An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: A state-owned newspaper in China recently published a satellite image of a data center in Gainesville, Va., writing in English that the development of artificial intelligence posed a threat to Americans' physical and financial well-being. A comic strip made to look as if it had been published by a Maryland news outlet -- created with OpenAI's ChatGPT by people in China, the tech company said -- circulated on X this year, blaming data centers for soaring electricity bills. It showed a tycoon smoking a cigar and clutching bags of cash. A video shared on X by a known covert Russian influence operation questioned the viability of a data center that an American company, Firebird, is constructing in Armenia, the small Caucasus nation that has been a focus of Kremlin pressure. "The country's electrical grid instability may render it useless," the video's narrator says. All are examples of a push by foreign adversaries to seize on what polls have shown is deep ambivalence -- verging at times on hostility -- about the spread of the data centers needed to power A.I. in the United States and elsewhere. China, Russia and, to a lesser extent, Iran have sought to use state media outlets to turn the controversy over data centers in the United States into "a domestic fracture point," according to a new analysis by Alethea, a threat intelligence company, which identified scores of articles and posts on social media this year. These campaigns, whose impact on public opinion remains to be seen, have raised alarms in Washington, where A.I. is seen as a top issue heading into this year's midterm elections.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Long-time Slashdot reader necro81 writes: There are several companies, such as Tesla, trying to make semi trucks fully electric. The capital cost for such a truck, and the MW-scale infrastructure to recharge it, may be a hard sell for some operators. [IEEE Spectrum notes that's a charging infrastructure "that most freight corridors do not yet reliably provide."] But some companies are instead adding batteries and an electric motor to the semi-trailers that trucks haul behind them. "The Nivalis Powered Trailer Kit centers on an electric axle [rated at 50 kilowatts-peak]... capable of both propulsion assistance and regenerative braking. It draws on a 60-kilowatt-hour, 400-volt lithium-ion battery pack charged from three sources: the axle itself during braking and deceleration, a full-rooftop array of photovoltaic panels generating up to 3.7 kilowatts-peak, and a 32-amp, three-phase AC grid connection available during parking stops." This approach is more akin to a plug-in hybrid: the truck may still be diesel-powered, but the electric assist from the trailer allows the truck to run more efficiently. Replacing diesel with kWh can save operators money while also reducing emissions. This incremental approach may be more accessible and less capital-intensive than replacing the truck itself. From the article: The driver's only window into the system is a small display readable from the cab's side mirror that shows the system status and battery charge level. Nothing about the trailer's handling or licensing requirements changes. The partners project savings of up to 7,000 liters of diesel per trailer per year, which is enough to keep about 19 tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the air... Trailer Dynamics, an Aachen-based company, has conducted field tests with BMW Logistics, DB Schenker, Duvenbeck, and Volkswagen Konzernlogistik, reporting average fuel savings of around 40% for diesel tractor combinations, substantially higher than the up to 18% reduction implied by the Nivalis projection... Trailer Dynamics prices its system between €145,000 and €195,000 and targets a payback period of no more than five years. Nivalis targets five to six years at current costs.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

"Are you armed?!" the police officer screamed. "Get out of the car!" A writer for the car-news site The Drive describes how "a technological chain linking surveillance cameras, AI, and law enforcement... led to me and my wife being surrounded by police, hands on their guns, in a Kohl's parking lot in suburban Minnesota." After dropping off our Amazon returns, we'd just gotten back in the Range Rover and reversed maybe two feet out of the spot when four cop cars came flying out of nowhere and boxed us in... The Plymouth Police Department had been tracking me for days using Flock license plate cameras, waiting for the right moment to strike, because they thought I'd stolen the Range Rover. And the reason I was ID'd as a dangerous car thief was a simple data error made 2,000 miles away in California, creating an edge case within an edge case that Flock's AI camera network was unable to handle... "The plates on this car are stolen," Officer Ganshyn said... This made absolutely no sense. Car companies keep meticulous track of the fleets they loan out to the media. The vehicles all have special manufacturer or dealer plates that are logged every time one enters or exits... The New Jersey plates that were allegedly stolen from the LA dealer were 34 03 DTM, not 34 10 DTM. But when the police report was created and the plate was entered into Flock's system, it was just recorded as 34 DTM. Just the five large characters, no little number in the middle... Flock's AI tech wasn't registering that non-standard little number when it began picking up the Range Rover around town... I connected the final dot. A lot of vehicles in [Range Rover manufacturer] JLR's media fleet have a New Jersey manufacturer plate with the same alphanumeric structure — 34 ## DTM — and Officer Ganshyn observed that meant it was now a nationwide issue. Anywhere a police department has a partnership with Flock, any other JLR-owned car with the same plate structure is going to get flagged as stolen. In fact, four other 34 ## DTM cars were being tracked around Minnesota that week, according to Officer Ganshyn. I was just the first one to get nabbed. The only way to stop it would be for the LAPD to correct their initial report and update Flock's system, which Jaguar Land Rover was now racing to make happen following the phone call. Still, he warned me to drive straight home, park the Range Rover, and leave it there. If I were to cross into the neighboring town, I'd probably get flagged again and go through this entire ordeal again with a different set of officers. His parting words were ominous: "You're lucky we're in Plymouth. If you were in Minneapolis, they definitely would've come at you with guns drawn." Ironically, even the original license plate wasn't stolen either, the article points out. It was reported misplaced during a Los Angeles photo shoot, and "The corporation had to report the plate as lost to law enforcement," according to the police report — and even then, the plate "was reported as NJ 34DTM instead of NJ 3403DTM." The author's conclusion? "Once these systems have you in their crosshairs, there's pretty much only one way it can go... A simple data-entry error, magnified and broadcast nationwide by a growing surveillance network operated through an opaque partnership between a private company and public agencies, led police to identify me as a car thief and set up a sting to take me down. I mean, they even had a drone flying overhead during the 'bust'... "Thank God our kids weren't with us." Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader sinij for sharing the article.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The federal government is rewriting its rules governing ranching on public lands to increase the number of cattle, sheep, and other livestock grazing on 155 million acres in the West, an area twice the size of New Mexico.

Public lands grazing is overseen by a nearly century-old system that heavily subsidizes some of the wealthiest Americans while doing little to address its harms to the environment, ProPublica and High Country News found last year.

Even though rangeland management experts say overgrazing has degraded public lands, the new rules being drafted by the US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management—the first overhaul since 1995—would instead expand the practice.

The proposed rules would also ratchet back public participation in the agency’s decisions to allow grazing on federal public lands. The BLM’s proposed updates would strictly limit who has a say and when they can object, eliminating many steps where the public has been able to observe and comment on decisions to issue or renew permits.

“They’re clearly trying to reduce involvement of anyone other than ranchers,” said one BLM employee who works on rangeland management.

The BLM did not respond to questions about the proposed regulations, which were released publicly in May and, after a period for public comment, will go back to the agency in mid-July for further review.

In a June news release announcing the action, the agency said it “reflects the Trump administration’s priority to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, promote productive working lands and strengthen local economies.”

ProPublica and High Country News spoke to multiple current and former BLM employees to gauge the impact of the proposed regulations. Some, like the BLM staffer who works on rangeland management, requested not to be named because they still are employed by the agency. The employees agreed that the updated regulations offer several concrete benefits, including a requirement that the agency study the ecological impacts of all uses of public lands—from timber harvesting and recreation to mining and oil drilling. The current rules limit such reviews to the livestock industry, where they have uncovered tens of millions of acres of damage due to overgrazing.

The regulations would also allow the BLM to handle low-level violations of grazing regulations more informally, avoiding potentially unnecessary fights between ranchers and regulators; clean up sections of the code that may be at odds with recent court decisions and laws; and offer the agency and ranchers more flexibility in how they manage the range, allowing for quicker decision-making responding to a local ecosystem’s needs.

Tim Canterbury, president of the Public Lands Council, a ranching trade group, in a news release called the update “a massive step forward.”

He said the existing regulations grew from the “cattle free by ’93” movement of the early 1990s that was hostile to ranching and aimed to rid public lands of livestock. “The resulting regulations all but ensured ranchers did not have the flexibility to take full advantage of the scientific and management advances that the industry has made over the last 35 years,” Canterbury said.

Other groups working on rangeland management say the regulations go too far in the opposite direction, tipping the scales toward ranchers. They point to proposals allowing ranchers to continue business as usual if they appeal agency decisions limiting grazing, threatening Native American tribes’ ability to graze bison and enshrining highly subsidized grazing fees. (ProPublica and High Country News found that in 2024 the federal government charged ranchers $284 million below market rate for the use of public lands.)

“We can expect considerably more places where cows and sheep are going to be and more damage,” said Josh Osher, public policy director of the Western Watersheds Project, a conservation group. “I think we see big impacts on wildlife.”

