The housing shortages plaguing Western cities today stem partly from the abandonment of a 19th century urban governance model that enabled cities like Berlin, New York and Chicago to expand rapidly while keeping real house prices flat and homes increasingly affordable. A new analysis by Works in Progress argues that Victorian-era urban management wasn't laissez-faire but rather a system carefully designed to align private profit with public benefit. Infrastructure monopolies -- whether privately franchised, operated as concessions or municipally owned -- funded themselves entirely through user fees rather than public subsidies, and were structured so that building more capacity was the path to greater returns. Landowners enjoyed a fundamental right to build when profitable, and height limits applied uniformly across entire cities rather than varying by neighborhood, meaning dense development remained legal everywhere. The system began collapsing after 1914, however. Inflation proved fatal to self-funding transport because governments found it politically impossible to raise controlled prices year after year. By the 1960s, trams had vanished from Britain, France and the U.S. Meanwhile, differential zoning gradually banned densification in established neighborhoods, and rent controls decimated private homebuilding in many countries. In Britain, average house prices fell from twelve times earnings in 1850 to four times by 1914. They have since climbed back to nine times earnings. The article argues roughly 80% of postwar price increases trace directly to restrictions on building.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Science.org: Some 10,109 doctoral-trained experts in science and related fields left their jobs last year as President Donald Trump dramatically shrank the overall federal workforce. That exodus was only 3% of the 335,192 federal workers who exited last year but represents 14% of the total number of Ph.D.s in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) or health fields employed at the end of 2024 as then-President Joe Biden prepared to leave office. The numbers come from employment data posted earlier this month by the White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM). At 14 research agencies Science examined in detail, departures outnumbered new hires last year by a ratio of 11 to one, resulting in a net loss of 4224 STEM Ph.D.s. The graphs that follow show the impact is particularly striking at such scientist-rich agencies as the National Science Foundation (NSF). But across the government, these departing Ph.D.s took with them a wealth of subject matter expertise and knowledge about how the agencies operate. [...] Science's analysis found that reductions in force, or RIFs, accounted for relatively few departures in 2025. Only at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where 16% of the 519 STEM Ph.D.s who left last year got pink RIF slips, did the percentage exceed 6%, and some agencies reported no STEM Ph.D. RIFs in 2025. At most agencies, the most common reasons for departures were retirements and quitting. Although OPM classifies many of these as voluntary, outside forces including the fear of being fired, the lure of buyout offers, or a profound disagreement with Trump policies, likely influenced many decisions to leave. Many Ph.D.s departed because their position was terminated.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Reddit has forced Jaime Rogozinski, the founder of infamous r/WallStreetBets, to strip the WallStreetBets name from an upcoming Miami conference after legal threats citing trademark rights. According to a press release, it's the "first known case of a social media company enforcing trademark control over a user-created community." From the report: After years of litigation, courts ultimately sided with Reddit in a decision now referred to as the "Rogozinski Ruling," a precedent that grants platforms broad authority to assert trademark ownership over user-created communities. That ruling now forms the basis for Reddit's demand that the words "WallStreetBets" be physically removed from the event. "They aren't afraid of the name being used," said Rogozinski. "If they were, they'd have to sue the internet. What they're afraid of is the creator hanging out with his creation. They're afraid of the community's independence. And they're afraid it's evolved into something bigger than a subreddit." The irony is difficult to ignore. The original subreddit counts around three million subscribers, while conservative estimates place more than seven million WallStreetBets participants spread across other platforms. For a movement that built its reputation confronting corporate overreach, Reddit's decision to extend its authority beyond the confines of its web-based platform, reaching into real-world gatherings to police culture it did not create, risks stirring a hornet's nest with a long memory and a track record of collective action. The event formerly known as WallStreetBets Live, will proceed as scheduled on January 28-30 in Miami. In compliance with Reddit's demands, all references to the name will be physically redacted on-site. "Reddit's lawyers did one thing right," Rogozinski continued. "They proved exactly why we need a decentralized future. This event has become a live case study in what's broken about modern social media. Platforms can deplatform creators, and now, with courts backing them, they can appropriate what users build."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The Trump administration is planning to use AI to write federal transportation regulations, ProPublica reported on Monday, citing the U.S. Department of Transportation records and interviews with six agency staffers. From the report: The plan was presented to DOT staff last month at a demonstration of AI's "potential to revolutionize the way we draft rulemakings," agency attorney Daniel Cohen wrote to colleagues. The demonstration, Cohen wrote, would showcase "exciting new AI tools available to DOT rule writers to help us do our job better and faster." Discussion of the plan continued among agency leadership last week, according to meeting notes reviewed by ProPublica. Gregory Zerzan, the agency's general counsel, said at that meeting that President Donald Trump is "very excited about this initiative." Zerzan seemed to suggest that the DOT was at the vanguard of a broader federal effort, calling the department the "point of the spear" and "the first agency that is fully enabled to use AI to draft rules." Zerzan appeared interested mainly in the quantity of regulations that AI could produce, not their quality. "We don't need the perfect rule on XYZ. We don't even need a very good rule on XYZ," he said, according to the meeting notes. "We want good enough." Zerzan added, "We're flooding the zone." These developments have alarmed some at DOT. The agency's rules touch virtually every facet of transportation safety, including regulations that keep airplanes in the sky, prevent gas pipelines from exploding and stop freight trains carrying toxic chemicals from skidding off the rails. Why, some staffers wondered, would the federal government outsource the writing of such critical standards to a nascent technology notorious for making mistakes? The answer from the plan's boosters is simple: speed. Writing and revising complex federal regulations can take months, sometimes years. But, with DOT's version of Google Gemini, employees could generate a proposed rule in a matter of minutes or even seconds, two DOT staffers who attended the December demonstration remembered the presenter saying.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The Trump administration is planning on using Google Gemini to draft important federal regulations, as reported by ProPublica. This is starting with the Department of Transportation, according to interviews with agency staffers. Regulations created by the DOT help keep us safe when traveling.

