On Monday, a publicly-sourced archive of more than 10,000 national park signs and monument placards went public as part of a massive volunteer project to save historical and educational placards from around the country that risk removal by the Trump administration.    

Visitors to national parks and other public monuments at more than 300 sites across the U.S. took photos of signs and submitted them to the archive to be saved in case they’re ever removed in the wake of the Trump administration’s rewriting of park history. The full archive is available here, with submissions from July to the end of September.

The signs people have captured include historical photos from Alcatraz, stories from the African American Civil War Memorial, photos and accounts from the Brown v. Board of Education National History Park, and hundreds more sites. 

Launched in July by volunteer preservationists from Safeguarding Research & Culture and the Data Rescue Project, in collaboration with librarians at the University of Minnesota, Save Our Signs started in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” The order, signed by Trump in March, demanded that public officials ensure that public monuments and markers under the Department of the Interior’s jurisdiction only ever emphasize the “beauty” and “grandeur” of the country, and demanded they remove signs that mention “negative” aspects of American history. 

The order gave a deadline of September 17, and by September 20, some signs were already going missing, including signs at Acadia National Park in Maine that referenced climate change, and another at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York City that referenced historical events like slavery, Japanese camps and conflicts with Native Americans, according to the Washington Post.

Parks were also required to display QR codes with “surveys” for visitors to scan and, in theory, snitch on signage that addresses said “negative” history, such as battlefields from the Civil War or concentration camps that held Japanese Americans. 

The order and destruction of such signage represented another step in the Trump administration’s efforts to whitewash, alter or completely delete important public information about history, research, and science. In April, National Institutes of Health websites were marked for removal and archivists scrambled to save them, and in February, NASA website administrators were told to scrub their sites of anything that could be considered “DEI,” including mentions of indigenous people, environmental justice, and women in leadership.

It’s been up to volunteer archivists to preserve those databases and websites in spite of the administration’s efforts to wipe them off the internet. Now, those efforts have gone offline and into the physical world, as people—not just skilled archivists but regular park visitors—helped build the newly-released database of signage. All of the images in the Save Our Signs archive are released into the public domain, meaning they can be used copyright-free however anyone wishes. 

Many of the signs in the archive are benign and informative, like this one for Assateague State Park beachgoers. Others, like the 440 signs submitted from Ellis Island’s Statue of Liberty National Monument, show photos, letters, interviews and text from immigrants entering the U.S. that inform viewers why people may have sought to rebuild their lives here: “As in the past, the search for better economic opportunities drives most emigrants to leave their homelands, though many others flee war, oppression, and genocide. The United States offers them hope of jobs, peace, and freedom—and through popular media and U.S. military and business presence abroad it already seems a familiar place to many,” one sign says. “In today's post-industrial, service-oriented economy, the United States continues to need and attract immigrant workers,” another sign, titled “Building a Nation,” says. “Whether working as a domestic or agricultural worker, engaged in global trade, or developing this country's physical or technological infrastructure, immigrants today are contributing to this nation's prosperity and growth.” 

Visitors submitted dozens of signs with text from the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site in Washington, D.C., including several quotes from Douglass: “We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future,” one sign captured in the archive, quoting the abolitionist statesman’s “What, to the Slave, is the Fourth of July” address, says. “To all inspiring motives, to noble deeds which can be gained from the past, we are welcome. But now is the time, the important time. Your fathers have lived, died, and you must do your work.” 

“I’m so excited to share this collaborative photo collection with the public. As librarians, our goal is to preserve the knowledge and stories told in these signs. We want to put the signs back in the people’s hands,” Jenny McBurney, Government Publications Librarian at the University of Minnesota and one of the co-founders of the Save Our Signs project, said in a press release. “We are so grateful for all the people who have contributed their time and energy to this project. The outpouring of support has been so heartening. We hope the launch of this archive is a way for people to see all their work come together.” 

People can still submit signs, and the project organizers are encouraging more submissions; another batch with more recent submissions will be released in the future, the Save Our Signs organizers said.

A man who works for the people overseeing America’s nuclear stockpile has lost his security clearance after he uploaded 187,000 pornographic images to a Department of Energy (DOE) network. As part of an appeals process in an attempt to get back his security clearance, the man told investigators he felt his bosses spied on him too much and that the interrogation over the porn snafu was akin to the “Spanish Inquisition."

On March 23, 2023, a DOE employee attempted to back up his personal porn collection. His goal was to use the 187,000 images collected over the past 30 years as training data for an AI-image generator. He said he had depression, something he’d struggled with since he was a kid. “During the depressive episode he felt ‘extremely isolated and lonely,’ and started ‘playing’ with tools that made generative images as a coping strategy, including ‘robot pornography,’” according to a DOE report on the incident.

Fueled by depression, the man meant to back up his collection and create a base for training AI to make better “robot pornography” but he uploaded it to the government computer by accident. He didn’t realize what he’d done until DOE investigators came calling six months later to ask why their servers were now filled with thousands of pornographic pictures. 

“The Individual ‘thought that even though his personal drives were connected to [his employer’s], they were somehow partitioned, and his personal material would not contaminate his [government-issued computer],” a DOE report said.

According to the report, the man was using his cellphone to look at AI-generated porn images, but the screen wasn’t big enough so he moved the pictures to his government computer. “He also reported that, since the 1990s, he had maintained a ‘giant compressed file with several directories of pornographic images,’ which he moved to his personal cloud storage drive so he could use them to make generative images,” he said. “It was this directory of sexually explicit images that was ultimately uploaded to his employer’s network when he performed a back-up procedure on March 23, 2023.”

The 187,000 images represented a lifetime’s collection. “He stated that the sexually explicit images were an accumulation of ‘25–30 years worth of pornographic material’ he had collected on his personal computer,” he said. He told a DOE psychologist that he should have realized he’d backed up his personal porn collection to a DOE network but said he “was not thinking multiple steps ahead or considering the consequences at the time because he was so depressed.”

According to the DOE employee, he’s been treated for depression since he was a kid. He has ups and downs, and was in a bad headspace when he accidentally uploaded his entire porn collection. He admitted he violated HR rules, but “did not think it was very wrong,” according to the DOE ruling. He also “asserted that his employer ‘was spying on him a little too much’...and compared the interview with his employer following the discovery of his conduct to ‘the Spanish Inquisition.’”

When someone loses their security clearance with the DOE, they can appeal to get it back. In this case, the appeal led to a lengthy investigation and multiple interviews with various DOE psychologists and the man’s wife. When the DOE makes a ruling on an appeal they publish it publicly online, which is why we know about the man’s private porn stash.

He did not get his clearance back. “The DOE Psychologist opined that the individual's probability of experiencing another depressive episode in the future was ‘very high,’” according to the report.

Slashdot editor David went to upload a photo from his phone to his Microsoft OneDrive. He found one of those wonderful little surprises waiting for him under “Privacy And Permissions”: [Slashdot]

People section: One Drive uses AI to recognize faces in your photos to help you find photos of friends and family. You can only change this setting 3 times a year.

What happens if you switch it off?:

If I moved the slidebar for that setting to the left (for “No”), it moved back to the right, and said “Something went wrong while updating this setting.” (Apparently it’s not one of those three times of the year.)

This darling little feature has been in the works at least a couple of years. [Microsoft, 2023 archive]

Now it’s finally on and active — for some lucky users. Microsoft told Slashdot it’s “rolling out to limited users in a preview so we can learn and improve” — though David says he certainly did not sign up for this preview.

Why is it opt-out and not opt-in? Especially since the opt-out doesn’t actually work?

Microsoft OneDrive inherits privacy features and settings from Microsoft 365 and SharePoint, where applicable.

And the one big question from David:

What’s the reason OneDrive tells users this setting can only be turned off 3 times a year?

[Microsoft’s publicist chose not to answer this question.]

You might want to remove all your photos from OneDrive sooner rather than later. Then set OneDrive on fire and throw it in the bin.

• Video version

The NTS guide to… mit tschechischem Ambient aus den 1980er und 1990er Jahren und wissenswertem Hintergrund dazu. Gutes Thema. Mehr als nur Musik.

