ForgottenFlux

There's an infamous anti-piracy advertisement from back in 2004 that online oldsters will immediately recognize: "You wouldn't steal a car," it begins, complete with shakycam footage of some sketchy looking dude popping a lock, before rolling into various other types of theft and eventually equating it all with downloading a copy of Shrek 2. The ad makes it dramatically clear: Stealing Shrek will get you hard time in the slam when you're inevitably busted for your criminal ways.

It was, and is, overwrought and silly, and so of course it inspired numerous parodies and memes: The British comedy series The IT Crowd did a particularly good one a few years after the original aired—in fact the old URL, piracyisacrime.com, now directs to The IT Crowd Clip on YouTube. I urge you to watch it. The ad itself was only around for a short time, but "you wouldn't download a car" has endured in shitpost form for decades; it's practically embedded in the fabric of the internet at this point.

But as good as many of these parodies are, none are as ridiculous (and funny) as the recent discovery that the world's best-known anti-piracy ad may have used a pirated font.

The distinctive font used in the ad appears to be FF Confidential, created by Just van Rossum in 1992. But there's another font called XBand Rough that's virtually identical, and when journalist Melissa Lewis reached out to van Rossum about it, he told her XBand Rough is an "illegal clone" of FF Confidential.

This is where it gets interesting. After all this, another Bluesky user named Rib used the FontForge tool on a PDF file from the old anti-piracy campaign, available via the Wayback Machine, and discovered the file in question uses the XBand Rough font—the clone.

At least in the U.S. and Canada, that is.

This was brought to my attention thanks to a Reddit post where a user (presumably a resident of Canada), had posted how Lenovo was shipping laptops with Fedora and Ubuntu at a cheaper price compared to their Windows-equipped counterparts.

Others then chimed in, saying that Lenovo has been doing this since at least 2020 and that the big price difference shows how ridiculous Windows' pricing is.

When I dug in further, I found out that the US and Canadian websites for Lenovo offered U.S. $140 and CAD $211 off on the same ThinkPad X1 Carbon model when choosing any one of the Linux-based alternatives.

I think these manufacturers could do a better job in marketing these Linux-based alternative operating systems to general consumers, showing them how they can save big when opting for these instead of the pricey and bloated Windows.

From their own internal metrics, tech giants have long known what independent research now continuously validates: that the content that is most likely to go viral is that which induces strong feelings such as outrage and disgust, regardless of its underlying veracity. Moreover, they also know that such content is heavily engaged with and most profitable. Far from acting against false, harmful content, they placed profits above its staggering—and damaging—social impact to implicitly encourage it while downplaying the massive costs.

Social media titans embrace essentially the same hypocrisy the tobacco industry embodied when they feigned concern over harm reduction while covertly pushing their product ever more aggressively. With the reelection of Trump, our tech giants now no longer even pretend to care.

Engagement is their business model, and doubt about the harms they cause is their product. Tobacco executives, and their bought-off scientists, once proclaimed uncertainty over links between cigarettes and lung cancer. Zuckerberg has likewise testified to Congress, “The existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health, ” even while studies find self-harm, eating disorder and misogynistic material spreads on these platform unimpeded. This equivocation echoes protestations of tobacco companies that there was no causal evidence of smoking harms, even as incontrovertible evidence to the contrary rapidly amassed.

A Microsoft employee disrupted the company’s 50th anniversary event to protest its use of AI.

“Shame on you,” said Microsoft employee Ibtihal Aboussad, speaking directly to Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman. “You are a war profiteer. Stop using AI for genocide. Stop using AI for genocide in our region. You have blood on your hands. All of Microsoft has blood on its hands. How dare you all celebrate when Microsoft is killing children. Shame on you all.”

Sources at Microsoft tell The Verge that shortly after Aboussad was ushered out of Microsoft’s event, she sent an email to a number of email distribution lists that contain hundreds or thousands of Microsoft employees. Here is Aboussad’s email in full:

archive.today link

Every year, journalist Ben Black publishes a playful fake story on his community news site Cwmbran Life for April Fools' Day.

Since 2018 the 48-year-old has spun yarns including a Hollywood-style sign on a mountain to a nudist cold-water swimming club at a lake.

In 2020, Mr Black published a fake story claiming Cwmbran had been recognised by Guinness World Records for having the most roundabouts per square kilometre.

Despite altering the wording of his article that afternoon, when he searched for it on 1 April he said he was "shocked" and "worried" to find the false information being used by Google's AI tool and presented as real information.

European Union regulators are preparing major penalties against X, including a fine that could exceed $1 billion, according to a New York Times report yesterday.

The European Commission determined last year that Elon Musk's social network violated the Digital Services Act. Regulators are now in the process of determining what punishment to impose.

"The penalties are set to include a fine and demands for product changes," the NYT report said, attributing the information to "four people with knowledge of the plans." The penalty is expected to be issued this summer and would be the first one under the new EU law.

"European authorities have been weighing how large a fine to issue X as they consider the risks of further antagonizing [President] Trump amid wider trans-Atlantic disputes over trade, tariffs and the war in Ukraine," the NYT report said. "The fine could surpass $1 billion, one person said, as regulators seek to make an example of X to deter other companies from violating the law, the Digital Services Act."

Interest in LibreOffice, the open-source alternative to Microsoft Office, is on the rise, with weekly downloads of its software package close to 1 million a week. That’s the highest download number since 2023.

“We estimate around 200 million [LibreOffice] users, but it’s important to note that we respect users’ privacy and don’t track them, so we can’t say for sure,” said Mike Saunders, an open-source advocate and a deputy to the board of directors at The Document Foundation.

LibreOffice users typically want a straightforward interface, Saunders said. “They don’t want subscriptions, and they don’t want AI being ‘helpful’ by poking its nose into their work — it reminds them of Clippy from the bad old days,” he said.

There are genuine use cases for generative AI tools, but many users prefer to opt-in to it and choose when and where to enable it. “We have zero plans to put AI into LibreOffice. But we understand the value of some AI tools and are encouraging developers to create … extensions that use AI in a responsible way,” Saunders said.

Anyone who has suffered the indignity of a splinter, a blister, or a paper cut knows that small things can sometimes be hugely annoying. You aren't going to die from any of these conditions, but it's still hard to focus when, say, the back of your right foot is rubbing a new blister against the inside of your not-quite-broken-in-yet hiking boots.

I found myself in the computing version of this situation yesterday, when I was trying to work on a new Mac Mini and was brought up short by the fact that my third mouse button (that is, clicking on the scroll wheel) did nothing. This was odd, because I have for many years assigned this button to "Mission Control" on macOS—a feature that tiles every open window on your machine, making it quick and easy to switch apps. When I got the new Mini, I immediately added this to my settings. Boom!

And yet there I was, a couple hours later, clicking the middle mouse button by reflex and getting no result. This seemed quite odd—had I only imagined that I made the settings change? I made the alteration again in System Settings and went back to work.

But after a reboot later that day to install an OS update, I found that my shortcut setting for Mission Control had once again been wiped away. This wasn't happening with any other settings changes, and it was strangely vexing.

When it happened a third time, I switched into full "research and destroy the problem" mode. One of my Ars colleagues commiserated with me, writing, "This kind of powerful-annoying stuff is just so common. I swear at least once every few months, some shortcut or whatever just stops working, and sometimes, after a week or so, it starts working again. No rhyme, reason, or apparent causality except that computers are just [unprintable expletives]."

But even if computers are [unprintable expletives], their problems have often been encountered and fixed by some other poor soul.

Encryption can’t protect you from adding the wrong person to a group chat. But there is also a setting to make sure you don’t.

You can add your own nickname to a Signal contact by clicking on the person’s profile picture in a chat with them then clicking “Nickname.” Signal says “Nicknames & notes are stored with Signal and end-to-end encrypted. They are only visible to you.” So, you can add a nickname to a Jason saying “co-founder,” or maybe “national security adviser,” and no one else is going to see it. Just you. When you’re trying to make a group chat, perhaps.

Signal could improve its user interface around groups and people with duplicate display names.

Encryption can’t protect you from adding the wrong person to a group chat. But there is also a setting to make sure you don’t.

You can add your own nickname to a Signal contact by clicking on the person’s profile picture in a chat with them then clicking “Nickname.” Signal says “Nicknames & notes are stored with Signal and end-to-end encrypted. They are only visible to you.” So, you can add a nickname to a Jason saying “co-founder,” or maybe “national security adviser,” and no one else is going to see it. Just you. When you’re trying to make a group chat, perhaps.

Signal could improve its user interface around groups and people with duplicate display names.

One of the most basic tenets of cybersecurity is that you must “consider your threat model” when trying to keep your data and your communications safe, and then take appropriate steps to protect yourself.

This means you need to consider who you are, what you are talking about, and who may want to know that information (potential adversaries) for any given account, conversation, etc. The precautions you want to take to protect yourself if you are a random person messaging your partner about what you want to eat for dinner may be different than those you’d want to take, if, hypothetically, you are the Secretary of Defense of the United States or a National Security Advisor talking to top administration officials about your plans for bombing an apartment building in Yemen.

I've lost count of how many times I've been cornered at conferences by men in meticulously over-casual $300 t-shirts, evangelizing their startups with religious fervor. "We're DISRUPTING the entire industry," they insist, with the insufferable confidence of someone who believes their "Uber for X" app constitutes a revolution on par with penicillin.

"The old model is completely broken," they insist.

As they drone on about their company's world-changing approach to (inevitably) shuttling burritos from point A to point B, the truth becomes painfully obvious: their "revolutionary" business model consists of wedging themselves between existing markets and participants, then bleeding both sides dry with escalating fees and commissions.

This has become the dominant tech playbook.

What venture capitalists celebrate as "disruption" is, with damning frequency, nothing more than a moderately sophisticated way to extract rent from existing systems that functioned perfectly well before tech entrepreneurs arrived to "save" them.

When tech founders proclaim "we're disruptive," what they really mean is "we've found a legally dubious way to build wealth on the back of a system that worked fine before we showed up." Their "disruption" is a form of digital colonization—invading functioning markets and leaving devastation in their wake.

The obscenity isn't just the elicitation itself—it's the squandering of human potential. Imagine if the brilliant minds and vast capital currently dedicated to building increasingly sophisticated digital toll booths were instead focused on our existential challenges: climate catastrophe, preventable disease, systemic poverty, the collapse of democracy.

What actual problems have the most celebrated tech "unicorns" of the past decade solved? Did Uber cure a disease? Did DoorDash address climate change? Did Airbnb solve the housing crisis—or worsen it?

This is a society-wide failure of resource allocation.

It's a moral catastrophe masquerading as innovation.

If you're a tech founder: prove this assessment wrong. Show me, show us "disruption" that genuinely creates new, class-crossing value instead of reallocating it. Build something that addresses human needs instead of inventing elaborate new ways to insert yourself as a Rentier in existing transactions. Stop using "innovation" as a smokescreen for exploitation.

For everyone else: when the MBA in a designer hoodie that costs more than a starter car tells you he's "disrupting" an industry, translate it correctly: "I've found a way to skim money from people who actually create value, and I'm hoping you'll call me a visionary instead of an execrable leech."