May 2025 – Page 66 – news.buyenne.com

KI von Elon Musk: Groks Holocaust-Leugnung soll technische Ursache haben

Die Leugnung des Holocaust durch den KI-Chatbot Grok soll laut Elon Musks KI-Firma auf einen Programmierfehler zurückgehen. (Chatbots, KI)

Anzeige: Digitale Souveränität durch Stackit Cloud

Stackit bietet eine datenschutzkonforme Cloudlösung für Unternehmen, die auf digitale Souveränität setzen. Ein Workshop zeigt, wie die Plattform strategisch implementiert werden kann. (Golem Karrierewelt, Internet)

HBO’s The Last of Us S2E6 recap: Look who’s back!

Some of the most impactful scenes from the game get the HBO treatment.

New episodes of season 2 of The Last of Us are premiering on HBO every Sunday night, and Ars' Kyle Orland (who's played the games) and Andrew Cunningham (who hasn't) will be talking about them here after they air. While these recaps don't delve into every single plot point of the episode, there are obviously heavy spoilers contained within, so go watch the episode first if you want to go in fresh.

Kyle: Going from a sudden shot of beatific Pedro Pascal at the end of the last episode to a semi-related flashback with a young Joel Miller and his brother was certainly a choice. I almost respect how overtly they are just screwing with audience expectations here.

As for the opening flashback scene itself, I guess the message is "Hey, look at the generational trauma his family was dealing with—isn't it great he overcame that to love Ellie?" But I'm not sure I can draw a straight line from "he got beat by his dad" to "he condemned the entire human race for his surrogate daughter."

Andrew: I do not have the same problems you did with either the Joel pop-in at the end of the last episode or the flashback at the start of this episode—last week, the show was signaling "here comes Joel!" and this week the show is signaling "look, it's Joel!" Maybe I'm just responding to Tony Dalton as Joel's dad, who I know best as the charismatic lunatic Lalo Salamanca from Better Call Saul. I do agree that the throughline between these two events is shaky, though, and without the flashback to fill us in, the "I hope you can do a little better than me" sentiment feels like something way out of left field.

But I dunno, it's Joel week. Joel's back! This is the Duality of Joel: you can simultaneously think that he is horrible for failing a civilization-scale trolley problem when he killed a building full of Fireflies to save Ellie, and you can't help but be utterly charmed by Pedro Pascal enthusiastically describing the many ways to use a Dremel. (He's right! It's a versatile tool!)

Truly, there's pretty much nothing in this episode that we couldn't have inferred or guessed at based on the information the show has already made available to us. And I say this as a non-game-player—I didn't need to see exactly how their relationship became as strained as it was by the beginning of the season to have some idea of why it happened, nor did I need to see The Porch Scene to understand that their bond nevertheless endured. But this is also the dynamic that everybody came to the show for last season, so I can only make myself complain about it to a point.

Kyle: It's true, Joel Week is a time worth celebrating. If I'm coming across as cranky about it at the outset, it's probably because this whole episode is a realization of what we're missing out on this season thanks to Joel's death.

As you said, a lot of this episode was filling in gaps that could well have been inferred from events we did see. But I would have easily taken a full season (or a full second game) of Ellie growing up and Joel dealing with Ellie growing up. You could throw in some zombie attacks or an overarching Big Bad enemy or something if you want, but the development of Joel and Ellie's relationship deserves more than just some condensed flashbacks.

"It works?!" Credit: Warner Bros. Discovery

Andrew: Yeah, it's hard not to be upset about the original sin of The Last of Us Part 2 which is (assuming it's like the show) that having some boring underbaked villain crawl out of the woodwork to kill the show's main character is kind of a cheap shot. Sure, you shock the hell out of viewers like me who didn't see it coming! But part of the reason I didn't see it coming is because if you kill Joel, you need to do a whole bunch of your show without Joel and why on Earth would you decide to do that?

To be clear, I don't mind this season so much and I've found things to like about it, though Ellie does sometimes veer into being a protagonist so short-sighted and impulsive and occasionally just-plain-stupid that it's hard to be in her corner. But yeah, flashing back to a time just two months after the end of season 1 really does make you wonder, "Why couldn't the story just be this?"

Kyle: In the gaming space, I understand the desire to not have your sequel game be just "more of the same" from the last game. But I've always felt The Last of Us Part 2 veered too hard in the other direction and became something almost entirely unrecognizable from the original game I loved.

But let's focus on what we do get in this episode, which is an able recreation of my favorite moment from the second game, Ellie enjoying the heck out of a ruined science museum. The childlike wonder she shows here is a great respite from a lot of action-heavy scenes in the game, and I think it serves the same purpose here. It's also much more drawn out in the game—I could have luxuriated in just this part of the flashback for an entire episode!

