August 2025 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal

by abregni

Mi auguro tanto che qualcuno si svegli e trovi un modo "legale" di eliminare la pubblicità. Nonché che qualcuno legiferi che nelle domandine se vuoi i cookies DEVE comparire il comando "rifiuto (tutto)", vietando quelle pagina te da scorrere minuziosamente. Ancor meglio mi auguro che la legge sulla privacy possa bloccare almeno qualcosa di quanto sopra. [Sfogo di utente infuriato di quel colabrodo schifezza denominato "Registro delle opposizioni".] Il 2025-08-22 08:54 Alberto Cammozzo via nexa ha scritto: > <https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/mozilla-warns-germany-could-soo…> > > A recent ruling from Germany’s Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has revived > a legal battle over whether browser-based ad blockers infringe > copyright, raising fears about a potential ban of the tools in the > country. > > The case stems from online media company Axel Springer’s lawsuit > against Eyeo - the maker of the popular Adblock Plus browser extension. > > Axel Springer says that ad blockers threaten its revenue generation > model and frames website execution inside web browsers as a copyright > violation. > > This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a > protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the > in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this > constituting unlawful reproduction and modification. > > Previously, this claim was rejected by a lower-level court in Hamburg, > but a new ruling by the BGH found the earlier dismissal flawed and > overturned part of the appeal, sending the case back for examination. > > Mozilla’s Senior IP & Product Counsel, Daniel Nazer, delivered a > warning last week, noting that due to the underlying technical > background of the legal dispute, the ban could also impact other > browser extensions and hinder users' choices. > > “There are many reasons, in addition to ad blocking, that users might > want their browser or a browser extension to alter a webpage,” Nazer > says, explaining that some causes could stem from the need "to improve > accessibility, to evaluate accessibility, or to protect privacy." > > As per BGH’s ruling, Springer’s argument needs to be re-examined to > determine if DOM, CSS, and bytecode count as a protected computer > program and whether the ad blocker's modifications are lawful. > > “It cannot be excluded that the bytecode, or the code generated from > it, is protected as a computer program, and that the ad blocker, > through modification or modifying reproduction, infringed the exclusive > right thereto,” reads BGH’s statement (automated translation). > > While ad blockers haven’t been outlawed, Springer’s case has been > revived now, and there’s a real possibility that things may take a > different turn this time. > > Mozilla noted that the new proceedings could take up to a couple of > years to reach a final conclusion. As the core issue is not settled, > there is a future risk of extension developers to be held liable for > financial losses. > > Mozilla explains that, in the meantime, the situation could cause a > chilling effect on browser users’ freedom, with browser developers > locking down their apps further, and extension developers limiting the > functionality of their tools to avoid legal troubles.

Aug. 22, 2025

Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal

by Alberto Cammozzo

<https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/mozilla-warns-germany-could-soo…> A recent ruling from Germany’s Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has revived a legal battle over whether browser-based ad blockers infringe copyright, raising fears about a potential ban of the tools in the country. The case stems from online media company Axel Springer’s lawsuit against Eyeo - the maker of the popular Adblock Plus browser extension. Axel Springer says that ad blockers threaten its revenue generation model and frames website execution inside web browsers as a copyright violation. This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification. Previously, this claim was rejected by a lower-level court in Hamburg, but a new ruling by the BGH found the earlier dismissal flawed and overturned part of the appeal, sending the case back for examination. Mozilla’s Senior IP & Product Counsel, Daniel Nazer, delivered a warning last week, noting that due to the underlying technical background of the legal dispute, the ban could also impact other browser extensions and hinder users' choices. “There are many reasons, in addition to ad blocking, that users might want their browser or a browser extension to alter a webpage,” Nazer says, explaining that some causes could stem from the need "to improve accessibility, to evaluate accessibility, or to protect privacy." As per BGH’s ruling, Springer’s argument needs to be re-examined to determine if DOM, CSS, and bytecode count as a protected computer program and whether the ad blocker's modifications are lawful. “It cannot be excluded that the bytecode, or the code generated from it, is protected as a computer program, and that the ad blocker, through modification or modifying reproduction, infringed the exclusive right thereto,” reads BGH’s statement (automated translation). While ad blockers haven’t been outlawed, Springer’s case has been revived now, and there’s a real possibility that things may take a different turn this time. Mozilla noted that the new proceedings could take up to a couple of years to reach a final conclusion. As the core issue is not settled, there is a future risk of extension developers to be held liable for financial losses. Mozilla explains that, in the meantime, the situation could cause a chilling effect on browser users’ freedom, with browser developers locking down their apps further, and extension developers limiting the functionality of their tools to avoid legal troubles.

Aug. 22, 2025

Pareri su European Sovereign Tech Fund

by Marco Fioretti

Buonasera a tutti, devo scrivere un commento entro domenica sera sui pro e i contro di avere un fondo sovrano europeo per l'High Tech sul modello di quello tedesco, una proposta di cui si parla qui: https://github.blog/open-source/maintainers/we-need-a-european-sovereign-te… Chiunque voglia contribuire con una opinione (mi bastano una frase o due in italiano, tradurro' io in inglese, il pezzo e' per FOSS Force) mi scriva in privato prima possibile (*), e (spazio permettendo) sara' citato con nome e carica. Grazie in anticipo! Marco (*) dico "in privato" semplicemente per non intasare la lista, ma scambiamoci pure pareri qui se preferite.

Aug. 21, 2025

Microsoft Excel adds Copilot AI to help fill in spreadsheet cells (o del leggere attentamente le avvertenze)

by Daniela Tafani

Microsoft Excel is testing a new AI-powered function that can automatically fill cells in your spreadsheets, which is similar to the feature that Google Sheets rolled out in June. You would use the “COPILOT” function followed by a natural language prompt and (optionally) specify the cells you want it to reference; the AI would then classify information, generate summaries, create tables, and more. [...] Microsoft also warns against using the AI function for numerical calculations or in “high-stakes scenarios” with legal, regulatory, and compliance implications, as COPILOT “can give incorrect responses.” <https://www.theverge.com/news/761338/microsoft-excel-ai-copilot-spreadsheet…>

Aug. 20, 2025

Are AI-Generated Fixes Secure? Analyzing LLM and Agent Patches on SWE-bench

by Giacomo Tesio

Large Language Models (LLMs) and their agentic frameworks are increasingly adopted to automate software development tasks such as issue resolution and program repair. While prior work has identified security risks in LLM-generated code, most evaluations have focused on synthetic or isolated settings, leaving open questions about the security of these systems in real-world development contexts. In this study, we present the first large-scale security analysis of LLM-generated patches using 20,000+ issues from the SWE-bench dataset. We evaluate patches produced by a standalone LLM (Llama 3.3) and compare them to developer-written patches. We also assess the security of patches generated by three top-performing agentic frameworks (OpenHands, AutoCodeRover, HoneyComb) on a subset of our data. Finally, we analyze a wide range of code, issue, and project-level factors to understand the conditions under which LLMs and agents are most likely to generate insecure code. Our findings reveal that the standalone LLM introduces nearly 9x more new vulnerabilities than developers, with many of these exhibiting unique patterns not found in developers'code. Agentic workflows also generate a significant number of vulnerabilities, particularly when granting LLMs more autonomy, potentially increasing the likelihood of misinterpreting project context or task requirements. We find that vulnerabilities are more likely to occur in LLM patches associated with a higher number of files, more lines of generated code, and GitHub issues that lack specific code snippets or information about the expected code behavior and steps to reproduce. These results suggest that contextual factors play a critical role in the security of the generated code and point toward the need for proactive risk assessment methods that account for both code and issue-level information to complement existing vulnerability detection tools. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.02976 Gli LLM introducono fino a 9 volte più vulnerabilità di sicurezza di un programmatore. Quando sentite un imprenditore o un manager sostenere che la AI aumenta la produttività degli sviluppatori, potete dedurre con certezza che almeno una delle seguenti affermazioni è vera: - hanno enormi problemi nel processo di selezione del personale e si ritrovano con sviluppatori straordinariamente incompetenti (e dunque i loro prodotti sono inutili o pericolosi) - vendono LLM o software che vi si basano - stanno ripetendo a pappagallo fuffa letta online per sembrare cool - stanno mentendo Giacomo

Aug. 20, 2025

INDL-8 program now out! (Bologna 10-12 September 2025)

by Antonio Casilli

Dear all, The program for the 8th annual conference of our International Network on Digital Labor (INDL-8) is now online. https://www.indl.network/indl-8/ >From September 10 to 12, 2025, Bologna will host one of the largest gatherings in this field, bringing together researchers, practitioners, and activists to connect research with the realities of workers’ struggles worldwide. This year we have managed to fit in close to 200 oral presentations and posters, with speakers joining us from six continents. The program includes a unique one-day event with data workers ^inside a data center^, discussions that stretch across disciplines and countries, and moments to reflect on the politics of digital work in its many forms. Beyond the academic sessions, we have booked some of the University of Bologna’s most historic venues and will explore the city through the lens of its activist movements in a dedicated evening tour. Ps. Registration is free but mandatory. Please register here — the deadline has been extended to August 24👉 https://indl-8.sciencesconf.org/registration?lang=en Antonio A. Casilli Professor, Institut Polytechnique de Paris My new book: Waiting for Robots. The Hired Hands of Automation, University of Chicago Press, 2025. My new documentary: In the Belly of AI, Federation Studios, 2025. *We respect your right to disconnect. My workflow efficiency accounts for the timing of this email. Taking action or responding outside of office hours is not required.*

