Gilmoure shares a report: U.S. energy officials are reassessing the risk posed by Chinese-made devices that play a critical role in renewable energy infrastructure after unexplained communication equipment was found inside some of them, two people familiar with the matter said. Power inverters, which are predominantly produced in China, are used throughout the world to connect solar panels and wind turbines to electricity grids. They are also found in batteries, heat pumps and electric vehicle chargers. [...] Using the rogue communication devices to skirt firewalls and switch off inverters remotely, or change their settings, could destabilise power grids, damage energy infrastructure, and trigger widespread blackouts, experts said. "That effectively means there is a built-in way to physically destroy the grid," one of the people said, The two people declined to name the Chinese manufacturers of the inverters and batteries with extra communication devices, nor say how many they had found in total.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Corporations make a lot of stuff they want to sell you, and invest a lot of money, effort, and time into convincing you to not only to buy a product, but to buy a specific version of it. While there’s nothing wrong with pointing out the advantages of one product over another, sometimes marketers use specifically vague or deceptive phrases in order to convince you to choose the one they're offering up.

The problem with these phrases is that they exist in a kind of gray area—they’re not outright lies, but they’re also not particularly transparent. When you see one of these eight terms printed on a product’s label, it's a good reminder to engage in some critical thinking about what it's actually telling you.

FDA-approved

Seeing the phrase “FDA Approved” on a medicine’s product label probably gives you a certain sense of confidence. After all, the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t just approve everything! Getting that FDA stamp of approval must mean it’s safe and high-quality, right?

But that’s not actually what “FDA Approved” means at all. The phrase specifically means “the drug is determined to provide benefits that outweigh its known and potential risks for the intended population.” It has absolutely nothing to do with quality, and it doesn’t even mean it’s low-risk—just that the benefits outweigh the risks. That’s useful information, but in marketing, the phrase is used as an indicator that you’re getting a superior product that you can trust to be safe, when all it really means is that it works, and the downsides are (probably) worth it.

Genuine leather

The word “genuine” is doing a lot of work here. You probably think it must be some kind of industry term, with all kinds of meaningful grading and quality testing behind it. But in the words of Lifehacker editor Beth Skwarecki, “‘genuine leather’ just means it’s...leather." It literally just means the thing you’re holding in your hand is, in fact, made of leather. It says nothing about the quality of that leather—good or bad.

Patented

If you watch Shark Tank, you probably have a high opinion of the patent process, and assume that if a product is patented—and shouts that information everywhere in its advertising—it must be innovative and unique. You’d better buy this version, is the implication, because no one else can replicate its patented magic.

Eh, not necessarily. Sure, some patents do, in fact, protect innovative ideas. But patents can be issued for a lot of reasons—sometimes minor technical improvements, or new ways of combining ingredients or components. The U.S. issues hundreds of thousands of patents every year, and not all of them are meaningful in the sense of describing amazing breakthroughs or even unique applications. But the term conveys a certain gravitas to a product’s other claims around effectiveness, utility, and value, so marketers use it any time they can.

Maximum strength

The “it goes to 11” of marketing copy. This phrase always looks convincing— it's usually written in all caps at the top of the label to let you know that the product is not messing around, and that it is the most product you can buy.

The problem is, what does “maximum” mean? Maximum compared to what? If it means compared to the other versions of the product, that doesn’t necessarily mean competing brands won’t be stronger. If it refers to some sort of legal or physical limitation on how powerful a drug or other product can be, then that same restriction applies to competing products as well. It’s a relative term that doesn’t mean anything unless you put in some research to understand what the reference points actually are.

All-natural

Every now and then, someone falls for the classic “dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO)” prank, agreeing that a dangerous chemical like DHMO should be banned after hearing about all the potential hazards it causes, like death if accidentally inhaled. DHMO is, of course, water (H₂O)—dangerous under the right conditions, but also necessary for life. The point being, many chemicals are all-natural, technically speaking, and there’s no clear guidance from the FDA on what the term means. Most products are processed to such a degree that it’s impossible to determine what “natural” even could mean, so labeling something as “all-natural” doesn’t mean much.

Doctor-approved

When shopping for health-related products of any kind, it can be persuasive to see one is “doctor approved” in some way. You might think this means that a major medical association has come together to recommend that product, or at least conducted some sort of study and determined that this product did the job best. It probably doesn’t mean that, though. While it often means that at least one doctor tested or reviewed the product, that doctor may have been on the company payroll, and either way the phrase doesn’t mean a more formal or official approval process of any kind took place.

Clinically proven

Similarly, the phrase “clinically proven” can be deceptive because the clinical studies being referenced are often paid for by the manufacturer itself. While that doesn’t necessarily mean these studies are fake, it does call into question how objective the study and its designers were, and whether any independent bodies corroborate its findings.

Worse, sometimes the studies being cited for the “clinically proven” claim don’t actually prove that the product works. Sometimes fine print hidden somewhere on a label or website will clarify this, but not always. Even if a study was reasonably well-conducted and independently organized, you need more than one study to have confidence that an active ingredient or specific formulation of something actually works as advertised.

Recyclable

If you’re worried about the future of the planet, you might be seeking out products that lower your carbon footprint. Seeing that a product’s packaging is recyclable makes you feel better about using it, because you know that when you toss it away you’re not adding to a landfill.

Except, often, you are. Companies sometimes use materials in their packaging that are technically recyclable, but practically not recyclable. In other words, the specific plastic or other material can be recycled, but aspects of the packaging itself—shape, size, and the stuff it contains—mean that it will be separated out and tossed into a landfill regardless. And sometimes the specific material used isn’t recycled universally—for example, HDPE plastic can be recycled, but not all recycling facilities accept it.

Defenses are weaker, and victims are more likely to pay, SANS warns

Criminals who attempt to damage critical infrastructure are increasingly targeting the systems that sit between IT and operational tech.…

submitted by /u/TheOddityCollector to r/Weird [link] [comments]

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Last Thursday, white smoke emerged from a chimney at the Sistine Chapel, signaling that cardinals had elected a new pope. That's a rare event in itself, but one of the many unprecedented aspects of the election of Chicago-born Robert Prevost as Pope Leo XIV is one of the main reasons he chose his papal name: artificial intelligence. On Saturday, the new pope gave his first address to the College of Cardinals, explaining his name choice as a continuation of Pope Francis' concerns about technological transformation. "Sensing myself called to continue in this same path, I chose to take the name Leo XIV," he said during the address. "There are different reasons for this, but mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic Encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution." In his address, Leo XIV explicitly described "artificial intelligence" developments as "another industrial revolution," positioning himself to address this technological shift as his namesake had done over a century ago. As the head of an ancient religious organization that spans millennia, the pope's talk about AI creates a somewhat head-spinning juxtaposition, but Leo XIV isn't the first pope to focus on defending human dignity in the age of AI. Pope Francis, who died in April, first established AI as a Vatican priority, as we reported in August 2023 when he warned during his 2023 World Day of Peace message that AI should not allow "violence and discrimination to take root." In January of this year, Francis further elaborated on his warnings about AI with reference to a "shadow of evil" that potentially looms over the field in a document called "Antiqua et Nova" (meaning "the old and the new"). "Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed toward positive or negative ends," Francis said in January. "When used in ways that respect human dignity and promote the well-being of individuals and communities, it can contribute positively to the human vocation. Yet, as in all areas where humans are called to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human freedom allows for the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the moral evaluation of this technology will need to take into account how it is directed and used." [...] Just as mechanization disrupted traditional labor in the 1890s, artificial intelligence now potentially threatens employment patterns and human dignity in ways that Pope Leo XIV believes demand similar moral leadership from the church. "In our own day," Leo XIV concluded in his formal address on Saturday, "the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice, and labor."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.