Category: Tutorials

The YouTube / NBC drama is officially over. After reaching a temporary deal to keep NBC Universal channels on YouTube TV, the companies officially resolved their despite Saturday afternoon. "We’re thrilled to share that we’ve reached a deal to continue carrying the full NBCUniversal portfolio of channels," YouTube wrote on its blog. "That means you won’t lose access to any of their channels, and YouTube TV will continue to offer 85+ networks for $64.99. We appreciate NBCUniversal’s willingness to work toward an agreement, and we also appreciate your patience as we negotiated with them on your behalf."

Disputes between networks and cable providers (or internet TV services like YouTube) are not uncommon, but a few things made this particular spat noteworthy. For starters, YouTube TV would have lost 14 channels, including major ones like NBC, USA Network, Golf Channel, Bravo, CNBC and Telemundo. Because of NBC Universal's reach, it would have been a major blow to YouTube TV. 

It was such a potential problem for YouTube TV that the service said it would cut its price by $10 per month if it wasn't able to reach a deal with NBC Universal. Fortunately for YouTube TV customers, nothing is changing, at least for now. It settled its spat with NBC, but there's always another conglomerate of networks that YouTube will likely need to negotiate with before long.

Classic '90s sitcom Seinfeldjust landed on Netflix after a six-year run on Hulu. Given that the show was filmed years before HD was a thing, it was originally displayed in a 4:3 aspect ratio on TV (and the DVD sets that came years later). But on Netflix, the show has been cropped into a 16:9 widescreen format to fit on modern TVs. As noted by Rolling Stone, that means some visual gags have literally been erased. 

Twitter users @boriskarkov and @Thatoneguy64 succinctly pointed out the problem with a specific episode called "The Pothole." In the episode, George Costanza and Jerry Seinfeld are trying to find George's lost keys, which were dropped in a pothole that was then paved over. In a crop where George wildly yells at the pothole, the Netflix crop removes the pothole entirely. The 16:9 aspect ratio probably also cuts out some other gags in the series — or at the very least, it might be a jarring experience for people used to how the show originally looked.

Of course, this isn't a new problem. Crops of Seinfeld have been on cable TV for years, and Hulu also showed the series in 16:9, as well. Given Netflix's popularity, Seinfeld is getting lots of extra attention right now, and thus a bunch of new viewers are probably checking it out who might not have seen it on Hulu. A similar controversy happened in late 2019 when the entire run of The Simpsons hit Disney+. After plenty of complaints about missed visual gags, Disney eventually released the seasons that aired in 4:3 in their original aspect ratio. Hopefully Netflix will do the same thing with Seinfeld — but in the meantime, as with many classic shows, the most authentic way to watch them is probably on DVD. 

Apple has already updated the iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch for the holiday season, but we're still waiting on an update to the Mac lineup. There have been plenty of rumors about a totally redesigned MacBook Pro coming out this fall, and the reliable Mark Gurman at Bloomberg reported in his Power On newsletter that an M1X-powered MacBook Pro will arrive "in the next month." Apple has typically held Mac-focused events in October or early November; the first M1-based Macs were announced in early November of last year.

As noted by 9to5Mac, Gurman predicts that there will be two M1X variants, both 10-core processors with eight high-performance cores and two efficiency cores. The difference between the two chips are in the graphics department — Apple may be offering an M1X with either 16 or 32 graphics cores. As for Apple's other Macs, Gurman says that the company is working on a high-performance chip for a future Mac Pro, and an M2 for the MacBook Air, iMac and lower-end MacBook Pro models. 

Rumors have swirled all year long about Apple's next MacBook Pro revision; the first 13-inch M1 model that was released last fall was essentially identical to the one it replaced, aside from the Apple Silicon inside. And Apple's 16-inch MacBook Pro hasn't been updated since it was released in late 2019, so the whole lineup is due for a refresh. 

Potential changes include new 14- and 16-inch models with a redesigned case that'll bring back more ports like HDMI and an SD card slot. It might also bring back a MagSafe-style power charging port, and Apple is expected to drop the Touch Bar, which was first introduced with the 2016 MacBook Pro revision. 

Alongside a massive AirPods sale today, Beats' new Studio Buds have hit a new record-low price on Amazon. The online retailer has the wireless earbuds for $125, or $25 off their normal price and $5 less than their previous low. All three colors are on sale, so you can choose from black, red or white and get the same savings.

Buy Beats Studio Buds at Amazon – $125

Beats finally figured out the formula to make a pair of wireless earbuds that should please the masses. The Studio Buds impressed us enough to give them a score of 84, and we consider them to be the best Beats earbuds for most people. They have a small, comfortable design with IPX4 water resistance, which will make them good companions during workouts. The sound quality is good with (unsurprisingly) punchy bass, and they support Apple's Spatial Audio feature, too. Active noise cancellation is good as well and it uses adaptive gain control to adjust in real-time based on the noises in your environment. While ANC use will affect battery life, you should be able to get five to eight hours of use on a single charge.

Since they are technically Apple earbuds, the Beats Studio Buds have the H1 chip inside, allowing them to pair and switch easily between Apple devices. But Android users can also get some of that convenience now that the Studio Buds support Fast Pair, a feature which allows Android devices to quickly recognize the buds during the initial setup. The earbuds also work with Find My Device on Android, so you can always see their last known location.

There are a few downsides to the Studio Buds, though. Notably, their case doesn't support wireless charging, and they don't have onboard volume controls or sound customizations. However, Beats fans will likely overlook those shortcomings to get an attractive, reliable pair of wireless earbuds with a sound profile they're sure to enjoy.

Follow @EngadgetDeals on Twitter for the latest tech deals and buying advice.

Amazon is having a huge sale on AirPods right now, slashing up to 35 percent off some models. Of note are the AirPods Pro, Apple's best sounding earbuds, which are back down to $179. That's $70 off their normal price and only $10 more than the record low that we saw during the holiday shopping season last year. Also discounted are AirPods with the wireless charging case, which are down to an all-time low of $129, and AirPods with the standard case, which are on sale for $109. Amazon claims these are "limited time" sales, so it's unclear if these discounts will be available after today.

Buy AirPods Pro at Amazon – $179Buy AirPods (wireless charging case) at Amazon – $129Buy AirPods (standard case) at Amazon – $109

While we thought we might hear about new AirPods during Apple's event last month, the tech giant didn't announce anything new in that department. That means all of these models are a few years old at this point, but they remain some of the best true wireless earbuds you can get if you live within the Apple ecosystem. AirPods Pro earned a score of 87 from us for their improved sound quality, better fitting design with IPX4 water resistance and convenient features like hands-free Siri access. They're far and away the best sounding Apple earbuds you can get, and they do a good job of blocking out surrounding noises with active noise cancellation and Transparency Mode.

Regular AirPods are better for those who already liked the fit of Apple's EarPods, which used to come with each new iPhone. They have decent sound and good wireless range, plus a solid five-hour battery life, too. But what sets any pair of AirPods apart is their fast pairing and switching between Apple devices. The H1 chip inside allows them to recognize which device you're actively using and switch to it, so you can go form taking a call on your iPhone to listening to music from your Mac.

Aside from the AirPods Pro, the kicker in Amazon's sale is the wireless charging case — they originally cost $199 but have been hovering at $159 for months. The last time we saw them close to this $129 record low was in early August. And that means you're only paying $20 extra for the wireless charging case, which is a great deal.

Follow @EngadgetDeals on Twitter for the latest tech deals and buying advice.

In the third quarter of 2021 Tesla sold 241,300 cars. That's 102,000 more than the same time period last year. Sure, that's only slightly more than half of the 446,997 cars that GM sold in the last three months. But, that number represents a steep 33-percent decline year-over-year for GM. And (if my math is correct) would mean that it sold more cars than Subaru globally over the last three months.

That Tesla has surged while other automakers are struggling isn't a huge surprise once you start digging into the details, though. While other manufacturers have felt the brunt of the global chip shortage Tesla has begun sourcing different silicon, according to The Verge, and rewriting its software to work with those new components. 

Additionally the company only recently began selling its popular Model Y in Europe and it's still relatively new to the Chinese market as well, giving it plenty of room for growth.

Of course, things aren't all rosy for Tesla. The company is still facing investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board here in the US. And it's only a couple of month removed from a massive recall of nearly 300,000 vehicles in China. Not to mention both its Roadster, Cybertruck and electric semi-truck are facing prolonged delays. 

The holidays are fast approaching and you know what that means: pumpkin spice everything, seasonal cheer, and family gatherings — all while avoiding your QAnon adherent relatives like the plague. But when you do eventually get cornered by them, come prepared. 

In his latest book, How to Talk to a Science Denier, author Lee McIntyre examines the phenomenon of denialism, exploring the conspiracy theories that drive it, and explains how you can most effectively address your relatives' misplaced concerns over everything from mRNA vaccines to why the Earth isn't actually flat.

The MIT Press

How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Other Who Defy Reason, by Lee McIntyre, published by The MIT Press.

---

Belief in conspiracy theories is one of the most toxic forms of human reasoning. This is not to say that real conspiracies do not exist. Watergate, the tobacco companies’ collusion to obfuscate the link between cigarette smoking and cancer, and the George W. Bush–era NSA program to secretly spy on civilian Internet users are all examples of real-life conspiracies, which were discovered through evidence and exposed after exhaustive investigation.

By contrast, what makes conspiracy theory reasoning so odious is that whether or not there is any evidence, the theory is asserted as true, which puts it beyond all reach of being tested or refuted by scientists and other debunkers. The distinction, therefore, should be between actual conspiracies (for which there should be some evidence) and conspiracy theories (which customarily have no credible evidence). We might define a conspiracy theory as an “explanation that makes reference to hidden, malevolent forces seeking to advance some nefarious aim.” Crucially, we need to add that these tend to be “highly speculative [and] based on no evidence. They are pure conjecture, without any basis in reality.”

When we talk about the danger of conspiracy theories for scientific reasoning, our focus should therefore be on their nonempirical nature, which means that they are not even capable of being tested in the first place. What is wrong with conspiracy theories is not normally that they have already been refuted (though many have), but that thousands of gullible people will continue to believe them even when they have been debunked.

If you scratch a science denier, chances are you’ll find a conspiracy theorist. Sadly, conspiracy theories seem to be quite common in the general population as well. In a recent study by Eric Oliver and Thomas Wood they found that 50 percent of Americans believed in at least one conspiracy theory.

This included the 9/11 truther and Obama birther conspiracies, but also the idea that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is deliberately withholding a cure for cancer, and that the Federal Reserve intentionally orchestrated the 2008 recession. (Notably, the JFK assassination conspiracy was so widely held that it was excluded from the study.)

Other common conspiracy theories — which run the range of popularity and outlandishness — are that “chemtrails” left by planes are part of a secret government mind-control spraying program, that the school shootings at Sandy Hook and Parkland were “false flag” operations, that the government is covering up the truth about UFOs, and of course the more “science-related” ones that the Earth is flat, that global warming is a hoax, that some corporations are intentionally creating toxic GMOs, and that COVID-19 is caused by 5G cell phone towers.

In its most basic form, a conspiracy theory is a non-evidentially justified belief that some tremendously unlikely thing is nonetheless true, but we just don’t realize it because there is a coordinated campaign run by powerful people to cover it up. Some have contended that conspiracy theories are especially prevalent in times of great societal upheaval. And, of course, this explains why conspiracy theories are not unique to modern times. As far back as the great fire of Rome in 64 AD, we saw conspiracy theories at work, when the citizens of Rome became suspicious over a weeklong blaze that consumed almost the entire city — while the emperor Nero was conveniently out of town. Rumors began to spread that Nero had started it in order to rebuild the city in his own design. While there was no evidence that this was true (nor for the legend that Nero sang while the city burned), Nero was apparently so upset by the accusation that he started his own conspiracy theory that it was in fact the Christians who were responsible, which led to the prevalence of burning them alive.

Here one understands immediately why conspiracy theories are anathema to scientific reasoning. In science, we test our beliefs against reality by looking for disconfirming evidence. If we find only evidence that fits our theory, then it might be true. But if we find any evidence that disconfirms our theory, it must be ruled out. With conspiracy theories, however, they don’t change their views even in the face of disconfirming evidence (nor do they seem to require much evidence, beyond gut instinct, that their views are true in the first place). Instead, conspiracy theorists tend to use the conspiracy itself as a way to explain any lack of evidence (because the clever conspirators must be hiding it) or the presence of evidence that disconfirms it (because the shills must be faking it). Thus, lack of evidence in favor of a conspiracy theory is in part explained by the conspiracy itself, which means that its adherents can count both evidence and lack of evidence in their favor.

Virtually all conspiracy theorists are what I call “cafeteria skeptics.” Although they profess to uphold the highest standards of reasoning, they do so inconsistently. Conspiracy theorists are famous for their double standard of evidence: they insist on an absurd standard of proof when it concerns something they do not want to believe, while accepting with scant to nonexistent evidence whatever they do want to believe. We have already seen the weakness of this type of selective reasoning with cherry-picking evidence. Add to this a predilection for the kind of paranoid suspicion that underlies most conspiracy-minded thinking, and we face an almost impenetrable wall of doubt. When a conspiracy theorist indulges their suspicions about the alleged dangers of vaccines, chemtrails, or fluoride — but then takes any contrary or debunking information as itself proof of a cover-up — they lock themselves in a hermetically sealed box of doubt that no amount of facts could ever get them out of. For all of their protests of skepticism, most conspiracy theorists are in fact quite gullible.

Belief in the flatness of the Earth is a great example. Time and again at FEIC 2018, I heard presenters say that any scientific evidence in favor of the curvature of the Earth had been faked. “There was no Moon landing; it happened on a Hollywood set.” “All the airline pilots and astronauts are in on the hoax.” “Those pictures from space are Photoshopped.” Not only did disconfirming evidence of these claims not cause the Flat Earthers to give up their beliefs, it was used as more evidence for the conspiracy! And of course to claim that the devil is behind the whole cover-up about Flat Earth could there be a bigger conspiracy theory? Indeed, most Flat Earthers would admit that themselves. A similar chain of reasoning is often used in climate change denial. President Trump has long held that global warming is a “Chinese hoax” meant to undermine the competitiveness of American manufacturing.

Others have contended that climate scientists are fudging the data or that they are biased because they are profiting from the money and attention being paid to their work. Some would argue that the plot is even more nefarious — that climate change is being used as a ruse to justify more government regulation or takeover of the world economy. Whatever evidence is presented to debunk these claims is explained as part of a conspiracy: it was faked, biased, or at least incomplete, and the real truth is being covered up. No amount of evidence can ever convince a hardcore science denier because they distrust the people who are gathering the evidence. So what is the explanation? Why do some people (like science deniers) engage in conspiracy theory thinking while others do not?

Various psychological theories have been offered, involving factors such as inflated self-confidence, narcissism, or low self-esteem. A more popular consensus seems to be that conspiracy theories are a coping mechanism that some people use to deal with feelings of anxiety and loss of control in the face of large, upsetting events. The human brain does not like random events, because we cannot learn from and therefore cannot plan for them. When we feel helpless (due to lack of understanding, the scale of an event, its personal impact on us, or our social position), we may feel drawn to explanations that identify an enemy we can confront. This is not a rational process, and researchers who have studied conspiracy theories note that those who tend to “go with their gut” are the most likely to indulge in conspiracy-based thinking. This is why ignorance is highly correlated with belief in conspiracy theories. When we are less able to understand something on the basis of our analytical faculties, we may feel more threatened by it.

There is also the fact that many are attracted to the idea of “hidden knowledge,” because it serves their ego to think that they are one of the few people to understand something that others don’t know. In one of the most fascinating studies of conspiracy-based thinking, Roland Imhoff invented a fictitious conspiracy theory, then measured how many subjects would believe it, depending on the epistemological context within which it was presented. Imhoff’s conspiracy was a doozy: he claimed that there was a German manufacturer of smoke alarms that emitted high-pitched sounds that made people feel nauseous and depressed. He alleged that the manufacturer knew about the problem but refused to fix it. When subjects thought that this was secret knowledge, they were much more likely to believe it. When Imhoff presented it as common knowledge, people were less likely to think that it was true.

One can’t help here but think of the six hundred cognoscenti in that ballroom in Denver. Out of six billion people on the planet, they were the self-appointed elite of the elite: the few who knew the “truth” about the flatness of the Earth and were now called upon to wake the others.

What is the harm from conspiracy theories? Some may seem benign, but note that the most likely factor in predicting belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in another one. And not all of those will be harmless. What about the anti-vaxxer who thinks that there is a government cover-

up of the data on thimerosal, whose child gives another measles? Or the belief that anthropogenic (human- caused) climate change is just a hoax, so our leaders in government feel justified in delay? As the clock ticks on averting disaster, the human consequences of the latter may end up being incalculable.

If you were hoping the long running Donald Trump / Twitter saga was over, I have bad news. The former president has filed suit in Florida seeking a preliminary injunction of the ban, while he works towards having his account permanently reinstated. Trump is arguing, as expected, that the ban violates his First Amendment rights, but also Florida's new social media law signed by Governor Ron DeSantis earlier this year — though courts have stopped the law from taking effect on the grounds that it likely violates free speech laws. 

The suit makes many predictable arguments that Twitter is “a major avenue of public discourse" and that it "exercises a degree of power and control over political discourse in this country that is immeasurable, historically unprecedented, and profoundly dangerous to open democratic debate.” 

Of course, Trump's ban on Twitter (as well as countless other social media platforms like Facebook and Snap) follows years of his flaunting the rules. The former president's tweets were a frequent source of controversy, not just because he often used them to bully political opponents and announce personnel changes (before those involved knew), but because he also shared a constant stream of misinformation, racistcontent and encouraged violence. 

After years of outcry from the public over their refusal to enforce their own rules against the then president's accounts, Twitter and Facebook slowly started to crack down, labeling many of his tweets as potentially misleading — especially around COVID-19 and the election results. Things came to a head following the attempted insurrection on January 6 in which the former president encouraged his followers to storm the Capitol in an attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power. 

Trump's latest lawsuit claims that even the labeling of his tweets as "misleading" qualifies as a form of censorship — even though those obviously and intentionally false tweets were allowed to stay up on the site.

The new suit cites a law passed in Florida this May that would prevent social media sites from "knowingly" deplatforming politicians (of course, with a Disney-sized loophole baked in). The law would have allowed the state's Election Commission to fine social media companies $250,000 a day for takedowns involving public office candidates. It also allows residents to sue the companies if they feel they've been treated "unfairly", which is almost certainly legally vague. And lastly it would require that social media companies detail how bans are decided and enforce its policies consistently.

In July however a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction noting that the law potentially violated the free speech rights of private companies which have their own terms of service and standards for hosting content.

Since Florida's law has not taken effect — and there's a very good chance it never will — it's not clear how successful Trump's strategy will be.

Bad actors were able to infiltrate the accounts of and steal cryptocurrency from around 6,000 Coinbase customers by exploiting a multi-factor authentication flaw, according to Bleeping Computer. The cryptocurrency exchange told the publication that its security team observed a large-scale phishing campaign targeting its users between April and early May 2021. Some users may have fallen victim to the malicious emails, giving hackers access to their usernames and passwords. Worse, even those who had multi-factor authentication switched on were compromised because of a flaw in the exchange's system.

In the notification [PDF] it sent to affected customers, Coinbase said the bad actors took advantage of a vulnerability in its SMS Account Recovery process. That allowed the hackers to receive the two-factor token that was supposed to be sent via text to the account owner's phone number. 

Coinbase recommends using two-factor with a security key on its website, followed by an authenticator app. It lists SMS authentication as a last resort, advising users to lock their mobile accounts to protect themselves from SIM swap scams or phone port frauds. Back in August, Coinbase also notified 125,000 users that their two-factor settings had changed, but the exchange said back then that the notification was sent by mistake and wasn't the result of a hack.

In its letter to customers, Coinbase said it patched up its SMS Account Recovery protocols as soon as it learned about the issue. It's also reimbursing everyone who's lost cryptocurrency from the event. Those who were affected by the hack may want to make sure all their other accounts are secure, though, since it also exposed their names, addresses and other sensitive information when their accounts were infiltrated.