Tearooms in post-revolution Czechoslovakia symbolised places through which new spiritualities were flowing, and the influx of largely uncharted ways of life closely intertwined with new age, ambient, folk and minimalism. With their minds altered thanks to smuggled records by Fripp & Eno or Steve Reich, this loose network of musicians had begun composing meditative music, using loops and handmade instruments, with a different sensibility.

Music journalist Pavel Klusák dubbed this 1990s scene a “tearoom alternative”. Experimental folk singer Oldřich Janota, Jaroslav Kořán’s various ensembles like Modrá or Orloj Snivců (The Horologe of Dreamers) or Irena and Vojtěch Havlovi were drawn by the light and composed music that didn’t match the fast pace of newly imported capitalism.

(Direktlink)

Tracklist:
Jaroslav Kořán – Jarní Píseň 00:00
Pavel Richter Band – Čínský Potůček – Poloviční Chytání 4:18
Vlastimil Marek – Závěje Hlasů 11:54
Oldřich Janota, Vojtěch A Irena Havlovi – Ozářený Sluncem, Mrakem Zastíněný 17:27
Irena & Vojtěch Havlovi – Mysterious Gamelanland IX. 22:06
Modrá – Morning Azure 25:53
Vlastislav Matoušek – Shapes Of Silence IV 30:46
Orloj Snivců – Jde 40:46
Jiná Rychlost Času – Klášter Na Vodě 44:26

So wunderbar nerdig wie der Sound von BOC.

Playing the 1998 song „Olson“ by Boards of Canada through four control panel light bulbs of a 1959 DEC PDP-1 computer using Peter Samson’s 1962 Harmony Compiler and 603 bytes of music data.

(Direktlink, via Zwentner)

A prominent beer judging competition introduced an AI-based judging tool without warning in the middle of a competition, surprising and angering judges who thought their evaluation notes for each beer were being used to improve the AI, according to multiple interviews with judges involved. The company behind the competition, called Best Beer, also planned to launch a consumer-facing app that would use AI to match drinkers with beers, the company told 404 Media.

Best Beer also threatened legal action against one judge who wrote an open letter criticizing the use of AI in beer tasting and judging, according to multiple judges and text messages reviewed by 404 Media.

The months-long episode shows what can happen when organizations try to push AI onto a hobby, pursuit, art form, or even industry which has many members who are staunchly pro-human and anti-AI. Over the last several years we’ve seen it with illustrators, voice actors, music, and many more. AI came for beer too. 

“It is attempting to solve a problem that wasn’t a problem before AI showed up, or before big tech showed up,” Greg Loudon, a certified beer judge and brewery sales manager, and who was the judge threatened with legal action, said. “I feel like AI doesn’t really have a place in beer, and if it does, it’s not going to be in things that are very human.”

“There’s so much subjectivity to it, and to strip out all of the humanity from it is a disservice to the industry,” he added. Another judge said the introduction of AI was “enshittifying” beer tasting.

This story started earlier this year at a Canadian Brewing Awards judging event. Best Beer is the company behind the Canadian Brewing Awards, which gives awards in categories such as Experimental Beer, Speciality IPA, and Historic/Regional Beers. To be a judge, you have to be certified by the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP), which involves an exam covering the brewing process, different beer styles, judging procedures, and more.

Around the third day of the competition, the judges were asked to enter their tasting notes into a new AI-powered app instead of the platform they already use, one judge told 404 Media. 404 Media granted the judge anonymity to protect them from retaliation.

Using the AI felt like it was “parroting back bad versions of your judge tasting notes,” they said. “There wasn't really an opportunity for us to actually write our evaluation.” Judges would write what they thought of a beer, and the AI would generate several descriptions based on the judges’ notes that the judge would then need to select. It would then provide additional questions for judges to answer that were “total garbage.”

“It was taking real human feedback, spitting out crap, and then making the human respond to more crap that it crafted for you,” the judge said.

“On top of all the misuse of our time and disrespecting us as judges, that really frustrated me—because it's not a good app,” they said.

Multiple judges then met to piece together what was happening, and Loudon published his open letter in April.

“They introduced this AI model to their pool of 40+ judges in the middle of the competition judging, surprising everyone for the sudden shift away from traditional judging methods,” the letter says. “Results are tied back to each judge to increase accountability and ensure a safe, fair and equitable judging environment. Judging for competitions is a very human experience that depends on people filling diverse roles: as judges, stewards, staff, organizers, sorters, and venue maintenance workers,” the letter says.

“Their intentions to gather our training data for their own profit was apparent,” the letter says. It adds that one judge said “I am here to judge beer, not to beta test.” 

The letter concluded with this: “To our fellow beverage judges, beverage industry owners, professionals, workers, and educators: Sign our letter. Spread the word. Raise awareness about the real human harms of AI in your spheres of influence. Have frank discussions with your employers, colleagues, and friends about AI use in our industry and our lives. Demand more transparency about competition organizations.”

33 people signed the letter. They included judges, breweries, and members of homebrewer associations in Canada and the United States.

Loudon told 404 Media in a recent phone call “you need to tell us if you're going to be using our data; you need to tell us if you're going to be profiting off of our data, and you can't be using volunteers that are there to judge beer. You need to tell people up front what you're going to do.”

At least one brewery that entered its beer into the Canadian Brewing Awards publicly called out Best Beer and the awards. XhAle Brew Co., based out of Alberta, wrote in a Facebook post in April that it asked for its entry fees of $565 to be refunded, and for the “destruction of XhAle's data collected during, and post-judging for the Best Beer App.”

“We did not consent to our beer being used by a private equity tech fund at the cost to us (XhAle Brew Co. and Canadian Brewers) for a for-profit AI application. Nor do we condone the use of industry volunteers for the same purpose,” the post said.

Ob Simmonds, head of innovation at the Canadian Brewing Awards, told 404 Media in an email that “Breweries will have amazing insight on previously unavailable useful details about their beer and their performance in our competition. Furthermore, craft beer drinkers will be able to better sift through the noise and find beers perfect for their palate. This in no way is aimed at replacing technical judging with AI.”

With the consumer app, the idea was to “Help end users find beers that match their taste profile and help breweries better understand their results in our competition,” Simmonds said.

Simmonds said that “AI is being used to better match consumers with the best beers for their palate,” but said Best Beer is not training its own model.

Those plans have come to a halt though. At the end of September, the Canadian Brewing Awards said in an Instagram post the team was “stepping away.” It said the goal of Best Beer was to “make medals matter more to consumers, so that breweries could see a stronger return on their entries.” The organization said it “saw strong interest from many breweries, judges and consumers” and that it will donate Best Beer’s assets to a non-profit that shows interest. The post added the organization used third-party models that “were good enough to achieve the results we wanted,” and the privacy policies forbade training on the inputted data.

The post included an apology: “We apologize to both judges and breweries for the communication gaps and for the disruptions caused by this year’s logistical challenges.”

In an email sent to 404 Media this month, the Canadian Brewing Awards said “the Best Beer project was never designed to replace or profit from judges.” 

“Despite these intentions, the project came under criticism before it was even officially launched,” it added, saying that the open letter “mischaracterized both our goals and approach.”

“Ultimately, we decided not to proceed with the public launch of Best Beer. Instead, we repurposed parts of the technology we had developed to support a brewery crawl during our gala. We chose to pause the broader project until we could ensure the judging community felt confident that no data would be used for profit and until we had more time to clear up the confusion,” the email added. “If judges wanted their data deleted what assurance can we provide them that it was in fact deleted. Everything was judged blind and they would have no access to our database from the enhanced division. For that reason, we felt it was more responsible to shelve the initiative for now.”

One judge told 404 Media: “I don’t think anyone who is hell bent on using AI is going to stop until it’s no longer worth it for them to do so.” 

“I just hope that they are transparent if they try to do this again to judges who are volunteering their time, then either pay them or give them the chance ahead of time to opt-out,” they added.

Now months after this all started, Loudon said “The best beers on the market are art forms. They are expressionist. They're something that can't be quantified. And the human element to it, if you strip that all away, it just becomes very basic, and very sanitized, and sterilized.” 

“Brewing is an art.”