal State campuses passed resolutions this year criticizing the AI initiative, saying the university had failed to adequately address students using chatbots to cheat. Professors also said administrators' plans glossed over the risks of AI to students' critical thinking and ignored troubling industry labor practices and environmental costs.

Martha Kenney, a professor of women and gender studies at San Francisco State University, described the AI program as a Cal State marketing vehicle helping tech companies promote unproven chatbots as legitimate educational tools.
The article notes that Cal State's chief information officer "defended the OpenAI deal, saying the company offered ChatGPT Edu at an unusually low price.

"Still, California's community college system landed AI chatbot services from Google for more than 2 million students and faculty — nearly four times the number of users Cal State is paying OpenAI for — for free."

"Snippets of proprietary or copyleft reciprocal code can enter AI-generated outputs, contaminating codebases with material that developers can't realistically audit or license properly."

That's the warning from Sean O'Brien, who founded the Yale Privacy Lab at Yale Law School. ZDNet reports: Open software has always counted on its code being regularly replenished. As part of the process of using it, users modify it to improve it. They add features and help to guarantee usability across generations of technology. At the same time, users improve security and patch holes that might put everyone at risk. But O'Brien says, "When generative AI systems ingest thousands of FOSS projects and regurgitate fragments without any provenance, the cycle of reciprocity collapses. The generated snippet appears originless, stripped of its license, author, and context." This means the developer downstream can't meaningfully comply with reciprocal licensing terms because the output cuts the human link between coder and code. Even if an engineer suspects that a block of AI-generated code originated under an open source license, there's no feasible way to identify the source project. The training data has been abstracted into billions of statistical weights, the legal equivalent of a black hole.

The result is what O'Brien calls "license amnesia." He says, "Code floats free of its social contract and developers can't give back because they don't know where to send their contributions...."

"Once AI training sets subsume the collective work of decades of open collaboration, the global commons idea, substantiated into repos and code all over the world, risks becoming a nonrenewable resource, mined and never replenished," says O'Brien. "The damage isn't limited to legal uncertainty. If FOSS projects can't rely upon the energy and labor of contributors to help them fix and improve their code, let alone patch security issues, fundamentally important components of the software the world relies upon are at risk."

O'Brien says, "The commons was never just about free code. It was about freedom to build together." That freedom, and the critical infrastructure that underlies almost all of modern society, is at risk because attribution, ownership, and reciprocity are blurred when AIs siphon up everything on the Internet and launder it (the analogy of money laundering is apt), so that all that code's provenance is obscured.

Can YouTube capture the hours people spending watching "traditional" TV? YouTube's CEO recently said its viewership on TV sets has "surpassed mobile and is now the primary device for YouTube viewing in the U.S.," writes The Hollywood Reporter. And YouTube is shelling out big money to stay on top: It's come a long way since the 19-second "me at the zoo" video was uploaded in April 2005. Now, per a KPMG report released Sept. 23, YouTube is second only to Comcast in terms of annual content spend, inclusive of payments to creators and media companies, paying out as much as Netflix and Paramount combined, $32 billion... The only question is what genres it will take over next, and how quickly it will do so. From talk shows to scripted dramas to, yes, live sports, there are signs that the platform's ambitions will collide with the traditional TV business sooner rather than later...

YouTube has slowly, then all at once, become the de facto home for what had been late night, not only for the shows on linear TV, but for an emerging crop of new talent born on the platform. As it happens, late night itself transformed YouTube when the Saturday Night Live skit "Lazy Sunday" went viral 20 years ago on the platform, which had only been live for a few months... As consumer preferences collide with a burgeoning ecosystem of video podcasts (YouTube now claims more than 1 billion podcast users monthly), the world of late night, and for that matter TV talk shows more generally, increasingly revolves around the platform. One current late night producer says that almost every A-list booking now includes some sort of sketch or bit that they think will play well on YouTube, but booking those guests in the first place has become less of a sure thing. A veteran Hollywood publicist says that for many of their clients, they are now recommending that YouTube podcasts or shows become the first stop, or at least a major stop, on press tours...

