Author: easyfilo

Enlarge / This galaxy brain image is still working out Ubisoft’s apparent “piece-by-piece” puzzle explanation of its NFT plans. (credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images)

In the weeks since Ubisoft rolled out non-fungible tokens in one of its video games, critics—particularly those here at Ars Technica—have shot back with questions about their purpose. While Ars is still waiting for a formal response to our December questions, the closest we’re likely to get comes from a Thursday interview with Ubisoft executives that included a bold assertion that players’ “resistance” to NFTs is “based on misunderstanding.” (We hope Ubisoft isn’t saying that to anyone who has read Ars’ lengthy guide to NFTs.)

In the interview, conducted by Australian tech site Finder, two Ubisoft executives (Didier Genevois, head of Ubi’s blockchain team, and Nicolas Pouard, lead on Ubi’s “Quartz” and “Digits” NFT systems) fail to clarify how an online game’s NFT implementation differs on a gameplay basis from existing digital rights management (DRM) solutions, particularly those baked into storefronts like Steam and Ubisoft Connect.

When pressed directly on what benefit a player might expect from engaging with Ubisoft Digits, Pouard first said that “gamers don’t get what a digital secondary market can bring to them.” Eventually, Pouard answered with one potential benefit: “the opportunity to resell their items once they’re finished with them or they’re finished playing the game itself.”

Enlarge (credit: Kryssia Campos | Getty Images)

Twenty-four years ago, Briana Pobiner reached into the north Kenyan soil and put her hands on bones that had last been touched 1.5 million years ago. Pobiner, a paleoanthropologist, was digging up ancient animal bones and searching for cuts and dents, signs that they had been butchered by our early ancestors trying to get at the fatty, calorie-rich bone marrow hidden within. “You are reaching through a window in time,” says Pobiner, who is now at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. “The creature who butchered this animal is not quite like you, but you’re uncovering this direct evidence of behavior. It’s really exciting.”

That moment sparked Pobiner’s lasting interest in how the diets of our ancestors shaped their evolution and eventually the emergence of our own species, Homo sapiens. Meat, in particular, seems to have played a crucial role. Our more distant ancestors mostly ate plants and had short legs and small brains similar in size to a chimpanzee’s. But around 2 million years ago, a new species emerged with decidedly humanlike features. Homo erectus had a larger brain, smaller gut, and limbs proportioned similarly to those of modern humans. And fossils from around the same time, like those excavated by Pobiner in Kenya, show that someone was butchering animals to separate lean meat from the bone and dig out the marrow. For decades, paleontologists have theorized that the evolution of humanlike features and meat eating are strongly connected.

Enlarge / The Keychron Q2. (credit: Scharon Harding)

Not everyone appreciates the luxury of a mechanical keyboard. Many are happy with the flat keys that come with their laptop; they don’t need to deal with the price premiums, varieties, and complexities of mechanical switches. Among those who do make the leap to mechanical switches, plenty are happy to settle on a keyboard preloaded with a specific switch type. But the Keychron Q2 is for those wiling to go an inch or two further down the rabbit hole.

I say “an inch or two” because the Q2 comes completely assembled (or with just the switches and keycaps missing), letting you pick your level of customization—and it offers options that only a mechanical keyboard enthusiast would consider.

Those options include a gasket-mounted design, sound-dampening foam, and pre-lubricated switches, which should eliminate pinging noises or cheap stabilizer rattling. The Q2 is a surprisingly hefty 65% keyboard built for the long haul, and while the starting price of $150 isn’t cheap, it’s more digestible than other high-end rivals.

Enlarge / The intersection of Interstates 10 and 610 in Houston, Texas, during evening rush hour. (credit: Getty Images)

Statistics help tell stories, and one often touted by technologists and engineers and police officers and even the federal government told a tale. The statistic: 94 percent of US traffic crashes are the result of human error. The number felt right. It also appealed to a very American idea: that individuals are in charge of their own destinies. Rather than place the burden of road safety on systems—the way roads are built, the way cars are designed, the way streets are governed—it placed it on the driver, or the walker, or the cyclist.

The statistic was based on a misunderstanding of a 2015 report from the US Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is in charge of US road safety. The report studied crashes between 2005 and 2007 and determined that the driver was the “critical reason” behind the vast majority of crashes. But a driver’s actions were typically the last in a long chain of events. The driver’s fiddly movement of the wheel, in other words, was the final thing to go wrong—a process that started with, perhaps, the surveying of the highway, or the road design laid out on the desk of an engineer, or the policy crafted by lobbyists decades ago that made it impossible for anyone to get across town without a car.

Earlier this month, after pleas from researchers, advocates, and another Biden administration official, the US DOT nixed that 94 percent statistic from its website. And on Thursday, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg began to tell a very different story about US road deaths. “Human fallibility should not lead to human fatalities,” he said during a press conference in Washington, DC. His goal, he said, is zero road deaths.

Enlarge (credit: Samuel Axon)

Apple has added a new feature for app developers that should prove useful for internal tools and other kinds of applications that are meant for a specific set of users but not for the wider world: unlisted apps.

Making an app unlisted means that it won’t show up “in any App Store categories, recommendations, charts, search results, or other listings,” according to Apple. The only way to get to the app is with that link—or through Apple Business Manager or Apple School Manager.

Developers must submit a request to receive a link that can point to their app. Apple’s documentation on the feature goes a little deeper for each of the possible cases: