Categories
Featured

This previously unknown malware has some crafty tricks for avoiding antivirus

[ad_1]

Cybersecurity researchers from Trend Micro have uncovered a brand new piece of malware that uses an unusual method of hiding from antivirus programs.

The malware is called UNAPIMON, and is apparently being used by Winnti, an established Chinese state-sponsored threat actor that was behind some of the most devastating attacks against governments, hardware and software vendors, think tanks, and more.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

Bumblebees show behaviour previously thought to be unique to humans

[ad_1]

Scientists have long accepted the existence of animal culture, be that tool use in New Caledonian crows, or Japanese macaques washing sweet potatoes.

But one thing thought to distinguish human culture is our ability to do things too complex to work out alone — no one could have split the atom or traveled into space without relying on the years of iterative advances that came first.

But now, a team of researchers think they’ve observed this phenomenon for the first time outside of humans – in bumblebees.

Subscribe to Nature Briefing, an unmissable daily round-up of science news, opinion and analysis free in your inbox every weekday.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Politics

Loss of nature costs more than previously estimated

[ad_1]

Researchers propose that governments apply a new method for calculating the benefits that arise from conserving biodiversity and nature for future generations.

The method can be used by governments in cost-benefit analyses for public infrastructure projects, in which the loss of animal and plant species and ‘ecosystem services’ — such as filtering air or water, pollinating crops or the recreational value of a space — are converted into a current monetary value.

This process is designed to make biodiversity loss and the benefits of nature conservation more visible in political decision-making.

However, the international research team says current methods for calculating the values of ecosystem services “fall short” and have devised a new approach, which they believe could easily be deployed in Treasury analysis underpinning future Budget statements.

Their approach, published in the journal Science, takes into consideration the increase in monetary value of nature over time as human income increases, as well as the likely deterioration in biodiversity, making it more of a scarce resource.

This contrasts with current methods, which do not consider how the value of ecosystem services changes over time.

“Our study provides governments with a formula to estimate the future values of scarce ecosystem services that can be used in decision-making processes,” said Moritz Drupp, Professor of Sustainability Economics at the University of Hamburg and lead author on this study.

Two factors play a key role in this value adjustment: on the one hand, income will rise and with it the prosperity of the world’s population — by an estimated two percent per year after adjusting for inflation.

As incomes go up, people are willing to pay more to conserve nature.

“On the other hand, the services provided by ecosystems will become more valuable the scarcer they become,” said Professor Drupp. “The fact that scarce goods become more expensive is a fundamental principle in economics, and it also applies here. And in view of current developments, unfortunately, we must expect the loss of biodiversity to continue.”

According to the researchers, the present value of ecosystem services must therefore be set much higher in today’s cost-benefit analyses, to more than 130 percent if just including the rise of income.

If also taking into account the impact on Red List Index endangered species, the value adjustment would amount to more than 180 percent.

Accounting for these effects will increase the likelihood of projects that conserve ecosystem services passing a cost-benefit test.

The research team includes three UK-based authors: Professor Mark Freeman (University of York), Dr. Frank Venmans (LSE), and Professor Ben Groom (University of Exeter).

“The monetary values for the environment that are currently used by policy makers in the appraisal of public investments and regulatory change mean that nature becomes relatively less valuable over time compared to other goods and services,” said Professor Groom.

“Our work shows this is wrong. We propose an uplift in the values of ecosystems over time. This proposal could easily be deployed in the Treasury’s analysis that will underpin future Budget statements.”

Dr Venmans added: “Take coral reefs as a specific example. These are expected to decline in area and biodiversity as the climate changes, meaning that the remaining reefs will be much more valuable than today, and even more so as household incomes rise. This matters when we assess coral reef preservation with long-lasting effects.”

Professor Freeman said: “The government is under considerable pressure from many sides for additional public investment. Ensuring that the protection of ecosystems is appraised in a way that is consistent with other public projects, including HS2 and other infrastructure spending, is critical. This is what our work aims to achieve.”

The researchers say that as political decisions can alleviate the loss of biodiversity, it is important that governments are able to adequately assess the consequences of their decisions today and in the future.

Economist Professor Moritz Drupp has developed this research in collaboration with a team of international researchers from Germany, the UK, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United States.

The team advises, among others, HM Treasury, the US White House, and the German Federal Environment Agency.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
News

Climate Misinformation ‘Scorecard’ Ranks Elon Musk’s X, Previously Twitter, Last.

Environmental organizations issued a report on Wednesday that rated social media platforms based on their reaction to climate change misinformation. Elon Musk’s X app was harshly criticized in the study.

X, formerly known as Twitter, received the lowest grade since it is unknown whether or not the app has restrictions against the dissemination of erroneous information about climate change, according to the score card’s inventor, Climate Action Against Disinformation. The group includes over fifty environmental organizations, advertising corporations, and others.

Some famous accounts on X promote the notion that climate change is a “hoax” or spread conspiracy theories about green energy programs, making it easy to obtain inaccurate information on the issue. Musk has wrongly asserted that surface-level phenomena have no influence on global warming.

According to the group, the stakes are high since climate change disinformation has impeded action, such as stronger limits on fossil fuels.

“A toxic and fossil-fueled minority is drowning out the voices of science and reason,” Friends of the Earth spokesperson Erika Seiber said in a statement. “Social media platforms are complicit.”

The alliance was formed in 2021 by environmental organisations concerned that the United Nations Climate Summit in Scotland will be damaged by fake news. Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund International, and Patagonia are just a handful of the coalition’s member groups.

The group opted to share the data during this week’s United Nations General Assembly session and Climate Week NYC, where leaders from civil society and other sectors converge to discuss climate change policy.

In the year preceding up to Musk’s purchase of Twitter, the firm announced that it will no longer accept advertisements that “contradict the scientific consensus on climate change.” However, it is unclear if the restriction is still in effect at this moment.

According to the story, Elon Musk’s acquisition of X/Twitter has people questioning whose company policies are still in force.

X’s officials did not respond to NBC News’ request for comment. The authors of the research also claimed that they contacted X throughout the report writing process but did not obtain a response.

The scale of 1 to 21 was utilized, and X received a 1. According to the researchers, the app’s privacy policy is critical in the fight against climate misinformation since fossil fuel companies, like other advertisers, may use personal data to affect public opinion. You did terrible if you received a 0.

Pinterest received the most points (12) in this round. Researchers discovered that this platform was the only one that identified climate misinformation specifically in its community rules and released an annual report on the topic. (Other websites do not describe climate-related misinformation.)

Pinterest has received plaudits for its attempts to restrict the selling of climate denial and to protect the personal information of individuals who protest against fossil fuels.

Corporate leaders acknowledged their delight with their efforts on Tuesday.

“Pinterest has a long history of establishing guidelines that help to grow a welcoming community in cyberspace.” Pinterest noted in a statement that it is “constantly evaluating our guidelines and enforcement approaches” owing to the dynamic nature of the anti-disinformation battle.

TikTok came in second with 9 points, Meta came in eighth with 8, and YouTube came in sixth with 6 points. Despite the fact that LinkedIn and Wikipedia were not included in the scope of the analysis, the researchers stated that they visited other tech sites to share their experiences with users.

For years, social media researchers have been warning about the rise of climate change denial, claiming that the inability of internet platforms to aggressively delete false material adds to concerns such as increasing sea levels. Extreme weather events, particularly in Spanish-speaking nations, can elicit a spike in climate-related conspiracy theories, which are sometimes entwined with other types of misinformation, such as those regarding Covid.

In various ways, the platforms have begun to crack down on climate deception.

When Facebook was still known as Meta, the corporation stated in 2021 that it will identify and redirect users away from content that promotes climate change denial. Despite this, researchers from outside Facebook reported that the labels were not always used by Facebook.

In the same year, YouTube said that it will prohibit climate change doubters from selling their material on the site; nevertheless, the New York Times reported that some skeptics were still doing so as of May of this year.

Following the release of the climate report card, YouTube issued the following statement: “Our climate change policy explicitly prohibits the monetization of content that denies the existence of climate change, as well as ads that promote these claims.” We do not remove advertising from videos that involve debate or arguments on climate change subjects, such as public policy or research, but we do remove commercials from videos that explicitly or indirectly dispute the scientific consensus on climate change. Our algorithms also do not like or surface anything that spreads climate change misinformation.

YouTube has also said that its search and recommendation algorithms promote information from reliable sources.

TikTok did not respond immediately to the results. Meta did not respond immediately when we requested for comment.

The scorecard focused on the limits themselves and their extent, rather than how closely social networking services enforced them.

Bringing the average down: It said that none of the platforms offered researchers and academics with sufficient access to anonymised data on content and advertising.