The plan was initially presented to DOT staffers last month, with agency attorney Daniel Cohen writing to colleagues about AI's "potential to revolutionize the way we draft rulemakings." Gregory Zerzan, the agency's general counsel, has indicated that President Donald Trump is "very excited by this initiative" and that DOT will be "the first agency that is fully enabled to use AI to draft rules." This does suggest a pilot program of sorts, with eventual plans to bring AI to other departments.

Oddly, Zerzan doesn't seem that interested in high-quality regulations. ProPublica received transcripts of a meeting in which he declared that "we don't need the perfect rule on XYZ. We don't even need a very good rule on XYZ." He went on to say that "we want good enough" and that "we're flooding the zone."

Let me remind you that DOT regulates the safety standards of commercial aircraft, along with rules involving the transport of hazardous materials and driver qualifications. The agency's rules touch on every aspect of transportation safety. Why would the federal government rely on a new technology that's notorious for making mistakes?

The answer is speed. Writing and revising complex federal regulations can take months, but Google Gemini can spit something out in minutes. A DOT employee giving a presentation on the program suggested that many parts of these regulations are just "word salad" anyways, so AI should be able to do just fine.

"It shouldn’t take you more than 20 minutes to get a draft rule out of Gemini," Zerzan said. The plan is to compress the timeline in which transportation regulations are written and reviewed. The department has already used AI to draft an unpublished Federal Aviation Administration rule.

Federal agencies have used AI for years, but not to actually write regulations. It's primarily been used for the purpose of translating documents, analyzing data and categorizing public comments. Trump, however, is a huge proponent of the technology. He has released multiple executive orders in support of AI and once shared an AI-created video in which he flew a fighter jet and dropped what appears to be feces on American citizens.

Skeptics say that large language models like Gemini shouldn't be in charge of drafting complicated and consequential regulations that impact millions of everyday Americans. Mistakes could lead to lawsuits and even injuries and deaths.

Mike Horton, DOT’s former acting chief artificial intelligence officer, said using Gemini to draft regulations was like “having a high school intern that’s doing your rulemaking.” He also said that agency leaders under Trump "want to go fast and break things, but going fast and breaking things means people are going to get hurt."

"Just because these tools can produce a lot of words doesn’t mean that those words add up to a high-quality government decision,” said Bridget Dooling, a professor at Ohio State University who studies administrative law. “It’s so tempting to try to figure out how to use these tools, and I think it would make sense to try. But I think it should be done with a lot of skepticism."

DOT has experienced a net loss of more than 4,000 employees since Trump started his second term. This includes over 100 attorneys.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/trump-admin-reportedly-plans-to-use-ai-to-write-federal-regulations-175155111.html?src=rss

An anonymous reader shared this report from the Guardian: Google's search feature AI Overviews cites YouTube more than any medical website when answering queries about health conditions, according to research that raises fresh questions about a tool seen by 2 billion people each month. The company has said its AI summaries, which appear at the top of search results and use generative AI to answer questions from users, are "reliable" and cite reputable medical sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Mayo Clinic. However, a study that analysed responses to more than 50,000 health queries, captured using Google searches from Berlin, found the top cited source was YouTube. The video-sharing platform is the world's second most visited website, after Google itself, and is owned by Google. Researchers at SE Ranking, a search engine optimisation platform, found YouTube made up 4.43% of all AI Overview citations. No hospital network, government health portal, medical association or academic institution came close to that number, they said. "This matters because YouTube is not a medical publisher," the researchers wrote. "It is a general-purpose video platform...." In one case that experts said was "dangerous" and "alarming", Google provided bogus information about crucial liver function tests that could have left people with serious liver disease wrongly thinking they were healthy. The company later removed AI Overviews for some but not all medical searches... Hannah van Kolfschooten, a researcher specialising in AI, health and law at the University of Basel who was not involved with the research, said: "This study provides empirical evidence that the risks posed by AI Overviews for health are structural, not anecdotal. It becomes difficult for Google to argue that misleading or harmful health outputs are rare cases. "Instead, the findings show that these risks are embedded in the way AI Overviews are designed. In particular, the heavy reliance on YouTube rather than on public health authorities or medical institutions suggests that visibility and popularity, rather than medical reliability, is the central driver for health knowledge."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.