Feed aggregator

Apple will now recommend apps based on your downloads and behavior.

The Document Foundation has taken a swing at Euro-Office, accusing the self-described sovereign productivity suite of doing Microsoft's content lock-in strategy a favor while wrapping itself in the language of European digital independence. The attack came from Italo Vignoli, a founding member of The Document Foundation, who published an open letter on Monday, just hours before after Euro-Office 1.0 debuted as what its backers describe as a "truly open" and sovereign alternative to Microsoft Office. "In recent days you will have read various articles announcing the arrival of Euro-Office, which is being 'marketed' as the first open-source office suite developed in Europe," he wrote. "We feel compelled — reluctantly, since open source should rest on transparency, not deception — to correct this claim.” According to Vignoli, that title belongs to OpenOffice.org, released in 2001 from Sun Microsystems' StarOffice codebase, followed by LibreOffice in 2010. His argument is that Euro-Office is the latest entrant in a market Europe helped create, not the pioneer its marketing suggests. The dispute is the latest chapter in a sovereignty spat that has been brewing since April, when German cloud outfit Nextcloud and hosting giant Ionos unveiled Euro-Office, a fork of the OnlyOffice productivity suite pitched at organizations seeking European-controlled alternatives to US software vendors. The launch immediately drew criticism from OnlyOffice's original developer, who objected to the fork and its branding. Now LibreOffice has joined the pile-on. Vignoli argues that genuine digital sovereignty depends on the use of the Open Document Format (ODF), the ISO-standardized format championed by LibreOffice and other open source office suites. However, Euro-Office defaults to Microsoft's Office Open XML (OOXML) format, which remains the dominant format across corporate desktops despite years of complaints from open source advocates. "Euro-Office defaults to the fully proprietary OOXML document format, developed and controlled solely by Microsoft," Vignoli wrote. "This makes it a de facto ally of Microsoft in its content lock-in strategy, with control remaining firmly in Redmond and far from Europe. The project's backers have presented Euro-Office as a European answer to concerns about dependence on American software providers and cloud platforms, part of a broader push for digital sovereignty that is gathering momentum across the continent. In the Document Foundation's view, there's not much sovereignty in swapping Microsoft Office for a suite that still defaults to Microsoft's document format. “The announcement … strengthens Microsoft’s strategy against European Digital Sovereignty, or, if you prefer, against the freedom of European users to control and manage their own content,” Vignoli said. A spokesperson for Euro-Office's creators told The Register: "We agree that proprietary file formats are a serious hinderance to digital sovereignty. We thus need to free users who are stuck using these formats, and enable them to work with an open office platform. This will allow organizations to transition to open document formats like ODF." "Euro-Office will focus development efforts on improving ODF support. Ultimately, ODF should be the standard - not OOXM, and we will work towards that." ®

⚡ Quick Take

• Elle’s teaser trailer is here, giving us our first look at the Legally Blonde prequel series. And you know what we like it!

“On this perfect day,” we finally get our first look at Elle as the Legally Blonde prequel series releases its first trailer. And honestly, it’s giving us some pretty good vibes. We didn’t really know what to expect from this series, and we’re not sure we totally require it, but it does seem to understand Legally Blonde. From its nostalgic soundtrack to its very Legally Blonde-esque record scratch when things take a turn for “the worst,” we really feel the spiritual energy of the movie we love so much return to us. You can watch the Elle trailer below.

It’s all going perfectly for Elle in this Legally Blonde prequel series trailer. Her world is pink and full of sunshine. But then it all gets flipped on its head when she and her family have to move to… Seattle!!!! THE HORROR OF IT ALL. WILL THE TRAGEDIES NEVER END?