“Back to the Ronald Reagan years”

The livestock industry influenced the regulatory rewrite from both outside and inside the Interior Department.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Public Lands Council, two main trade groups, publicly celebrated their meetings with the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture departments in the spring. Among their agenda items was a memorandum of understanding allowing the trade groups to give guidance to the departments, including on a “Grazing Action Plan” that involved updating regulations.

The groups did not respond to requests for comment. (The Western Landowners Alliance, which represents conservation-minded ranchers and landowners, said it’s still evaluating the regulations.)

Representatives of Native American tribes and conservation groups, meanwhile, told ProPublica and High Country News that the administration offered them no opportunity to provide input on the draft regulations before they were published.

They also take issue with the process due to the involvement of Karen Budd-Falen, a high-ranking official in the Interior Department and a long-time grazing advocate whose family is in the ranching business. She served in the first Trump administration and was barred from discussing grazing policy due to potential conflicts of interest. But after rejoining the department, she received an ethics waiver allowing her to work on grazing policy.

In December, Budd-Falen participated in a discussion about public lands management with Republican Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming. During that event, Budd-Falen called grazing regulations the issue that “probably was the closest to my heart” and gave a rare view into the effort to update them.

“You want to know what put the public ranchland out of business — it was Bruce Babbitt’s regulations,” she told Lummis, referring to President Bill Clinton’s Interior secretary from 1993 to 2001. “By the first of next year, you will see fully new regulations that don’t just fix a few of the Babbitt things. We went back to the Ronald Reagan years and are putting back in those regs.”

“I am so excited about these regulations,” she said.

Native American tribes that manage bison herds say Budd-Falen’s efforts to aid ranchers could hurt their operations. Several rancher and stock grower associations in Montana, which at one time were represented by Budd-Falen, have railed against a conservation group called American Prairie that uses permits to graze bison herds to revitalize local ecosystems. The ranchers worry this will cost them subsidized leases and that the bison could spread disease to their cattle.

The Trump administration has sided with the ranchers in the dispute — first by revoking American Prairie’s permits and then by redrafting grazing regulations to mandate public lands livestock operations be “production-oriented,” potentially eliminating permits for herds used to revitalize ecosystems. Tribes fear they too could lose permits for the bison herds they manage to preserve cultural practices or restore the land.

“We’re really concerned about this,” said OJ Semans Sr., a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and executive director of the Coalition of Large Tribes, which represents more than 15 tribes. “I’m just kind of confused about how badly it was written.”

Less public input, more public lands grazing

Ranchers have long complained that conservationists are quick to sue to prevent them from placing their herds on public lands, miring their businesses in litigation. The BLM’s updates would reduce green groups’ ability to challenge decisions.

The agency proposes changing the definition of “interested public,” meaning those who have a say in rangeland management. Under the new proposal, the public would have to prove a “cognizable” interest in the grazing in question. The agency did not respond to a request to define its use of the word. But a former BLM higher-up said that would likely set a higher bar for who gets advance notice of agency decisions and their ability to comment on them. Environmentalists assume it means only those with a business interest would be allowed to influence agency decision-making.

The new regulations would also remove a mandate that the BLM include the public in “consultation, cooperation and coordination,” the agency’s process of gathering feedback when preparing to take actions such as authorizing grazing. The update would significantly narrow who must be involved, staff said.

Throughout the regulations, the agency proposed changes that would keep animals on the land.

Mark Squillace, a law professor focused on natural resources at the University of Colorado Law School, noted that if a rancher appeals an unfavorable ruling, it is automatically paused, meaning the rancher can continue the very practices that had been found to be harmful. “That effectively invites everyone to appeal to avoid the decision,” Squillace said. “That is a disaster.”

The new regulations also elevate cows’ status as firefighters, making it easier to place herds on public lands under the justification that they eat vegetation that could become fuel for wildfires.

Nada Culver, deputy director of the BLM during the Biden administration, said that some provisions would make it more difficult for agency staff to tell ranchers to take animals off the land, hindering their ability to address overgrazing. And renewing permits to continue grazing would be even easier under the new regulations, she said.

“The most text in this regulatory proposal is devoted to explaining why the public no longer gets to participate in pretty much every step of the process,” Culver said.

The Trump administration has also prioritized restocking vacant areas, which may be without cows and sheep because they are far from a water source, they need time to recover from wildfire, or the agency is attempting to eradicate invasive species. Within months of President Donald Trump returning to the White House, political appointees instructed staff to build lists of every vacant plot that might be eligible for more livestock.

“By the end of next year,” Budd-Falen said in her discussion with Lummis, “every single vacant allotment will be filled by a rancher.”

This story was originally published by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Read full article

Comments

With no new data or clear reasoning, a panel of advisors hand-selected by anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voted last September to strip federal recommendations for a combination shot against measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox). An analysis published today by independent researchers does the work the advisors neglected to do before the vote and, in turn, shows how harmful the decision is to vulnerable US toddlers.

The decision last fall followed clumsy discussion by Kennedy's dubiously qualified advisors, which make up the Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices (ACIP) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most noticeably, their unprompted review of the MMRV vaccine did not include a standard decision-making framework ACIP has historically used to comprehensively evaluate what the change would mean for US children in practice—including basic questions, such as which children would be affected.

Still, the decision meant that private health insurance providers would no longer be required to cover the vaccine, called MMRV. It also meant the shot would no longer be available through a federal program that provides vaccines to about half of American children, mostly from low-income families.

The study published today in JAMA Network Open set out to assess who was using MMRV before the change. It was done by researchers in Washington state, who examined use of MMRV between 2015 and 2025 in King County, which encompasses Seattle. Reviewing immunization records of over 200,000 toddlers and young children ages 12 to 47 months, they found that a little over 31,000 children got the MMRV in that time period, about 15 percent.

MMRV vs MMR+V

This matches what was already known about the vaccine's use—about 15 percent of kids nationwide get the shot, a small percentage. Most children instead receive a measles, mumps, and rubella shot (MMR) and a separate vaccine against varicella (chickenpox). Usually, the two vaccines are given at the same time, and the co-administration is abbreviated as MMR+V.

The reason the majority of kids get MMR+V is because it's preferred over the single shot based on past data. MMRV earned approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 2005, but after a few years, it became clear that there was a slightly increased risk of febrile seizures when it is given as a first of two doses in toddlers 12 to 15 months (there was no increased risk for the second recommended dose, given at 4 to 6 years).

That increase is slight—there were 7 to 8.5 seizure cases for every 10,000 first-dose MMRV vaccinations, compared to 3.2 to 4.2 in 10,000 first-dose MMR + V vaccinations, analyses found. That difference works out to an extra one febrile seizure per 2,300 to 2,600 children. And febrile seizures are generally harmless—however alarming they may be for a parent to observe. A febrile seizure is simply a seizure associated with fever, and they can be spurred by almost anything that can cause a fever, such as the flu or an ear infection. In almost every case, children fully recover, with no longterm effects. By age 5, about 5 percent of all children have had such a febrile seizure for one reason or another.

Still, given the comparative increase over MMR+V, in 2009 the ACIP of the time combed through the data and decided that MMR+V should be preferred over MMRV. But, MMRV was still considered safe and effective and was left as an option for parents in consultation with their doctors. No new data has changed that view among experts since then.

Vulnerable toddlers

Between 2015 and 2025, use of MMRV among children in King County held steady at 15 percent for the decade, despite the ranked recommendation. And that 15 percent had clear demographic characteristics: Children who got an MMRV as a first-dose were more likely than other vaccinated children to be in minority racial and ethnic groups. By comparison, significantly more of them were getting a "catch-up dose" after the initial window of 12 to 15 months, getting them instead between 16 and 47 months. Children getting an MMRV were also more than three times more likely than other vaccinated children to be eligible for a federal program that offers free vaccines to children in low-income families. They were nearly four times more likely to get vaccinated at a safety-net clinic.

In all, the researchers concluded, "This population might be at risk of not receiving recommended vaccines if options become limited."

In an accompanying commentary piece, health policy experts Elizabeth Cope and Aaron Carroll of the health research nonprofit AcademyHealth blasted Kennedy's ACIP for making their decision without accounting for analyses like this one.

The study's findings "are not surprising," they wrote. "Combination vaccines reduce the number of injections and visits and lower cost barriers to series completion. Those benefits matter most to families with the least slack: hourly work, no paid sick leave, and a follow-up visit that may not happen."

The study has the limitation of only examining MMRV use in one county in one state, Cope and Carroll note. But, they said, "If similar patterns exist in less well-resourced settings, the resulting equity implications could be even more pronounced."

The two experts stop short of suggesting Kennedy's anti-vaccine agenda directly swayed his ACIP members to make this ill-conceived recommendation, saying it can't be determined from the public record. But "[w]hat can be determined is that multiple structural safeguards, historically intended to preserve ACIP independence, were absent simultaneously," they write.

Read full article

Comments

Stubhub CEO Eric Baker is pouring millions of dollars into the ticket-scalping market, CBC reports.