Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban
The Supreme Court has confirmed the ban on TikTok under the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, requiring ByteDance to divest ownership by January 19, 2025, due to national security risks. The ruling has implications for major tech companies like Apple and Google if they continue supporting TikTok post-deadline. Discussions are ongoing about the future of TikTok under the incoming Trump administration, with the app's CEO advocating its cultural and economic value.
Environmental impact of AI use exaggerated
Andy Masley argues that concerns about the environmental impact of using AI, particularly ChatGPT, are overstated. He highlights that an individual query consumes as little energy as sending emails or watching short videos. Masley advocates for a focus on systemic changes in energy sources rather than individual emissions, urging a balanced discussion about AI technology benefits versus environmental costs.
Medicare's negotiations on diabetes medications
Medicare's recent negotiations for diabetes and weight management medications like Ozempic and Wegovy aim to lower drug costs for beneficiaries. While some see it as a positive step towards accessibility, critics question why not all necessary medications, like tirzepatide, are included, scrutinizing equity in pharmaceutical pricing. This reflects a broader societal demand for reforms in healthcare affordability.
Building a data center: Railway's journey
Charith Amarasinghe details Railway's transition from Google Cloud to building its own data center. The article explores challenges like high egress fees and poor support that prompted this change. It humorously recounts the learning curve involved in setting up the infrastructure, emphasizing a detail-oriented approach to circumvent operational issues and the complexities of hardware management.
EFF critiques Supreme Court's TikTok ruling
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) expresses discontent with the Supreme Court's TikTok ban ruling, arguing it undermines First Amendment rights and fails to address the broader implications of free speech. The EFF advocates for comprehensive consumer privacy legislation over platform bans, warning that such actions can negatively affect democratic principles and set dangerous precedents regarding freedom of expression.