RELATED ARTICLE

Horror Director Oz Perkins’ Role as LEGALLY BLONDE’s Dorky David Will Always Have a Place in Our Hearts

Elle is suddenly feeling very blonde in a world of rainy days, earth tones, and grown-out roots. But what’s a girl to do? Get support from Bruiser Woods and get out there. The time has come to show that pink IS a personality and Elle can do anything, even learn how to “speak Seattle.” The synopsis for Elle released with the trailer shares, “Season One of Elle follows Elle Woods before she was a fish-out-of-water at Harvard. We meet her in 1995 as a fish in the tumultuous waters of high school where she encounters tricky friendships, forbidden romance, and questionable fashion choices. Through it all, Elle uses her family as a touchstone, and forms an even tighter bond to her mother, proving that they can get through anything life throws their way as long as they have each other. With each challenge she faces, Elle grows closer to the Elle Woods we know and love today.“

As they say, we love you, Elle! And truly hope this sequel series is able to capture the real magic of the original movie. In addition to the Elle trailer, here are a few more details about the Legally Blonde prequel series:

Created by Laura Kittrell (High School, Insecure), Elle is co-showrun and executive produced by Kittrell and Caroline Dries. Reese Witherspoon, Lauren Neustadter, Amanda Brown and Marc Platt also serve as executive producers. Jason Moore (Pitch Perfect) directed the first two episodes of Season One, and also serves as an executive producer. Bryan J. Raber and Asmita Paranjape serve as producers. Josie Craven and Jen Regan serve as supervising producers.

The Season One cast includes Lexi Minetree as Elle Woods, June Diane Raphael as Elle’s mother Eva, and Tom Everett Scott as her father Wyatt, alongside Jacob Moskovitz, Gabrielle Policano, Chandler Kinney, Zac Looker, and Amy Pietz. Recurring cast members include Jessica Belkin, Danielle Chand, Matt Oberg, Chloe Wepper, Logan Shroyer, Sharon Taylor, David Burtka, Brad Harder, Kayla Maisonet, Lisa Yamada, and James Van Der Beek.

Prime VideoPrime Video

Elle premieres on July 1 and streams on Prime Video.

Originally published on June 9.

The post ELLE Trailer Captures LEGALLY BLONDE Energy Perfectly appeared first on Nerdist.

Sandstone's Series A was led by Lightspeed Partners, with participation from Sequoia.

Enola Holmes is back on the case and dealing with some big personal and professional questions in yet another film. Millie Bobby Brown returns in the trailer for Enola Holmes 3 as we see her titular character prepare for her big wedding day. She’s set to marry her love, Earnest Augustus of the House of Tewkesbury, but she’s not so sure about giving up her infamous last name. While pondering the ramifications of marriage, things get even spicier in Malta when she learns that her sleuth brother Sherlock is missing. 

Well, that’s quite the news to get on the morning of your wedding. We are pretty sure that plans will be cancelled as Enola tries to bring her brother home. She says that a Holmes would not disappear under any circumstances without leaving clues, which means she will be chasing clever breadcrumbs to lead her to Sherlock.

Netflix

Who would ever think to kidnap him? Why would they do that? And how long will it take Enola to track him down? Of course, the Enola Holmes 3 trailer doesn’t give answers to those questions, but fans won’t have to wait long for answers. The third film of this Netflix franchise will premiere on July 1.

The post ENOLA HOLMES 3 Trailer Teases Sherlock’s Kidnapping and a Wedding appeared first on Nerdist.

Research by AppSec biz Checkmarx finds that 70 percent of developers believe AI-generated code has more vulnerabilities, and 30 percent knowingly ship vulnerable code into production. The report is based on responses from 2,350 global developers, CISOs, and AppSec managers, and follows similar annual surveys since 2023. The number of respondents is 54 percent higher this year than last, and the increased sample size may account for a somewhat surprising statistic: the reported proportion of AI-generated production code has slightly declined, from 54 percent to 49 percent, though this is still a high figure. Production applications are also built on an open source foundation, according to the report, accounting for 59 percent of the code. These are self-reported estimates, but a lot of open source code is buried in node_modules or other library locations and it is not always secure, whether because of hard-pressed maintainers struggling to keep up with AI-discovered vulnerabilities, or malicious packages smuggled into popular package repositories such as npm and PyPI. The consequence is that software development is riskier than ever, with issues extending beyond vulnerable code to credential-stealing malware, yet the Checkmarx survey appears to show resignation, with 93 percent of respondents reporting one or more security breaches as a result of vulnerable applications – though last year the figure was 98 percent. Reasons given include pressure to deploy quickly, vulnerabilities being too difficult to fix, and reliance on other controls to pick up the pieces. "Risk is normalized," says Checkmarx in its report. The security of AI-generated code is a hot topic, particularly since, among these respondents, it accounts for around 50 percent of what is written. 70 percent report "significantly more vulnerabilities with AI-generated code," suggesting that AI is even worse than humans when it comes to overlooking security issues. It is a complex situation. AI is trained on existing code, primarily public code, which has its share of vulnerabilities that may then be replicated. The AI wave has also delivered new tools for analyzing and remediating vulnerabilities. A study last year by computer scientists from the University of Central Florida and Birzeit University in Palestine looked at how code security varied between different programming languages (Java, Python, C, and C++) and LLMs, and which vulnerabilities are most prevalent. The findings showed significant variations, with C code tending to have the most security issues, and Python the fewest, though the researchers acknowledge that LLMs are evolving rapidly and that the research is a "time-stamped view." One of the issues is that LLMs "underutilize modern language and compiler features, often favoring outdated practices over more secure alternatives." The likely reason is the prevalence of such practices in the training data. A key question is whether developers can eliminate vulnerabilities using tooling, including old-style static analysis and newer AI-driven options. According to Checkmarx, they could but often do not. "The tools do the work, but organizations lack in translating this into process," the company reports. As Veracode has also reported, AI assistance is driving up the pace of development and security practices cannot keep up. The Checkmarx researchers state: "AI code volume correlates directly with vulnerable code deployment, which correlates directly with breach frequency." Specifically, "organizations where 81-100 percent of code is AI-generated ship vulnerable code at 3.4x the rate of those at 1-20 percent adoption" – a high price to pay for accelerated development. ®

Poor Sam Bankman-Fried. The disgraced crypto mogul has been dropping hints to President Donald Trump forever, letting it be known that he would very much pretty please like to be pardoned. Now, he’s out and proud about his official request to have the corrupt crypto president wipe his corrupt crypto conviction away. Bankman-Fried began floating this almost immediately after Trump won in 2024…

Source

The first Scary Movie is an undeniable 21st-century cultural touchstone. It is a shamelessly raunchy, endlessly quotable (and crucially, gif-able) horror parody of ’90s slasher films like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer, and the film’s now-iconic characters and singular sense of humor came courtesy of the Wayans Family. If Scream was, in its own right, a self-aware sendup of ’90s slashers, Scary Movie was an Inception-level, fourth-wall-breaking parody firing with the precision accuracy of a shotgun.

26 years later, the Scary Movie franchise has continued to evolve and transform in parallel with the genre it parodies: from the teen slashers of the ’90s to the gore-heavy ‘torture-porn’ of Saw in the early 2000s and the Paranormal Activity supernatural found-footage boom of the 2010s. The franchise itself has developed its own internal mythos and behind-the-scenes shuffles, with key creatives and stars moving in and out between installments. The Wayans Family departed the franchise after Scary Movie 2, while stars Anna Faris (Cindy Campbell) and Regina Hall (Brenda Meeks) hung on until Scary Movie 5. 

But with Marlon, Shawn, Keenen Ivory and Craig Wayans (alongside Rick Alvarez) returning to write the sixth Scary Movie film (simply titled Scary Movie), director Michael Tiddes back at the helm, and the (much-needed) return of Faris and Hall, Scary Movie (2026) is a welcome return to form that course-corrects in a customarily self-aware, fourth wall-breaking fashion. Taking aim at so-called “elevated horror” films like Get Out, Longlegs, and Smile, the film delivers a crop of new horror (and wider film industry) parodies at its familiar breakneck pace. 

RELATED ARTICLEMelissa Joan Hart Was Supposed to Play Cindy in SCARY MOVIEMake no mistake, a return to the Wayans’ crude, distinctly 2000s sense of humor isn’t going to win over any already reticent viewers. (Especially with the film clocking in at an hour and 45 minutes, a solid 20 minutes longer than every other installment.) And when the gags fall flat, they really fall flat. But when the Wayans take aim at specific characters, films, or genre trends rather than falling back on sex and/or gross-out humor, Scary Movie delivers on its promise of crowd-pleasing, no-holds-barred, “everyone is a potential target (even ourselves)” parody.Echoing the plot of Scream 5 (which was similarly styled as simply “Scream”), Scary Movie follows the moody, drug-addicted Sara (Olivia Rose Keegan), whose mother Cindy is now a paranoid shut-in a la Final Destination: Bloodlines. When her little sister Tuesday (Savannah Lee Nassif) is attacked by a familiar masked maniac, Sara and her definitely-not-the-killer boyfriend Jack (Cameron Scott Roberts) turn to Cindy for help, who in turn reunites her old group of friends when she realizes Ghostface is making a reboot-sequel hybrid. Scary Movie’s insistence on dragging the entirety of the original cast into 2026 leaves some characters feeling like arbitrary inclusions. Gail Hailstorm (Cheri Oteri) and Sheriff Doofy (Dave Sheridan) are particularly dead weight. They are characters that, yes, were key players in the fifth Scream, but the deeply unfunny writing and performances offer nothing in terms of comedic substance. Paramount Pictures Characters that fall into similarly familiar, predictable comedic territory are Tuesday’s crop of high school friends (all corresponding to the new young Scream cast). Strangely, there’s no mention is made of Mikey Madison’s Amber, with the film instead opting to riff on Sonia Ammar’s (forgettable) Liv via Ruby Snowber’s Elle, as a bizarrely one-note nymphomaniac whose role culminates (pun intended) in a cartoonishly raunchy and overlong sex scene.Dylan Minnette’s Wes is a similarly strange, arguably unmemorable character to riff, but he nonetheless serves as one of three characters the film uses to make fun of identity politics and the LGBTQ+ community. Played by nonbinary actor Benny Zielke, Wes is reimagined as a trans teen named Jess whose dad continually misgenders him in attempts to be a supportive parent. It’s lazy, unspecific, and doesn’t have anything to do with the film it’s parodying. It is just the kind of tired, anti-woke humor that’s become seemingly part and parcel for comics over a certain age. The same writing habits also rear their ugly head (though, admittedly, in a manner motivated by the source material) with the Mindy Meeks-Martin parody character (played here by Sydney Park but originally portrayed by nonbinary actor Jasmin Savoy Brown), “Dei,” who angrily corrects an onlooker about their pronouns mid-stabbing. The pronoun jokes are repetitive, tiresome, and dead on arrival, but thankfully, these are minor characters who are killed almost as quickly as they’re introduced.Paramount PicturesInstead, we follow the “core four” from the original Scary Movie. Brenda (now rocking a Ma-inspired bowl cut and mother to the Meeks twins) is mostly sidelined, but played with boundless charm by a pitch-perfect Regina Hall, who (alongside Anna Faris) continues to be the franchise’s saving comic grace. Shawn Wayans’ Gay Ray is also back, blending the worst of the script’s lazy comedic writing with the Elle, Dei, and Jess characters to create a predictably predatory and bizarrely outdated trope. More than any other character in the franchise, Gay Ray feels *most* like an unnecessary remnant of a bygone era whose narrative and comedic contributions don’t justify his continued presence in the franchise. On the other side of the coin, though, stoners are perpetually green subject matter. Marlon Wayans’ Shorty Meeks slots remarkably well into the hyper-online, perpetually smoke-filled, highly-reactive world of Twitch live streaming. The character may have been introduced 26 years ago, but there’s nothing desperate or “how do you do, fellow kids” about seeing him on a stream with Kai Cenat or fantasizing about a foursome with the K-Pop Demon Hunters.  It’s in those moments of bizarre hyperspecificity—an animated musical parody blending two of the 2020’s most beloved kids films, Gail taking The Substance and giving birth to one of the White Chicks, Cindy getting a full-fledged John Wick fight sequence against a Matrix-esque army of Ghostfaces—where the Wayans’ writing is the strongest. No matter the genre, no matter the release date, no film is safe from a one-liner or a fourth-wall break. There’s somehow a Project Hail Mary sight gag, despite the films being released just months apart. Perhaps more than any other franchise entry, Scary Movie feels like as much of a sendup of Hollywood as it is horror. The opening sequence parodies the Scream VI opener with Samara Weaving, yes, but it’s mostly an Oscars-centric One Battle After Another gag, opting for industry commentary out of the gate. This trend continues into the third act killer reveal, which acknowledges the real-life ousting of the Wayans family from the franchise in favor of Anthony Anderson, who serves as the twist villain in a stroke of meta, self-deprecating humor. Scary Movie ends with the original stars killing off the younger generation for fear of being usurped. It is a satisfactory, appropriately self-aware ending, but one that begins to feel decidedly pointed when considered in conjunction with the film’s vitriol towards its young queer characters and staunch insistence on shoehorning in Gay Ray. Undeniably, though, this is a crowd-pleasing comedy that moves at a breakneck pace, delivering on its promise of parodying the latest decade of horror films with the Scary Movie franchise’s signature blend of crude humor, meta commentary, and (for better or worse) all of the Wayans Brothers’ stylistic quirks back in full force. It may be overlong, bizarrely fumbling through what should’ve been slam dunk parodies like Sinners and M3GAN, but when Scary Movie is funny, it’s really funny, and the return of the original cast and creatives ensures a welcome return to form for a crowd-pleasing franchise. Scary Movie ⭐ (2.5 of 5)

The post SCARY MOVIE Is a Mixed Bag of Crude Humor and Meta Commentary (Review) appeared first on Nerdist.

At least four of them lost reelection bids after anti-abortion groups and key party allies backed their challengers instead. Two others — a state representative from North Dakota and a state senator from Tennessee — face contested primaries. By Cassandra Jaramillo for ProPublica If Eric Murphy loses his primary election on June 9, he believes he already knows one reason why.

Source

Lovable says it has now surpassed $500 million in annualized run-rate revenue and its users are building businesses and replacing internal software.

Signal insists that plans to compel tech companies to scan devices for nude images of children announced by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday at London Tech Week "will not keep children safe." "It endangers us all," the encrypted messaging platform said, adding that the mechanism required to implement it would be "dangerous." And it wouldn't be a pro-privacy statement without calling it "dystopian." Signal argues that the proposed technology could at some point be repurposed to enable state-sponsored surveillance of all citizens' comms, or used as a mass censorship tool. "Forcing all UK residents to prove their age and/or have all their content scanned, simply to exercise their fundamental right to communicate, is a perilous proposition," Signal stated. "We know that mass surveillance and censorship capabilities, however sincere-sounding the promises of those who initiate them are, never remain narrowly scoped. Once created, they will be expanded, forming a dangerous tool that will be wielded both in the UK and abroad to censor and surveil whatever they might consider 'threats' or 'harmful content.'" Similar accusations have been leveled against the UK government in response to its various attempts to improve online safety via legislation. For example, the government has long presented the Investigatory Powers Act as a way to enshrine in law necessary powers available to law enforcement and UK intelligence to intercept communications for the sake of preventing terrorist attacks. More recently, the Online Safety Act was introduced to impose new obligations on digital platforms to prevent children from accessing online harms. However, privacy proponents have shunned both. Rather than simply providing powers to prevent terror attacks, critics say the IPA enables public bodies to spy on people's calls or texts. It's colloquially known as "The Snooper's Charter." Digital rights organizations have also claimed the OSA is more about online censorship than it is about restricting the types of content children are allowed to view on the web. The PM's proposals are not law yet. Instead, Starmer's speech amounted to a three-month ultimatum to tech companies: make the changes the UK wants to see or the government will legislate. Essentially, whichever way the likes of Apple, Google, Microsoft, and others want to play it, some form of device-level scanning appears likely to be pushed onto UK devices soon. "When it comes to the safety of our children, standing by is not an option. Nobody gets a free pass. That is why I'm making sure Britain is the first country in the world to make it impossible for children to take, share or view nude images," Starmer said. "And I expect tech firms to make that happen. This is not an impossible challenge – these are some of the most innovative companies in the world. But if they choose not to, then we will act and change the law." The government's announcement was backed by a slew of campaigners and charities that argued child protection has not been as big a part of tech innovation as it should have been in recent years. Roxy Longworth, author and founder of Behind Our Screens, said: "I told myself, back in 2021, that if I went public with what happened to me and it stopped one life from being ruined, then it was worth it, but the more I campaigned the angrier I became. "Every child needs to be protected from platforms who for far too long have been allowed to turn a blind eye to the