plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
20623 stories
·
19 followers

Hypercritical: EV Stupidity Checklist

1 Share

Automobiles have been around for well over a century. During that time, we’ve gotten pretty good at designing and building their basic components and controls: seats, doors, pedals, steering wheels, mirrors, etc. But when today’s automakers decide to make an electric vehicle (EV), they seemingly forget much of what they once knew, creating new versions of features that are objectively, obviously worse than the time-tested designs they replace.

When Tesla ushered in the modern EV era in the early 2000s, some of these changes made sense, at least from a marketing perspective. To convince a cautious public to consider an EV, the vehicles had to appear “futuristic.” Flush door handles that automatically extend when you approach the car are definitely cool and fancy! But electronic door mechanisms like these have also proven to be unreliable, and possibly dangerous.

On the interior, Tesla settled on a minimal design dominated by a large touch screen. Touch screens provide a lot of flexibility. This is why our phones no longer have physical keyboards on them. Touch screens are also, perhaps surprisingly, less expensive than the array of physical buttons and switches that they replace in car interiors. This savings is especially important on EVs, where the cost of the vehicle is dominated by the battery (yes, to an even larger degree than an internal-combustion car’s cost is dominated by its engine). But despite their cost savings, the over-use of touch screens in cars has proven unpopular. They’re also not great for safety.

In 2026, we’re well past the time when EVs need to compromise safety and functionality in order to appear futuristic. As for the cost savings, well, that’ll be harder to shake. Once automakers got a taste for cheap touchscreens, they spread to all cars, not just EVs.

To help the industry get back on the right track, I’ve created a checklist for car designers. Make sure your new car—EV or otherwise—checks all these boxes to avoid making the same stupid mistakes that have plagued modern cars for years.

  • Accessible exterior door handles.1 When approaching a car, the door-opening mechanism should be obvious and immediately usable. You should not have to wait for a sensor to detect your presence and then activate some mechanism before the door is able to be opened.
  • Physical door opening mechanisms. The thing you pull to open the door should be physically connected to the door-opening mechanism. It’s fine to have the door handle activate an electronic door opener, but pulling that same handle farther and harder should activate the physical mechanism. This applies to both…
  • Door handle affordances. In design, “affordance” refers to the possible actions that can be readily perceived. When approaching a door, it should be readily apparent what you must do to open it. You should be able to see the door-opening mechanism, and it should be obvious how to use it. So many modern cars—and especially EVs—fail this test! There’s even a Saturday Night Live sketch about it. And, again, this applies to both…
  • Physical charge-port door mechanism. For decades, cars have had small doors covering the place where fuel is added. We’ve gotten pretty good at making cheap, reliable fuel-filler doors. When carmakers design EVs, they all-too-frequently decide that the door that covers the charge port should be entirely electronic, opening and closing under its own power in response to a touch-screen input or a finger-swipe somewhere on the exterior of the car. We are currently not very good at making these electronic charge-port doors work reliably. They add nothing to the car beyond extra cost and “pizazz.” This is a poor trade-off for even the tiniest decrease in reliability of such an important function.
  • Turn signal stalk. While there are arguments to be made for including various controls on the steering wheel itself, especially in sporty or race-inspired cars where removing your hands from the steering wheel for even a moment might be unwise, a stalk on the steering column is still the best overall choice for activating (and de-activating) turn signals. No experienced driver during normal driving has ever had to spend even a moment searching for the turn signal stalk to activate it, but this happens all too often when using turn-signal buttons on a steering wheel, especially when the wheel is rotated some arbitrary amount at the time the turn signal is needed. Stalks are great. Use them.
  • Physical buttons on the steering wheel. Speaking of controls on the steering wheel, when adding these, use physical buttons, not touch-sensitive controls. The driver’s hands are all over the steering wheel during normal use. There should be no possibility that merely brushing against a part of the wheel will inadvertently activate some feature of the car. Furthermore, the driver should be able to feel for controls on the steering wheel without looking at them. Use real, physical buttons and switches on the steering wheel.
  • Physical controls for temperature and fan speed. Climate controls are frequently used. These controls should be physical so their location never changes and so they can be used without looking at them. No, making the climate controls “fixed and always visible” on the touch screen is not the same thing.
  • Physical controls for air flow and direction. Grabbing a vent control and pointing it in the desired direction is much more obvious and efficient than navigating a touch-screen menu and then dragging your finger on a visualization of the car interior to try to direct the air flow. By all means, have electronically actuated vent controls to change the air flow for vents that are unreachable from the driver’s seat, but all vents should be physically controllable by the people who can reach them.
  • Physical glove box opening mechanism. One of the more astoundingly stupid features in many EVs is a glove box that can only be opened by using the touch screen. Truly, the mind boggles. One step up from that is a glove box that is opened via a button, but that button activates an electronic release. Someday, I expect electronic door releases to be as reliable as physical door mechanisms, but we’re not there yet. Glove boxes should have simple, obvious, physical opening mechanisms.
  • Rearview mirror. An actual, real rearview mirror should exist in any vehicle that has any sort of rear visibility. Rearview “mirrors” that are actually screens are popular in fancy cars these days, but they’re worse than real mirrors in multiple ways. Screen technology cannot yet match the dynamic range and contrast of the real world.

    But more importantly, current screen technology requires the driver to focus on the surface of the screen itself, which is mere feet away from their eyes. This is a large change in focal distance from looking at the road ahead. Actual mirrors allow the driver’s eyes to focus on the road behind the vehicle, rather than the surface of the mirror. This is a much smaller change in focal distance, and is therefore easier, faster, and more comfortable.

    Until and unless screens can match all these beneficial attributes, real mirrors should remain a fixture in cars. (In the meantime, feel free to add cool night-vision camera views or other digitally enhanced screen views as an option on top of the actual mirror.)

  • Rear window. Vehicles that can have a rear window should have a rear window. Yes, I’m looking at you, Polestar 4. “Mirror screens” aren’t enough. (See previous item.)
  • Side-view mirrors. US law still mandates side-view mirrors, but other countries do not. Carmakers have pounced on this opportunity to make their most expensive cars worse by using side-view cameras instead of mirrors, with screens on the interior to show what the cameras see. Screens are poor replacements for actual mirrors, as discussed earlier.

I hope the auto industry’s EV-induced fever breaks soon, so every new car doesn’t have some previously working feature broken for no good reason. If you know a car designer, please print this checklist and send it to them. The world will thank you.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 hour ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Google Family Link exploit that locks out victims permanently · Techwolf12

1 Share

Imagine waking up to an alert that your Google Account password has been changed. You immediately head to Google’s account recovery page to reclaim your digital life, only to be met with a bizarre roadblock. The screen doesn’t ask for your recovery phone number or your backup email. Instead, it tells you that you must get permission from your “parent” to log in.

You haven’t been standard-hacked. You’ve been trapped in the Family Link Exploit, a severe security loophole that weaponizes Google’s child safety features against adult users, and currently leaves victims completely stranded.

When this happened to one of my friends, I originally never heard of this type of exploit and started to look into it.

Here is how this devastating attack works, why standard recovery fails, and what you can do if it happens to you.

How the Attack Works #

The exploit relies on a clever and malicious manipulation of Google’s Family Link ecosystem, a suite of tools designed for parents to manage their children’s devices and accounts.

When a hacker gains initial access to your password (usually through a data breach, phishing or malware infection stealing cookies), they immediately restructure your account’s legal metadata using these steps:

1. Changing Your Birth Year #

The hacker navigates to your personal info and changes your date of birth, making you legally a minor (under 13 in most jurisdictions).

2. Enforcing “Parental Supervision” #

Because Google’s policy dictates that accounts under 13 must be managed by an adult, the hacker instantly links your compromised account to a “Parent” Google account that they control.

Once your account is designated as a “Child” account under their family group, the hacker gains absolute administrative authority over your digital identity.

Why Standard Recovery is Useless #

This is where the attack becomes truly insidious. Google’s automated security systems are built to strictly protect minors from unauthorized changes. By law and policy, a “child” cannot change their own security settings, delete their account, or remove parental control without the parent’s explicit consent.

Because of this, the moment you try to use Google’s standard self-service recovery page, the system detects you as a minor and demands the hacker’s parental Gmail password to proceed.

The automated system essentially locks you in a room and hands the key directly to the intruder. Your recovery phone number, 2-step verification, and backup emails are completely overridden and rendered useless.

Total Surveillance and Control #

Once you are trapped in a Family Link group, the hacker doesn’t just read your emails. They have god-mode access to your physical and digital life. Through the Family Link dashboard, the attacker can:

  • Track your physical location in real-time via Google Maps.
  • Lock your physical Android devices remotely at any time.
  • See your screen time and intercept app downloads.
  • Read incoming emails and intercept password reset links for your bank accounts, social media, etc.