Aug. 19, 2025

AI Is a Mass-Delusion Event

by Daniela Tafani

AI Is a Mass-Delusion Event Three years in, one of AI’s enduring impacts is to make people feel like they’re losing it August 18, 2025 By Charlie WarzelIt is a Monday afternoon in August, and I am on the internet watching a former cable-news anchor interview a dead teenager on Substack. This dead teenager—Joaquin Oliver, killed in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida—has been reanimated by generative AI, his voice and dialogue modeled on snippets of his writing and home-video footage. The animations are stiff, the model’s speaking cadence is too fast, and in two instances, when it is trying to convey excitement, its pitch rises rapidly, producing a digital shriek. How many people, I wonder, had to agree that this was a good idea to get us to this moment? I feel like I’m losing my mind watching it. Jim Acosta, the former CNN personality who’s conducting the interview, appears fully bought-in to the premise, adding to the surreality: He’s playing it straight, even though the interactions are so bizarre. Acosta asks simple questions about Oliver’s interests and how the teenager died. The chatbot, which was built with the full cooperation of Oliver’s parents to advocate for gun control, responds like a press release: “We need to create safe spaces for conversations and connections, making sure everyone feels seen.” It offers bromides such as “More kindness and understanding can truly make a difference.” On the live chat, I watch viewers struggle to process what they are witnessing, much in the same way I am. “Not sure how I feel about this,” one writes. “Oh gosh, this feels so strange,” another says. Still another thinks of the family, writing, “This must be so hard.” Someone says what I imagine we are all thinking: “He should be here.” The Acosta interview was difficult to process in the precise way that many things in this AI moment are difficult to process. I was grossed out by Acosta for “turning a murdered child into content,” as the critic Parker Molloy put it, and angry with the tech companies that now offer a monkey’s paw in the form of products that can reanimate the dead. I was alarmed when Oliver’s father told Acosta during their follow-up conversation that Oliver “is going to start having followers,” suggesting an era of murdered children as influencers. At the same time, I understood the compulsion of Oliver’s parents, still processing their profound grief, to do anything in their power to preserve their son’s memory and to make meaning out of senseless violence. How could I possibly judge the loss that leads Oliver’s mother to talk to the chatbot for hours on end, as his father described to Acosta—what could I do with the knowledge that she loves hearing the chatbot say “I love you, Mommy” in her dead son’s voice? The interview triggered a feeling that has become exceedingly familiar over the past three years. It is the sinking feeling of a societal race toward a future that feels bloodless, hastily conceived, and shruggingly accepted. Are we really doing this? Who thought this was a good idea? In this sense, the Acosta interview is just a product of what feels like a collective delusion. This strange brew of shock, confusion, and ambivalence, I’ve realized, is the defining emotion of the generative-AI era. Three years into the hype, it seems that one of AI’s enduring cultural impacts is to make people feel like they’re losing it. During his interview with Acosta, Oliver’s father noted that the family has plans to continue developing the bot. “Any other Silicon Valley tech guy will say, ‘This is just the beginning of AI,’” he said. “‘This is just the beginning of what we’re doing.’” Just the beginning. Perhaps you’ve heard that too. “Welcome to the ChatGPT generation.” “The Generative AI Revolution.” “A new era for humanity,” as Mark Zuckerberg recently put it. It’s the moment before the computational big bang—everything is about to change, we’re told; you’ll see. God may very well be in the machine. Silicon Valley has invented a new type of mind. This is a moment to rejoice—to double down. You’re a fool if you’re not using it at work. It is time to accelerate. How lucky we are to be alive right now! Yes, things are weird. But what do you expect? You are swimming in the primordial soup of machine cognition. There are bound to be growing pains and collateral damage. To live in such interesting times means contending with MechaHitler Grok and drinking from a fire hose of fascist-propaganda slop. It means Grandpa leaving confused Facebook comments under rendered images of Shrimp Jesus or, worse, falling for a flirty AI chatbot. This future likely requires a new social contract. But also: AI revenge porn and “nudify” apps that use AI to undress women and children, and large language models that have devoured the total creative output of humankind. From this morass, we are told, an “artificial general intelligence” will eventually emerge, turbo-charging the human race or, well, maybe destroying it. But look: Every boob with a T-Mobile plan will soon have more raw intelligence in their pocket than has ever existed in the world. Keep the faith. Breathlessness is the modus operandi of those who are building out this technology. The venture capitalist Marc Andreessen is quote-tweeting guys on X bleating out statements such as “Everyone I know believes we have a few years max until the value of labor totally collapses and capital accretes to owners on a runaway loop—basically marx’ worst nightmare/fantasy.” How couldn’t you go a bit mad if you took them seriously? Indeed, it seems that one of the many offerings of generative AI is a kind of psychosis-as-a-service. If you are genuinely AGI-pilled—a term for those who believe that machine-born superintelligence is coming, and soon—the rational response probably involves some combination of building a bunker, quitting your job, and joining the cause. As my colleague Matteo Wong wrote after spending time with people in this cohort earlier this year, politics, the economy, and current events are essentially irrelevant to the true believers. It’s hard to care about tariffs or authoritarian encroachment or getting a degree if you believe that the world as we know it is about to change forever. There are maddening effects downstream of this rhetoric. People have been involuntarily committed or had delusional breakdowns after developing relationships with chatbots. These stories have become a cottage industry in themselves, each one suggesting that a mix of obsequious models, their presentation of false information as true, and the tools’ ability to mimic human conversation pushes vulnerable users to think they’ve developed a human relationship with a machine. Subreddits such as r/MyBoyfriendIsAI, in which people describe their relationships with chatbots, may not be representative of most users, but it’s hard to browse through the testimonials and not feel that, just a few years into the generative-AI era, these tools have a powerful hold on people who may not understand what it is they’re engaging with. As all of this happens, young people are experiencing a phenomenon that the writer Kyla Scanlon calls the “End of Predictable Progress.” Broadly, the theory argues that the usual pathways to a stable economic existence are no longer reliable. “You’re thinking: These jobs that I rely on to get on the bottom rung of my career ladder are going to be taken away from me” by AI, she recently told the journalist Ezra Klein. “I think that creates an element of fear.” The feeling of instability she describes is a hallmark of the generative-AI era. It’s not at all clear yet how many entry-level jobs will be claimed by AI, but the messaging from enthusiastic CEOs and corporations certainly sounds dire. In May, Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, warned that AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs. In June, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff suggested that up to 50 percent of the company’s work was being done by AI. The anxiety around job loss illustrates the fuzziness of this moment. Right now, there are competing theories as to whether AI is having a meaningful effect on employment. But real and perceived impact are different things. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that, “when it comes to their day-to-day life,” 44 percent of surveyed Americans believe that AI will do more harm than good. The survey found that Americans believe the technology will cause job loss—but many workers appeared confident in the security of their own job. Many people simply don’t know what conclusions to draw about AI, but it is impossible not to be thinking about it. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has demonstrated his own uncertainty. In a blog post titled “The Gentle Singularity” published in June, Altman argued that “we are past the event horizon” and are close to building digital superintelligence, and that “in some big sense, ChatGPT is already more powerful than any human who has ever lived.” He delivered the classic rhetorical flourishes of AI boosters, arguing that “the 2030s are likely going to be wildly different from any time that has come before.” And yet, this post also retreats ever so slightly from the dramatic rhetoric of inevitable “revolution” that he has previously employed. “In the most important ways, the 2030s may not be wildly different,” he wrote. “People will still love their families, express their creativity, play games, and swim in lakes”—a cheeky nod to the endurance of our corporeal form, as a little treat. Altman is a skilled marketer, and the post might simply be a way to signal a friendlier, more palatable future for those who are a little freaked out. But a different way to read the post is to see Altman hedging slightly in the face of potential progress limitations on the technology. Earlier this month, OpenAI released GPT-5, to mixed reviews. Altman had promised “a Ph.D.-level” intelligence on any topic. But early tests of GPT-5 revealed all kinds of anecdotal examples of sloppy answers to queries, including hallucinations, simple-arithmetic errors, and failures in basic reasoning. Some power users who’d become infatuated with previous versions of the software were angry and even bereft by the update. Altman placed particular emphasis on the product’s usability and design: Paired with the “Gentle Singularity,” GPT-5 seems like an admission that superintelligence is still just a concept. And yet, the philosopher role-play continues. Not long before the launch, Altman appeared on the comedian Theo Von’s popular podcast. The discussion veered into the thoughtful science-fiction territory that Altman tends to inhabit. At one point, the two had the following exchange: Sam Altman: I do guess that a lot of the world gets covered in data centers over time. Theo Von: Do you really? Altman: But I don’t know, because maybe we put them in space. Like, maybe we build a big Dyson sphere around the solar system and say, “Hey, it actually makes no sense to put these on Earth.” Von: Yeah. Altman: I wish I had, like, more concrete answers for you, but, like, we’re stumbling through this. What exactly is a person, listening in their car on the way to the grocery store, to make of conversations like this? Surely, there’s a cohort that finds covering the Earth or atmosphere with data centers very exciting. But what about those of us who don’t? Altman and lesser personalities in the AI space often talk this way, making extreme, matter-of-fact proclamations about the future and sounding like kids playing a strategy game. This isn’t a business plan; it’s an idle daydream. Similarly disorienting is the fact that these visions and pontifications are driving change in the real world. Even if you personally don’t believe in the hype, you are living in an economy that has reoriented itself around AI. A recent report from The Wall Street Journal estimates that Big Tech’s spending on IT infrastructure in 2025 is “acting as a sort of private-sector stimulus program,” with the “Magnificent Seven” tech companies—Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Nvidia, and Tesla—spending more than $100 billion on capital expenditures in the recent months. The flip side of such consolidated investment in one tech sector is a giant economic vulnerability that could lead to a financial crisis. This is the AI era in a nutshell. Squint one way, and you can portray it as the saving grace of the world economy. Look at it more closely, and it’s a ticking time bomb lodged in the global financial system. The conversation is always polarized. Keep the faith. It’s difficult to deny that generative-AI tools are transformative, insomuch as their adoption has radically altered the economy and the digital world. Social networks and the internet at large have been flooded with AI slop and synthetic text. Spotify and YouTube are filling up with AI-generated songs and videos, some of which get millions of streams. Bots are everywhere, and they have produced profoundly strange and meaningful effects on digital life. Sometimes they’re racist. Many are sycophants. Other times, they summon demons. Google’s AI summaries are cratering traffic and rewiring the web. In schools, ChatGPT hasn’t just killed the student essay; it seems to be threatening some of the basic building blocks of human cognition. Some research has argued that chatbots are homogenizing the way people speak. In any case, they appear to have inverted the promise of the internet as an endless archive of information one can navigate for themselves. Do your own research has, in short order, become Get one canonical answer. Sometimes this is helpful: A bot artfully summarizes a complex PDF. They are, by most accounts, truly helpful coding tools. Kids use them to build helpful study guides. They’re good at saving you time by churning out anemic emails. Also, a health-care chatbot made up fake body parts. The FDA has introduced a generative-AI tool to help fast-track drug and medical-device approvals—but the tool keeps making up fake studies. To scan the AI headlines is a daily exercise in trying to determine the cost that society is paying for these perceived productivity benefits. For example, with a new Google Gemini–enabled smartwatch, you can ask the bot to “tell my spouse I’m 15 minutes late and send it in a jokey tone” instead of communicating yourself. This is followed by news of a study suggesting that ChatGPT power users might be accumulating a “cognitive debt” from using the tool. In recent months, I’ve felt unmoored by all of this: by a technology that I find useful in certain contexts being treated as a portal to sentience; by a billionaire confidently declaring that he is close to making breakthroughs in physics by conversing with a chatbot; by a “get that bag” culture that seems to have accepted these tools without much consideration as to the repercussions; by the discourse. I hear the chatter everywhere—a guy selling produce at the farmers’ market makes a half-hearted joke that AI can’t grow blueberries; a woman at the airport tells her friend that she asked ChatGPT for makeup recommendations. Most of these conversations are poorly informed, conducted by people who have been bombarded for years now by hype but who have also watched as some of these tools have become ingrained in their life or in the life of people they know. They’re not quite excited or jaded, but almost all of them seem resigned to dealing with the tools as part of their future. Remember—this is just the beginning … right? This is the language that the technology’s builders and backers have given us, which means that discussions that situate the technology in the future are being had on their terms. This is a mistake, and it is perhaps the reason so many people feel adrift. Lately, I’ve been preoccupied with a different question: What if generative AI isn’t God in the machine or vaporware? What if it’s just good enough, useful to many without being revolutionary? Right now, the models don’t think—they predict and arrange tokens of language to provide plausible responses to queries. There is little compelling evidence that they will evolve without some kind of quantum research leap. What if they never stop hallucinating and never develop the kind of creative ingenuity that powers actual human intelligence? The models being good enough doesn’t mean that the industry collapses overnight or that the technology is useless (though it could). The technology may still do an excellent job of making our educational system irrelevant, leaving a generation reliant on getting answers from a chatbot instead of thinking for themselves, without the promised advantage of a sentient bot that invents cancer cures. Good enough has been keeping me up at night. Because good enough would likely mean that not enough people recognize what’s really being built—and what’s being sacrificed—until it’s too late. What if the real doomer scenario is that we pollute the internet and the planet, reorient our economy and leverage ourselves, outsource big chunks of our minds, realign our geopolitics and culture, and fight endlessly over a technology that never comes close to delivering on its grandest promises? What if we spend so much time waiting and arguing that we fail to marshal our energy toward addressing the problems that exist here and now? That would be a tragedy—the product of a mass delusion. What scares me the most about this scenario is that it’s the only one that doesn’t sound all that insane. <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/08/ai-mass-delusion-eve…>

Aug. 19, 2025

Aprite quella posta (opuscolo sull'uso delle mail) (era: crisi della mail (was Re: Blocco all’HTML)

by graffio

Salve, segnalo questo breve e simpatico opuscolo sull'uso dell'email. E' stato presentato durante la scorsa edizione dell'hackmeeting, Cagliari 30/05 - 01/06. Tra le diverse cose affronta anche la questione dell'utilizzo di html nel corpo, ma anche la questione dell'oggetto, del client da usare. E non è affatto uno strumento destinato a sparire. Al momento non sembra proprio.. Lo trovate in vari formati a questa URL: https://vado.li/aqp buona giornata m Il 04/08/25 16:59, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it ha scritto: > Send nexa mailing list submissions to > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nexa-owner(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of nexa digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [Junk released by Allowed List] Re: Blocco all’HTML > (380°) > 2. Re: crisi della mail (was Re: Blocco all’HTML) (380°) > 3. Re: crisi della mail (380°) > 4. Re: crisi della mail (was Re: Blocco all’HTML) (380°) > 5. Re: crisi della mail (was Re: Blocco all’HTML) (maurizio lana) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2025 15:32:52 +0200 > From: 380° <g380(a)biscuolo.net> > To: Giuseppe Attardi <attardi(a)di.unipi.it> > Cc: nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: Re: [nexa] [Junk released by Allowed List] Re: Blocco > all’HTML > Message-ID: <87wm7jyzy3.fsf(a)xelera.eu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Buongiorno Giuseppe, > > On Mon, Aug 04 2025, Giuseppe Attardi wrote: > > [...] > >>> Come minimo il tuo MUA _deve_ essere in grado (o essere configurato per) >>> inviare messaggi multipart/mixed che contengono sia la parte text/HTML >>> (se proprio proprio vuoi insistere :-) ) che quella text/plain. >> Il mio MUA è la app Mail su iPad e non ha configurazioni del tipo >> richiesto. > Da quello che vedo il tuo MUA di recente a volte invia messaggi > multipart/alternative con dentro sia puro testo (text/plain) che HTML > (text/HTML), altre volte senza la parte text/plain e solo con HTML, > altre volte solo text/plain (non multipart): non so se sono impostazioni > che esegui a mano per ogni messaggio o altro, mi spiace ma non posso > aiutarti oltre le indicazioni fornite > > [...] > >>> Ripeto: i messaggi in HTML NON arrivano vuoti in lista, sono >>> "scartavetrati" (scrubbed) solo nell'archivio, dal software che lo >>> gestisce (Pipermail)... e lo sono per ragioni molto serie di sicurezza. >>> >> Il leggo i messaggi in digest, quindi il messaggio in questione lo >> vedo così: > Oh grazie, adesso è chiaro: Mailman _scartavetra_ i messaggi anche in > digest, non solo nell'archivio > > ...ed è cosa buona e giusta > > Mi spiace ma l'iscrizione in digest ha questo inconveniente (causato dal > fatto che alcuni iscritti inviano email _solo_ HTML) > > [...] > >>> Ripeto: se non riesci a configurarlo in modo sano (vedi >>> https://useplaintext.email per consigli), meglio che cambi MUA. >> Non è indicato come fare con l’app Mail di iPad, e l’opzione di configurazione di quella per MacOS non c’è. >> Non ho intenzione di cambiarlo. > Come ho detto da quello che vedo il (o i?) tuo MUA invia i messaggi > correttamente... a volte; quindi boh. > > Comunque il problema di ricevere i messaggi HTML _scartavetrati_ quando > si è iscritti in digest _non_ sarebbe risolto nemmeno cambiando MUA. > >> Ho letto le giustificazioni per evitare HTML, ma non si applicano al >> nostro caso, che è una lista chiusa. Non ci sono marketeer tra di noi >> che mandano tracking cookies o link di phishing. > Una lista chiusa con iscrizione aperta a chiunque :-) > > Comunque io non sono tra i gestori della maling-list, decidano loro > > [...] > > Un caro saluto, 380° > -- Maurizio "Graffio" Pillole di informazione digitale - https://pillole.graffio.org/ "C.I.R.C.E. - https://circex.org" AvANa - https://avana.forteprenestino.net/

Aug. 6, 2025

Re: [nexa] Friuli Venezia Giulia e Software Libero: una buona notizia....

by Enrico Nardelli

Ottima notizia Damiano, ne daremo comunicazione nella prossima newsletter del progetto Programma il Futuro, che raggiunge più di 50.000 insegnanti in tutte le scuole italiane (oltre a circa 17 mila studenti e 10 mila altri utenti). In essa inseriamo periodicamente notizie relative al mondo del software libero. Con qualcuno degli iscritti a questa lista siamo già in contatto, ma mi permetto di approfittare di questa mail per invitare chiunque operi in questo settore e vuole far arrivare notizie - di natura non commerciale - ai docenti di scuola a mandarmi il suo indirizzo e-mail. Una volta ogni 2 mesi circa invieremo un promemoria per chiedervi se avete qualcosa da inserire. I numeri passati della newsletter sono qua https://programmailfuturo.it/comunita/newsletter/archive/listing Grazie a tutti Enrico Nardelli Il 03/08/2025 11:46, Damiano Verzulli ha scritto: > => SERVIZI DIGITALI. HONSELL (OPEN): SOFTWARE LIBERO E INNOVAZIONE PER PA > > https://www.consiglio.regione.fvg.it/pagineinterne//Portale/comunicatiStamp… > > > Sembra sia stato fondamentale il contributo del Pordenone Linux User > Group: > https://www.pnlug.it/2025/08/02/promozione-del-software-libero-in-fvg/ > > Saluti, > DV > > ============================== > > Comunicato Stampa della Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia > -- > > 29.07.2025 - 13:22 > > (ACON) Trieste, 29 lug - "Oggi in I Commissione del Consiglio > regionale, come Open Sinistra Fvg, abbiamo presentato una proposta di > legge dal titolo "Norme per la promozione e diffusione dei sistemi di > software libero e aperto per favorire la trasparenza, l'accessibilità, > e la portabilità del software nella Pubblica Amministrazione. > Riteniamo che la promozione del software a codice aperto (Open source) > debba diventare un obiettivo strategico per questa Regione. In questo > modo non solo avvieremo un processo di affrancamento dai grandi > colossi del digitale, rispetto ai quali oggi siamo spesso inermi e > subordinati, ma creeremo anche importanti opportunità imprenditoriali > innovative, rendendo la nostra Regione più attrattiva per i talenti > emigrati e per i lavoratori con elevate competenze e conoscenze > specialistiche". > > Lo afferma in una nota il consigliere regionale di Open Sinistra Fvg, > Furio Honsell. > > "Il software aperto, diversamente da quello proprietario - spiega > Honsell -, infatti, permette il riuso, l'adattamento e la verifica del > software e pertanto crea posti di lavoro innovativi localmente. L'uso > di software proprietario, invece, è molto più costoso e ci rende > schiavi inconsapevoli di aziende che hanno altri interessi, anche > potenzialmente conflittuali con gli interessi europei". > > "La norma proposta - continua l'esponente di Open - prevede > l'elaborazione annuale di piani di promozione del software libero, a > cura di un gruppo di lavoro composto da rappresentanti delle categorie > produttive, della pubblica amministrazione, del mondo della ricerca e > dell'associazionismo. Inoltre, la proposta prevede l'introduzione di > incentivi e l'adozione di disposizioni più rigorose per garantire il > pieno rispetto della normativa italiana ed europea in materia. Infine, > si prevede la realizzazione di azioni di promozione della cultura del > software aperto nelle scuole". > > "Il software libero - aggiunge il consigliere - non è rilevante solo > dal punto di vista tecnologico, ma anche sul piano etico, in quanto > ispirato al principio di equità, e su quello cognitivo, poiché > rappresenta un rifiuto dell'uso inconsapevole delle 'scatole nere', le > cosiddette black box, che caratterizzano il software proprietario". > > "L'assessore Callari ha espresso pieno appoggio e condivisione > rispetto a questa proposta normativa, dichiarando che, in qualità di > coordinatore nazionale del gruppo di lavoro della Conferenza delle > Regioni in materia di informatica, intende farne la base per > l'elaborazione di una norma condivisa tra le Regioni da presentare > quanto prima. Esprimiamo pertanto - conclude Honsell - soddisfazione e > un ringraziamento ai gruppi che ci hanno aiutato a scrivere questa > norma e, in particolare, al Pnlug di Pordenone". ACON/COM/sm > -- -- EN https://www.hoepli.it/libro/la-rivoluzione-informatica/9788896069516.html ====================================================== Prof. Enrico Nardelli Past President di "Informatics Europe" Direttore del Laboratorio Nazionale "Informatica e Scuola" del CINI Dipartimento di Matematica - Università di Roma "Tor Vergata" Via della Ricerca Scientifica snc - 00133 Roma home page: https://www.mat.uniroma2.it/~nardelli blog: https://link-and-think.blogspot.it/ tel: +39 06 7259.4204 fax: +39 06 7259.4699 mobile: +39 335 590.2331 e-mail: nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it online meeting: https://blue.meet.garr.it/b/enr-y7f-t0q-ont ====================================================== --

Aug. 5, 2025

Re: [nexa] L'intelligenza artificiale può sostituire i mercati?

by Alfredo Bregni

Rispondo a caldo e d'istinto... Se un mercato è "opaco", ovvero le informazioni sono racchiuse entro scatole craniche biologiche al carbonio, e non sono disponibili su supporti elettronico-digitali al silicio, il mio timore è che l'IA -- del tutto a secco di carburante -- finisca con l'andare per inerzia per campi. Voglio dire, c'era un test saggio che si faceva una volta: "come posso far deragliare tutto?". E la risposta qui è ..."tenendomi strette le informazioni / know-how che contano". E allora, solo per trovare quello che ti serve, ti devi mettere al telefono, perché il web ha fallito. Normale, fra l'altro, la cosa, ...mica "spaziale" / improbabile. ----- Original Message ----- From: Marco Giustini To: Nexa Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2025 6:35 PM Subject: [nexa] L'intelligenza artificiale può sostituire i mercati? In questi tempi cupi sognare rende la vita più lieve. Vi giro questo interessante articolo a confine tra economia ed informatica che parla di come l'intelligenza artificiale potrebbe permettere di ripensare una economia in senso socialista. m L’IA può sostituire i mercati? Una risposta socialista di mercato a Carlo L. Cordasco di Andrea Genovese, Contropiano - 05/08/2025 Il mio amico Carlo Ludovico Cordasco ha recentemente pubblicato due articoli ricchi e stimolanti sull’IA e il problema della conoscenza. Il suo argomento ha il merito di andare oltre dicotomie semplicistiche, esplorando in modo intellettualmente onesto se e come l’IA possa replicare, o addirittura sostituire, le funzioni economiche tradizionalmente svolte dai mercati. In particolare, si concentra sul ruolo dei mercati nella scoperta della conoscenza e nella correzione degli errori, sollevando dubbi sulla capacità dell’IA di eguagliarli in queste aree cruciali. Ciò che colpisce della sua analisi è quanto si avvicini a una prospettiva socialista di mercato, che vede i mercati non come sacri, ma come strumenti istituzionali contingenti, che possono essere integrati, simulati o parzialmente sostituiti se e quando emergono meccanismi migliori. Molte delle sfide che Carlo solleva, così come le soluzioni ibride che immagina, si inseriscono bene nel quadro proposto da Oskar Lange e altri che cercavano una sintesi tra pianificazione e feedback decentralizzato. Separare la normatività dal meccanismo Uno dei punti chiave di Carlo è che qualsiasi criterio normativo di allocazione ottimale deve essere indipendente dai mercati stessi. Che adottiamo l’efficienza paretiana, una funzione di benessere sociale utilitaristica, il principio rawlsiano del maximin o un approccio basato sulle capacità, questi standard sono definiti in termini di risultati, non di forme istituzionali. I mercati possono approssimare bene tali risultati in certe condizioni, ma non sono privilegiati normativamente di per sé. Questo è proprio il punto di partenza del contributo di Lange. Egli riconosceva il valore informativo dei mercati, ma non li considerava assiomatici. Proponeva invece di usare segnali di prezzo simulati in un sistema di pianificazione centrale, guidato da feedback su surplus e carenze, per imitare la funzione di coordinamento dei mercati decentralizzati (Lange, 1936). L’argomento risuona con tradizioni più ampie dell’economia istituzionale e della teoria delle decisioni: dalla razionalità limitata di Herbert Simon (1957), che richiede di accontentarsi di soluzioni soddisfacenti in ambienti complessi e poveri di informazioni, alla pianificazione partecipativa di Albert & Hahnel (1991), che cerca processi economici decentralizzati ma coordinati basati su feedback iterativi e obiettivi condivisi anziché sulla competizione. Linee simili di pensiero compaiono nella coordinazione negoziata di Pat Devine (1988), dove la partecipazione democratica nel processo produttivo gioca un ruolo centrale nell’allocazione delle risorse senza affidarsi esclusivamente ai mercati. Il collaboratore di Lange, Włodzimierz Brus, approfondì questo quadro sottolineando i prerequisiti istituzionali e politici per una coordinazione economica significativa, sostenendo che i sistemi di pianificazione devono incorporare decentramento, reattività e controllo democratico per funzionare efficacemente (Brus & Laski, 1989). Il suo lavoro successivo criticò i fallimenti del “socialismo reale”, proponendo una gestione economica più pluralista e democratica. Importante, queste proposte non erano mere aggiustature tecnocratiche al capitalismo. Provenivano da una tradizione marxista interessata a superare l’anarchia della produzione, abolire lo sfruttamento e controllare democraticamente il surplus. Lange, Brus e altri cercarono di risolvere una tensione nell’eredità di Marx: come preservare la proprietà collettiva senza cadere in un centralismo burocratico inefficiente. Esperimenti storici come Cybersyn nel Cile degli anni ’70 (un tentativo di usare la cibernetica per coordinare l’economia in tempo reale, Medina, 2011) e il sistema jugoslavo di imprese autogestite in un quadro socialista di mercato (Horvat, 1982) mostrano che gli sforzi per combinare pianificazione, partecipazione e mercato non sono nuovi. Ciò che mancava allora — capacità computazionale, dati in tempo reale, previsioni avanzate — oggi l’IA potrebbe fornirlo. L’IA come pianificazione potenziata? Carlo ha ragione a enfatizzare i due motori del coordinamento di mercato: Scoperta della conoscenza, con agenti che rivelano informazioni disperse attraverso transazioni; Correzione degli errori, dove gli errori sono puniti con perdite, spingendo a revisioni o uscite. Dubita che l’IA possa eguagliare i mercati nella seconda funzione, ma riconosce che è sempre più efficace nella prima: classificare dati, prevedere domanda, condurre micro-esperimenti su larga scala. Arriviamo così al cuore del discorso: non serve abolire i mercati per riconoscere che l’IA può ridisegnare i confini del loro utilizzo. Come anticipò Lange, se cambiano le condizioni informative, cambia anche la necessità di affidarsi ai mercati. E queste condizioni stanno cambiando. La pianificazione basata sull’IA non è più teorica: I sistemi di raccomandazione allocano attenzione e beni nei media digitali; Le multinazionali usano algoritmi per ottimizzare produzione, gestione delle scorte e logistica (Phillips & Rozworski, 2019); Le smart grid energetiche regolano produzione e consumo in tempo reale. Questi non sono esperimenti mentali: sono sistemi di pianificazione parziali, integrati in economie di mercato. Da una prospettiva marxista, si apre una nuova frontiera nella critica dell’economia politica. Se l’IA può alleviare i vincoli informativi che una volta rendevano necessari i mercati, e se possiamo progettare istituzioni che disciplinino l’attività economica attorno ai bisogni sociali anziché al profitto, allora la socializzazione del coordinamento economico diventa una questione pratica, non un sogno utopico. Verso un futuro a mosaico? Carlo ipotizza un futuro istituzionale ibrido: In alcuni settori (es. beni digitali a costo marginale quasi zero), la scarsità sta scomparendo, e con essa il ruolo informativo dei prezzi. Qui, l’IA potrebbe coordinare l’allocazione meglio dei mercati, usando algoritmi, code o protocolli ad accesso aperto. In altri, la scarsità persiste, e con essa la necessità di feedback basati sui prezzi. Ma anche qui, l’IA può affiancare i mercati, migliorando scoperta, previsione ed efficienza. Un campo rilevante è il mechanism design algoritmico, dove agenti IA allocano risorse attraverso protocolli incentivanti. Nella versione distribuita, gli agenti interagiscono direttamente per raggiungere equilibri senza controllo centralizzato, suggerendo che coordinamento e correzione degli errori possano emergere da feedback tra pari, anziché da mercati tradizionali. Conclusione: un riquadro Langeano? Forse la domanda giusta non è se l’IA possa sostituire i mercati, ma in quali condizioni possa integrarli o parzialmente rimpiazzarli. Lo scetticismo di Carlo sulla capacità dell’IA di replicare la correzione degli errori è condivisibile, ma il suo quadro apre – piuttosto che chiude – la possibilità di una sintesi socialista di mercato: preservare il ruolo disciplinare dei mercati dove serve, esplorando strumenti algoritmici per espandere le forme di coordinamento possibili e desiderabili. Non è un rifiuto dei mercati, ma un invito a reimmaginarli: come strumenti da affinare, non templi da difendere. E, da un punto di vista marxista, non è un ritorno alla pianificazione burocratica, ma una visione proiettata in avanti: una produzione democraticamente diretta, tecnologicamente potenziata e ecologicamente sostenibile — un socialismo riadattato all’era digitale. Riferimenti: Albert, M., & Hahnel, R. (1991). The Political Economy of Participatory Economics. Princeton University Press. Brus, W., & Laski, K. (1989). From Marx to the Market: Socialism in Search of an Economic System. Oxford University Press. Devine, P. (1988). Democracy and Economic Planning: The Political Economy of a Self-Governing Society. Polity Press. Horvat, B. (1982). The Political Economy of Socialism: A Marxist Social Theory. M.E. Sharpe. Lange, O. (1936). On the Economic Theory of Socialism. Review of Economic Studies, 4(1), 53–71. Medina, E. (2011). Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende’s Chile. MIT Press. Phillips, L., & Rozworski, M. (2019). The people’s republic of Walmart: How the world’s biggest corporations are laying the foundation for socialism. Verso Books. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. Wiley. https://contropiano.org/news/news-economia/2025/08/05/lia-puo-sostituire-i-…

Aug. 5, 2025