Pages: 12

Acer Swift Go thin and light laptops get Intel Lunar Lake chips, Microsoft Copilot+ features

Acer is refreshing its Swift Go line of thin and light laptops with two new models sporting AI-branding because… 2025, I guess. The new Acer Swift Go 14 AI (SFG14-75/T) is a 14 inch laptop with a FHD+ display and support for up to an Intel Core U…

The post Acer Swift Go thin and light laptops get Intel Lunar Lake chips, Microsoft Copilot+ features appeared first on Liliputing.

Copyright Claims Board is “Ineffective and Costly,” Watchdog Groups Say

Responding to an inquiry from the U.S. Copyright Office, a coalition of watchdog groups has flagged various problems with the Copyright Claims Board. They label the three-year-old small claims tribunal as “ineffective” and a poor use of taxpayer money. The groups highlight a high volume of dismissed claims, concerns over the opt-out procedure, and an alarming 60% default rate in cases that do reach a final determination.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

CCB The US Copyright Claims Board launched in 2022. Through this Copyright Office-hosted venue, rightsholders can claim damages outside the federal court system.

The board, instituted through the CASE Act, aims to make it cheaper for creators to resolve disputes. There’s no attorney required and the filing fee is limited to $100 per claim. The potential damages are capped at $30,000 and those who prefer traditional lawsuits can choose to opt-out.

Many rightsholders and related groups backed the creation of a small claims board, noting that this would help resolve copyright disputes without having to file expensive federal lawsuits. Opponents, however, feared that it could be abused by trolls and other frivolous claimants.

Now that nearly three years have passed, the Copyright Office is working on a formal review of the board’s accomplishments. In a request for comments, it asked members of the public to chime in on CCB’s effectiveness and future.

Watchdog Groups Flag CCB Problems

In response to this request, a coalition of groups including Re:Create, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, R Street, and Engine, filed a critical response. The same groups also objected to the CASE Act and warned about potential abuse by trolls.

While there hasn’t been any sign of systematic abuse of the board, the group flagged various other shortcomings. In a detailed submission, they note that the CCB costs taxpayers millions, while relatively few cases reach a final decision.

According to the groups’ analysis, the CCB has spent approximately $5.4 million in its first years of operation, while only about $75,000 has been awarded to claiming copyright holders through its decisions.

With well over 1,200 complaints, there has been no shortage of claims. However, most of these end up being dismissed and thus far the board has only reached final determinations in 35 cases, awarding little over $2,000 in damages on average.

“American taxpayers have spent around $5,500 per case to reject hundreds of frivolous claims, adjudicate the remaining 3.5%, and issue opinions awarding damages that on average amount to less than half the cost of processing the claim,” the submission states.

Claims filed

High Dismissal Rate

Aside from the money, the high dismissal rate also stands out. The board’s own statistics show that, of the 964 cases that were dismissed, 470 were deemed to be noncompliant. That includes many cases where filers failed to amend their claims upon the CCB’s request.

Another 187 claims were dismissed because no valid proof of service was filed. In 114 instances the respondent chose to opt out, while 99 claims were settled without the board’s involvement.

How claims are resolved

The groups describe the CCB as “mostly churning through non-compliant claims,” and suggest the $40 initial filing fee is too low to screen out potentially frivolous claims.

“The $40 filing fee is not high enough to deter frivolous claims. Hundreds of non-compliant claims are filed each year by claimants who disappear after a CCB Staff Attorney spends substantial time evaluating the claim and preparing a detailed Order to Amend,” the submission reads.

Concerning Number of Defaults

The groups also expressed alarm over the high proportion of default judgments. Their filing indicates that 60% of the CCB’s final determinations were default judgments, where the respondent did not participate.

This rate is dramatically higher than the typical 7% default rate for copyright cases in federal court. This could signal that the public is not familiar with the opt-out procedure yet and that they don’t understand the consequences.

In one of these cases, respondent Angel Jameson shared her “disbelief that the Board is a government tribunal” after missing the opt-out deadline. Despite her objections, the CCB awarded the claimant $4,500 in damages, rejecting a request to vacate the default judgment.

“The Jameson case suggests that it is possible for respondents to fail to opt out due to mistrust and misunderstanding of the CCB process,” the groups write.

Repeal?

Given these significant operational concerns, the coalition argues strongly against expanding the CCB’s jurisdiction or powers at this time. This would include the suggestion to enable the board to grant subpoenas.

“There is no reason to consider adding to the CCB’s docket or to its powers until it can be established that the CCB is capable of accomplishing its initial mandate,” they note.

“At present, the CCB appears to be drowning in frivolous claims, handing out a handful of default judgments to facially valid claims with only one party present, and slowly grinding away at a handful of disputed claims.”

If these concerns remain, or get worse, it may be best that Congress abolish the small claims board in its entirety, the coalition concludes.

“If these trends continue, Congress should consider repealing the CASE Act.”

—

A copy of the submission submitted by Re:Create, the Association of Research Libraries, Engine, R Street Institute, and the American Library Association is available here (pdf). Other submissions, including ones who view the CCB as more favorable, can be found here.