Prevention #

Two-factor authentication won’t protect you here cookie-stealing bypasses it entirely, and Google doesn’t require 2FA to change your age or enroll your account in Family Link.

If you have Advanced Protection enabled on your Google account, you cannot be added to a Family Link group. If you have no need for parental controls, enabling Advanced Protection is a simple and effective way to protect yourself from this exploit.

Is There a Way Around It? #

As of right now, there is no automated bypass for this exploit once the parental lock is fully engaged. If you click “Stop Supervision,” Google requires the hacker’s login credentials.

However, victims have found exactly two non-standard “backdoors” to force Google to intervene manually:

1. The YouTube Escalation Trick #

While standard Google/Gmail support is entirely automated by bots, Google maintains a dedicated, human security team for YouTube creators. If your hacked Google account has ever been used to comment on a video or watch YouTube, you technically have a YouTube profile.

Victims have had the highest success rate by taking to X (formerly Twitter) and publicly tagging @TeamYouTube, stating that their account was hijacked via the Family Link minor exploit. The YouTube team can manually bypass the automated system and send a secure, human-reviewed hijacking form to pull the account out of the family group and help recover your account.

2. The Google One Support Paid Route #

Google provides zero live phone or chat support for free accounts. However, if a victim creates a temporary, secondary Google account and pays a couple of dollars for a Google One storage subscription, they unlock access to live chat with “Google Experts.” While these experts cannot fix it directly, they can manually escalate the ticket to the specialized Account Safety team.

Google Needs a Fix #

The Family Link exploit is a terrifying reminder of how safety features can be inverted into tools of absolute control. Because Google’s automated systems are designed to trust the “Parent” account implicitly, they are currently blind to the fact that adult accounts are being forcibly converted into children against their will.

Until Google implements a manual verification system to prove adulthood during a security breach, the best defense is absolute prevention. Ensure your Google account has an un-phishable form of 2-Step Verification (like an Authenticator App or a physical security key) that is asked when changing age to stop hackers from getting through the front door in the first place.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 hour ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Miles Offit... 🇨🇦🇪🇺🇺🇦 (@dcdeejay@mastodon.online)

1 Comment
Read the whole story
sarcozona
6 hours ago
reply
Trufax
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Here's why the failure of Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket is so catastrophic - Ars Technica

1 Share

Thursday night’s detonation of Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket during a static-fire test produced a spectacular fireball over Florida, sending shards of the rocket flying far and wide, into the sea and across the coastal scrubland nearby.

With sunrise on Friday teams from Blue Origin, the US Space Force, and NASA will be able to begin more thoroughly assessing the damage to Blue Origin’s facilities and begin picking up pieces of the rocket.

Metaphorically, the effort to pick up pieces will extend far beyond Blue Origin. This launch failure will be devastating not just for Blue Origin but also NASA and broad segments of the US space industry. Here’s a look at some of the major issues that will stem from the explosion.

No launch pad

There’s a reason why, before the very first launch of the Falcon Heavy rocket in 2018, SpaceX founder Elon Musk defined success as the vehicle clearing the launch pad. “I hope that it makes it far enough away from the pad that it does not cause pad damage,” he said. “I would consider even that a win to be honest.” Musk had similar thoughts about the first Starship launch, saying he would consider anything that did not destroy the launch mount a “win.”

Big rockets produce big explosions. And ground infrastructure is a challenging and underrated component of a rocket launch.

Multiple sources have confirmed that there is significant damage to Blue Origin’s launch site in Florida, LC-36A. The company invested years and at least hundreds of millions of dollars in this facility. The scale of the massive lightning towers is difficult to comprehend unless one has climbed one of them.

The company does not have another launch site for New Glenn. It has begun preliminary work on a nearby pad, LC-36B, and has plans to develop another site at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. But these projects are just getting started.

Rebuilding the company’s pad, or finishing a new one, will likely take at least a year, even with a major effort by Blue Origin, and drawing upon Jeff Bezos’ nearly infinite resources. One source familiar with pad rebuilds estimated that 15 months was a “best case” scenario.

A maturing design

You might wonder what the big deal is. SpaceX has been blowing up Starship rockets left and right, and the space nerds seem to be cheering them on.

The reality is that Blue Origin took a more traditional design route with New Glenn, as opposed to SpaceX’s iterative design, which seeks to test, fly, fail, and fix hardware. The New Glenn first stage had performed nearly flawlessly during its first three flights. It is a mature design.

Because of this, Blue Origin had reached the point where it was poised to begin near-monthly launches of the vehicle during the second half of the year, serving a variety of customers, from NASA to Amazon, AST SpaceMobile, and its own internal payloads.

With the Vulcan rocket also currently offline due to an anomaly, it once again places all of the US medium- and heavy-lift launch capacity in SpaceX’s basket, with its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets.

Speaking of Vulcan, if this is a problem with the BE-4 engine—and early indications are that the anomaly leading to Thursday night’s failure originated in the central engine of the booster—it would further compound United Launch Alliance’s difficulties in getting the large rocket back into service.

Blue Moon Mark 1

Blue Origin’s cargo lander has emerged as the supreme workhorse of the early stages of NASA’s Artemis program and Moon Base. It has a capacity to deliver up to 3 tons to the lunar surface and would serve as a pathfinder for a larger version of a lander to take humans to the Moon.

This week, NASA announced that its Moon Base I mission would fly on Blue Moon Mark 1, and it awarded Blue Origin $280.4 million to deliver two lunar rovers in 2028. Multiple other missions are planned on the lander, which was designed to be sent to the Moon on a single New Glenn vehicle.

Could Blue Moon Mark 1 launch on other rockets? SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy and United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan vehicles both likely have the lift capacity to push the vehicle to the Moon. But Vulcan is also sidelined at present and has a long line of Space Force payloads in the queue. So what of Falcon Heavy?

The Mark 1 lander is powered by the BE-7 engine, which runs on liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. There may be compatibility issues related to the Falcon rocket’s kerosene-powered upper stage, although this has not been confirmed. Also, it is unlikely that Blue Origin would partner with a direct rival, SpaceX, in this manner.

Artemis program

Due to the Mark 1 issues outlined above, there will either be significant delays to, or the need to restructure the early phases of, the Moon Base program. The lunar rovers under development by Astrolab and Lunar Outpost, for example, have a mass of about 1 ton. Only Mark 1 and SpaceX’s Starship have that kind of delivery capacity.

There are also major implications for the main Artemis crewed missions.

NASA recently changed Artemis III to become a mission that will see the Orion spacecraft rendezvous with one or both of the Human Landing Systems under development by Blue Origin (Blue Moon) and SpaceX (Starship) in low-Earth orbit. NASA appears determined to launch this mission in 2027 and plans to announce its four crew members in a couple of weeks.

But it’s now all but certain that a Blue Moon lander will not be ready for such a mission within the next 18 months. NASA will need to decide whether to wait on Blue Origin or press ahead solely with a Starship mission.

As for Artemis IV, the lunar landing mission, this failure further complicates that plan. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a crew-rated Blue Moon lander is ready at any point in 2028 now. Even if the hardware is far along, Blue Origin still needs to fly test missions with Blue Moon Mark 1, which are on hold indefinitely.

A number of senior NASA officials had come to view Blue Origin’s plan to use a slimmed down version of the Mark 2 lander, which would not require in-space refueling, as the prime option for Artemis IV. Now, like much of the US space industry, NASA finds itself highly dependent on SpaceX’s ability to deliver with Starship.

Note: This article has been edited to clarify interoperability issues between the Blue Moon Mark 1 lander and the Falcon Heavy rocket.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
6 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Israeli minister confirms goal of large-scale expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza | Gaza | The Guardian

1 Comment

Israel’s defence minister has said he is committed to the ethnic cleansing of Gaza through large-scale migration of Palestinians as part of Israel’s long-term plans for the territory.

Israel Katz said the government would implement a plan for large numbers of Palestinians to leave Gaza “at the right time and in the right manner”, in a statement on Wednesday marking the targeted killing of Mohammed Odeh, Hamas’s most recent military commander.

Pushing for mass departures violates Donald Trump’s ceasefire plan for Gaza, which Israel signed last year. The second point of the plan states: “Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough.”

Israel’s government has promoted the prospect of Gaza without Palestinians since Trump suggested early last year that hundreds of thousands of people should leave to “clean out” the strip for reconstruction.

Last year Israel set up a bureau for “voluntary emigration” and eased travel restrictions for Palestinians who wanted to make a one-way journey out of the strip.

The forced transfer of civilian populations is a war crime and a crime against humanity. Israeli officials, including Katz, use the term “voluntary migration” to describe their plans for large numbers of Palestinians to leave Gaza.