Nielsen has been tracking the streaming platforms that consumers watch on their TV screens ever since it launched what it calls The Gauge in 2021. But over the past year, YouTube's domination of The Gauge has unnerved executives at some competitors. The most recent Gauge report showed that YouTube was by far the most watched video platform, holding 13.1 percent share. Netflix, in second place, was at 8.7 percent.
The article suggests YouTube's last challenge may be "scripted" entertainment — where their business model is different than Netflix or HBO.

"On YouTube, it is up to the creator to finance and produce their content, and while the platform regularly releases new tools to help them (including AI-enabled tech that suggests video ideas and can create short background videos for use in Shorts), scripted entertainment is a particularly tricky challenge, requiring writers, directors, sets, costumes, lighting, editing, special effects and other production requirements that may go beyond the typical creator-led show."

The Associated Press reports that "North Korean hackers have pilfered billions of dollars" by breaking into cryptocurrency exchanges and by creating fake identities to get remote tech jobs at foreign companies — all orchestrated by the North Korean government to finance R&D on nuclear arms.

That's according to a new the 138-page report by a group watching North Korea's compliance with U.N. sanctions (including officials from the U.S., Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea and the United Kingdom). From the Associated Press: North Korea also has used cryptocurrency to launder money and make military purchases to evade international sanctions tied to its nuclear program, the report said. It detailed how hackers working for North Korea have targeted foreign businesses and organizations with malware designed to disrupt networks and steal sensitive data...

Unlike China, Russia and Iran, North Korea has focused much of its cyber capabilities to fund its government, using cyberattacks and fake workers to steal and defraud companies and organizations elsewhere in the world... Earlier this year, hackers linked to North Korea carried out one of the largest crypto heists ever, stealing $1.5 billion worth of ethereum from Bybit. The FBI later linked the theft to a group of hackers working for the North Korean intelligence service.

Federal authorities also have alleged that thousands of IT workers employed by U.S. companies were actually North Koreans using assumed identities to land remote work. The workers gained access to internal systems and funneled their salaries back to North Korea's government. In some cases, the workers held several remote jobs at the same time.

A web browser linked to Chinese online gambling websites and downloaded millions of times routes all internet traffic through servers in China and covertly installs programs that run in the background, according to findings published by network security company Infoblox. The researchers said the Universe Browser, which advertises itself as offering privacy protection, includes features similar to malware such as key logging and surreptitious connections.

Infoblox collaborated with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime on the research. The investigators found links between the browser and Southeast Asia's cybercrime ecosystem, which has connections to money laundering, illegal online gambling, human trafficking and scam operations using forced labor. The browser is directly linked to BBIN, a major online gambling company that has existed since 1999. Infoblox researchers examined the Windows version of the browser and found that it checks users' locations and languages when launched, installs two browser extensions, and disables security features including sandboxing.

Airbus, Leonardo, and Thales are merging their space divisions into a new France-based company that aims to create a "leading European player in space." The joint venture, expected to launch operations by 2027 pending regulatory approval, will pool R&D resources to accelerate satellite development and strengthen Europe's technological sovereignty in space. Engadget reports: The companies Airbus, Leonardo and Thales have finalized this deal. The new unnamed entity will be based in France and will employ around 25,000 people. Airbus will own 35 percent, while the other two companies will each own 32.5 percent. Executives are hoping this company will better serve Europe's need for "sovereignty" in space and help it create a rival to SpaceX's Starlink communications network. Increasing a presence in space is also seen as a good thing for security and defense.

This isn't just bluster. Thales and Airbus have long been rivals in the satellite market, but it looks like they are friends now. Leonardo is known for space systems and services. Combining all three could actually give SpaceX a run for its money, but we will have to wait and see. There are no planned site closures, as the companies say that each home country will keep its existing capabilities. This will be a standalone company, so think of it as an extremely well-financed startup. The first task for the upstart? Reporting indicates it'll be to find more efficient ways to develop and manufacture satellites.