damage being done to them. This announcement makes me hopeful that there won't be kids sat in their room feeling the same pressure and shame that consumed my teenage years." Likewise, Chris Sherwood, chief exec at the NSPCC, said: "Every day these protections are not in place, more children will continue to face devastating harm in the online world. That's why we strongly support the government's decision to make it mandatory for these companies to block inappropriate material at device level. This marks a major step forward in our fight against online child sexual abuse." The UK government singled out Apple and Google, saying that it demands both block nudity by default across their devices. That includes cameras, third-party apps, and messaging services, which would prevent children from taking, viewing, or sending nude images. It proposed that the nude-block-by-default approach would keep children safe, while still allowing adults to remove the block by verifying their ages. Client-side scanning remains a highly controversial technology, but supporters present it as striking a balance between privacy and safety. Advocates argue it should appeal to the pro-privacy crowd by keeping all data on the device, rather than blurring nude images in transit, for example, which would involve sending that data to an intermediary. However, in the case of Signal, an encrypted messenger, it breaks the private comms trust model, even if the message content is not sent to a third party. Client-side scanning can involve checking content against a database of known objectionable material. In the context of child exploitation, image hashes would be checked against a database of other hashes associated with abuse material. If the hashes match, then the image would be blocked. Some implementations scan using AI, rather than against a database. So while the image in this scenario is not sent to a third party, it does mean that Signal could no longer say that message content stays between sender and receiver only. Further, because the databases of objectionable material would need to be updated, this introduces additional problems. Updated databases or models would need to be pushed to devices, creating another trust and security dependency. The attack surface also widens, as it is conceivable that attackers could try to manipulate them. As Signal points out, it would be technically possible for the same scanning mechanisms to be updated to block other things, like messages criticizing the government, to take one hypothetical example. Authorities could also feasibly implement ways of seeing which device contains images or other content that has registered matches with its objectionable material database, potentially opening the door to surveillance. The company's statement [PDF] called for public funds to be funneled into other areas to improve child safety, including education, social services, and guardrails on AI technologies and platforms, instead of drafting legislation to block children's nudes by default on devices. "What the UK government wants instead is invisible surveillance infrastructure, switched on by default and potentially rushed into law under cynical pretexts," it said. "All of this with scant care for the actual needs of the children they claim to be protecting or the horrifying and far-ranging consequences that will ensue in practice." Signal has not threatened to pull out of the UK, however, despite the government's promises to enact the plans, via legislation or the threat of it. The company has previously mulled exiting Sweden over proposed encryption-busting laws, and more recently Canada, as it debates a bill that would compel platforms like Signal to gather its users' metadata, which could include their locations and who they are talking to. ®

Consider supporting my work so I can continue creating it: Substack: https://nickanderson.substack.com/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/editorialcartoons Ko-Fi: https://www.patreon.com/c/editorialcartoonsCartoon Related | One-hit blunder: America 250 musicians are dropping like flies…

Source