Israel-based human rights organisations and lawyers have warned that the conditions Israel has imposed on Gaza mean no departure can be considered voluntary and the policy constitutes planning for ethnic cleansing.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel said last year: “Creating living conditions that do not allow for survival, freedom and dignity, and subjecting civilians to them until they say they want to leave is not a plan for ‘encouraging voluntary emigration’ but a plan for forced evacuation and expulsion.”

Katz said the mass departure of Palestinians from Gaza would go hand in hand with the exclusion of Hamas from power.

“We committed that Hamas will not rule Gaza civilly or militarily, and so it shall be, and also the voluntary emigration plan from Gaza will be implemented,” he said in a social media post. “Everything at the right timing and in the right manner.”

A spokesperson for Katz did not respond to questions about whether Israel was still committed to the terms of Trump’s ceasefire.

With an election due by the end of October, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, and his political allies are also courting voters, said Mairav Zonszein, a senior analyst on Israel-Palestine at the International Crisis Group.

“Because we are looking at an extension of the ceasefire and de-escalation of the situation in Iran and Lebanon, Israel – and Netanyahu specifically – will be looking for ways to show that they’re doing something on the security front, and that means exercising military power,” she said.

“Unfortunately talking about ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not necessarily something that will hurt you in domestic politics. In fact it might even help you.”

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
It was never about defence
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

US Senator pepper-sprayed by ICE outside immigration detention center: ‘It’s just burning’ | The Independent

1 Share

A U.S. Senator was pepper-sprayed by ICE outside of an immigration detention center on Monday. ​

Senator Andy Kim was filmed having his eyes washed out with a bottle of water in a video shared by a reporter on X. The senator has subsequently said that his eyes and throat were “burning” and that his hand hurts following the incident.

The incident unfolded outside of Delaney Hall in Newark, New Jersey, an immigrant detention facility where inmates launched a hunger strike to protest conditions at the facility.

​“But what happened was: I came out from Delaney Hall and immediately noticed that there was a tense situation outside,” Kim told a reporter from NJ.com. “ICE had brought out an armored vehicle and then a line of armed officers that were armed up in vests and armed.”

Senator Andy Kim was pepper-sprayed after trying to ease tensions at a protest outside of an immigration detention facility in Newark
Senator Andy Kim was pepper-sprayed after trying to ease tensions at a protest outside of an immigration detention facility in Newark (Reuters)

​Kim went on to say that the crowd of protestors formed a line in front of the ICE agents, prompting him to position himself in the middle of the two sides to “de-escalate the situation” and to prevent a “physical clash.”

​Then, ICE told him that they were planning to “push through the crowd,” because they wanted to move a vehicle. When the vehicle did eventually start to move, Kim says he ran to put himself between the protesters and ICE agents. ​

According to him, “that’s when they started to shoot at us with pepper balls as well as using the pepper spray.” ​

Kim added that ICE agents were “tackling people” amid the chaos. ​

Governor Mikie Sherrill also joined Monday’s protest.

While there, Sherrill heard from the families of detainees who have complained about their loved ones being served spoiled and rotten food, as well as receiving inadequate medical care. ​

The state governor told protestors that she had requested access to the facility but had been denied. She left before the standoff between the ICE agents and protestors erupted.

A hunger strike was launched at the facility with inmates alleging that they have been served spoiled and rotten food
A hunger strike was launched at the facility with inmates alleging that they have been served spoiled and rotten food (Reuters)

​In a statement on X on Monday, the DHS claimed that “no individuals were directly struck by pepper ball projectiles.”​

The department claimed that law enforcement forces were obstructed from exiting the facility and that lawful verbal commands had been issued for “rioters” to clear the area. The “rioters” refused to follow the commands, according to the statement. ​

“Our law enforcement followed their training and used the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves, the public, and federal property,” the statement continued. “The First Amendment protects speech and peaceful assembly – not rioting.​

Markwayne Mullin, the DHS Secretary, described the incident on X as “nothing more than a political stunt by New Jersey sanctuary politicians for fundraising clicks.” ​

“There is NO hunger strike at Delaney Hall. There are no subprime conditions,” he added.

Speaking to <a href="http://NJ.com" rel="nofollow">NJ.com</a>, Kim said that he wished that Mullin had called him before claiming there was no hunger strike or subprime conditions. ​

“It’s not about just what tactics that they’re using to protest,” he said. “It’s the fact that these conditions are just inhumane, and this system is so broken on so many different fronts.”

Read the whole story
sarcozona
3 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories