Faced with geopolitical instability, economic uncertainty and rising airfares, many travelers are changing destinations or canceling their trips entirely.

Google has reportedly signed a classified agreement allowing the Pentagon to use its AI models for "any lawful government purpose." While the deal is said to discourage domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons without human oversight, it apparently does not give Google the power to block how the government actually uses its models. The Verge reports: The agreement was reported less than a day after Google employees demanded CEO Sundar Pichai block the Pentagon from using its AI amid concerns that it would be used in "inhumane or extremely harmful ways." If the agreement is confirmed, it would place Google alongside OpenAI and xAI, which have also made classified AI deals with the US government. Anthropic was also among that list until it was blacklisted by the Pentagon for refusing the Department of Defense's demands to remove weapon and surveillance-related guardrails from its AI models. Citing a single anonymous source "with knowledge of the situation," The Information reports that the deal states that both parties have agreed that the search giant's AI systems shouldn't be used for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weapons "without appropriate human oversight and control." But the contract also says it doesn't give Google "any right to control or veto lawful government operational decision-making," which would suggest the agreed restrictions are more of a pinky promise than legally binding obligations.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The president’s rhetoric on religion, along with hard-line immigration policies and the U.S. war in Iran, has splintered a coalition of Christian voters who returned him to the White House.

fjo3 writes: The United Arab Emirates announced Tuesday that it would exit the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (source paywalled; alternative source), or OPEC, along with the wider group of partners known as OPEC+, effective May 1, in what could be a blow to control over prices by the group, long led in practice by Saudi Arabia. The move "reflects the UAE's long-term strategic and economic vision and evolving energy profile" read an official statement carried by a UAE state news agency, as disruptions "in the Strait of Hormuz continues to affect supply dynamics." [...] The UAE is the second Persian Gulf country to leave the group after Qatar terminated its membership in 2019. The UAE has been a member of OPEC since 1971. The latest departure leaves in place 11 core members: Algeria, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Bay Area homeowner and investment banker Storm Duncan is trying to swap a 13-acre Mill Valley property for Anthropic equity instead of cash. He created a LinkedIn page for the home, describing the move as a "diversification play" because he is "under-concentrated in AI investments relative to the importance of AI in the future, and over-concentrated in real estate." A young Anthropic employee, Duncan says, might be "in the exact opposite scenario." TechCrunch reports: Duncan is asking potential buyers to email him to discuss deal specifics, but he said it would be a private transaction that doesn't require the buyer to sell their stock outright. On LinkedIn, he also said the homebuyer would "continue to retain 20% of the upside value of the shares exchanged for the duration of the lockup period." Duncan, who described himself as a longtime Bay Area resident who moved to Miami during the pandemic, bought the property in 2019 for $4.75 million. It's currently occupied by "a high-profile VC," he said, but he declined to identify the VC.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard a dispute over labels on the popular Roundup weed killer, which thousands of people blame for their cancers. How the Supreme Court rules could have implications for tens of thousands of lawsuits against Roundup maker Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer. The case centers on who decides about warning labels on chemicals: the federal government -- or states or juries. [...] The justices will not be evaluating whether glyphosate causes cancer. Rather, they'll consider who should decide what appears on warning labels and whether states have a role to play after the EPA weighs in. The current U.S. solicitor general backed Monsanto. Sarah Harris, his principal deputy, said the Environmental Protection Agency is in the driver's seat, not anyone in Missouri. "Missouri thus requires adding cancer warnings but federal law requires EPA to approve new warnings and tasks EPA with deciding what label changes would mitigate any health risks," Harris argued. "State law must give way." Several justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, appeared to agree with Monsanto's argument about the need for a single, uniform standard across the country. But others, like Chief Justice John Roberts, wondered what would happen if the federal government moved more slowly than states did, who wanted to act quickly on information about new dangers. "Well, it does undermine the uniformity," Roberts said. "On the other hand, if it turns out they were right, it might have been good if they had an opportunity to do something, to call this danger to the attention of people while the federal government was going through its process," he said about states. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked about the emergence of new science, and the EPA's reviews. "There's a 15-year window between when that product has to be re-registered again and lots of things can happen in science, in terms of development about the product," she said. Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, only sells Roundup that contains glyphosate to farmers and businesses these days. Bayer has been pushing to resolve scores of the residential cases through a sweeping settlement, trying to put the costly claims behind it.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Researchers say infrasound -- low-frequency vibrations from things like pipes, HVAC systems, and traffic that humans can't consciously hear -- may help explain why some old buildings feel unsettling or "haunted." Rodney Schmaltz, senior author and professor at MacEwan, says: "Consider visiting a supposedly haunted building. Your mood shifts, you feel agitated, but you can't see or hear anything unusual. In an old building, there is a good chance that infrasound is present, particularly in basements where aging pipes and ventilation systems produce low-frequency vibrations. If you were told the building was haunted, you might attribute that agitation to something supernatural. In reality, you may simply have been exposed to infrasound." ScienceBlog.com reports: Infrasound sits below roughly 20 Hz, the lower limit of what the human ear can ordinarily detect. It's generated by storms, by volcanic activity, by tectonic rumblings deep in the Earth's crust, and (this is the part that matters) by the mundane mechanical heartbeat of cities: ageing pipes, HVAC systems, traffic, industrial machinery. "Infrasound is pervasive in everyday environments, appearing near ventilation systems, traffic, and industrial machinery," says Schmaltz. Most of the time, we walk through it without a second thought. The question the team wanted to answer was whether walking through it was actually doing something to us, whether the frequency was registered somewhere below consciousness, somewhere we couldn't readily name. The experimental setup was deliberately ordinary. Thirty-six undergraduate students filed one at a time into isolated testing rooms and sat alone with a piece of music, either a calming instrumental or a horror-themed ambient track designed to provoke discomfort. Hidden subwoofers, including a 12-inch unit positioned in an adjacent hallway and a 16-inch speaker oriented toward the ceiling in a neighboring room, pumped infrasound at approximately 18 Hz into half those spaces. The participants had no idea. That last point turned out to be rather important. When the team ran the numbers, they found that participants couldn't reliably identify whether infrasound had been present. Their guesses were, statistically speaking, no better than chance. And according to Schmaltz, participants' beliefs about whether the infrasound was on had no detectable effect on their cortisol or mood. The physiological response didn't care what the participants thought was happening. It just happened anyway. What happened, specifically, was this: those exposed to infrasound reported higher irritability, lower interest in the music, and a tendency to rate the music as sadder, irrespective of whether it was the calming or the horror track. Cortisol levels, measured before and about 20 minutes after exposure, were also elevated. Kale Scatterty, the PhD student who led the work, notes that irritability and cortisol do tend to move together under ordinary stress, but adds that "infrasound exposure had effects on both outcomes that went beyond that natural relationship." That distinction matters more than it might seem. Previous theories about infrasound and paranormal experience have often leaned on anxiety as the explanatory mechanism, the idea that low-frequency sound triggers a kind of free-floating dread that the mind then reaches for supernatural explanations to account for. The new data don't really support that picture. Measures of anxiety didn't budge significantly. What went up was irritability and disinterest, a kind of sour, low-grade aversion rather than fear. That's perhaps a more honest description of how a lot of ghost stories actually feel in the telling: not screaming terror, but wrong atmosphere, a sense of unease that never quite crystallizes into something you can point at. The study has been published this week in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The artist shares stories behind some of her biggest hits, her love of a “rant bridge” and how life in the public eye informs the stories she tells in her songs.

The Trump administration says it will reimburse energy companies $885 million to cancel two planned offshore wind farms, with the firms in turn agreeing to put money into oil and gas projects instead. "The deals are modeled after a similar agreement last month with the French energy giant TotalEnergies," notes the New York Times. "TotalEnergies forfeited its leases for two wind projects planned off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, while committing to a range of fossil-fuel investments." From the report: [...] The first new agreement affects Bluepoint Wind, a wind farm in the early stages of development off New York and New Jersey. The project was proposed by Global Infrastructure Partners, a part of asset manager BlackRock, and Ocean Winds, which is itself a joint venture between Engie and EDP Renewables, two European clean-energy firms. The second deal would cancel Golden State Wind, another early-stage venture off California's central coast. Golden State Wind is a 50-50 partnership between the developers Ocean Winds and Reventus Power. Both Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind agreed not to pursue any new offshore wind projects in the United States, although that pledge would not necessarily apply to the companies behind the ventures. Ocean Winds has also been developing another giant wind farm known as SouthCoast Wind, off Martha's Vineyard, Mass., that is much further along in the planning and permitting process. That project is not affected by Monday's announcement, although it has essentially been paused since Mr. Trump took office last year. [...] It is also unclear how much the companies will actually invest in new fossil fuel infrastructure. In documents released this month, Interior revealed that it would count investments that TotalEnergies made before the deal toward its pledge, raising questions over whether the company had any obligations to make additional investments.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Haiti’s revolution shocked the world. America still isn’t over it.

In the world’s fastest aging society, artificial intelligence is being used to make care calls to older adults who live alone and to fight dementia.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: Technology tycoons Elon Musk and Sam Altman are poised to face off in a high-stakes trial revolving around the alleged betrayal, deceit and unbridled ambition that blurred the bickering billionaires' once-shared vision for the development of artificial intelligence. The trial, which started Monday with jury selection, centers on the 2015 birth of ChatGPT maker OpenAI as a nonprofit startup primarily funded by Musk before evolving into a capitalistic venture now valued at $852 billion. The trial's outcome could sway the balance of power in AI -- breakthrough technology that is increasingly being feared as a potential job killer and an existential threat to humanity's survival. Those perceived risks are among the reasons that Musk, the world's richest person, cites for filing an August 2024 lawsuit that will now be decided by a jury and U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California. The civil lawsuit accuses Altman, OpenAI's CEO, and his top lieutenant, Greg Brockman, of double-crossing Musk by straying from the San Francisco company's founding mission to be an altruistic steward of a revolutionary technology. The lawsuit alleges they shifted into a moneymaking mode behind his back. OpenAI has brushed off Musk's allegations as an unfounded case of sour grapes that's aimed at undercutting its rapid growth and bolstering Musk's own xAI, which he launched in 2023 as a competitor. Gonzalez Rogers questioned potential jurors Monday about their views on Musk, Altman and artificial intelligence. Some jurors said they had negative views of Musk, but most said they would still be able to treat him fairly and focus on the facts of the case. [...] "Part of this is about whether a jury believes the people who will testify and whether they are credible," Gonzalez Rogers said during a court hearing earlier this year while explaining why she believe the case merited a trial. The judge will make the final decision on the case, with the jury serving in an advisory role. The latest development is that a jury has been seated. During selection, several prospective jurors expressed negative views of Elon Musk, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected attempts by Musk's lawyer to remove some of them solely on that basis, saying dislike of Musk does not automatically mean someone can't be fair. The court is selecting nine jurors, and the case is expected to wrap by May 21, when it would go to the jury. Tomorrow, April 28th, will feature opening statements.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The proposal would have set aside questions about what to do with Iran’s nuclear program.

The state visit of King Charles III comes at a moment of tension over the war in Iran between President Trump and Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

King Charles III and Queen Camilla gathered with Washington’s famous and not so famous for an off-the-record evening.

The rapper will perform in “Moulin Rouge!” for the final time on Friday, though the production didn’t say why she was leaving more than two weeks early.

Each act of political violence further frays our threadbare social fabric, laying the foundation for authoritarianism.

By Monday evening, the system had brought down trees and power lines across several states. A man in Michigan was killed when a tree fell on him, the authorities said.

Ding’s approach to dressing, with his spectacular spectrum of sweaters, suited a contestant who remained ice-cube calm as he climbed up the show’s leaderboard.

Jamie Ding, a self-described “faceless bureaucrat” from New Jersey, became a TV sensation during his 31-game winning streak.