Tech

Tech: Where the future is funny and innovation is hilarious! Plug into our Tech section for a circuit of chuckles, where gadgets and gizmos get a comical upgrade. From Silicon Valley silliness to digital dilemmas, we decode the tech world with a byte of humor. Perfect for gadget gurus and casual surfers alike who believe every software update should come with a laugh patch. Warning: Our jokes may cause spontaneous rebooting from excessive laughter!

  • |

    The Public Helped Take AI’s Early Risk. It Deserves a Dividend.

    ByLee Keybum

    When public grants, labs, universities, or taxpayer-funded research help shoulder AI’s early risk, it’s odd to treat the upside as an investors-only boarding pass. I read the terms: innovation deserves a reward, but the public shouldn’t be the silent partner that helped build the runway and got left at the gate.

    An American dividend is a proposal, not an existing policy or settled funding plan. Still, if the public helped pay for takeoff, it deserves more than a thank-you and an in-flight safety card while private investors get the view from first class. Big Tech can call that innovation; ordinary people might ask who picked up the tab—and why they weren’t invited to share the return.

  • |

    Images Reported as AI-Generated Fueled Raye–Michael B. Jordan Dating Rumors

    ByHolden McGroin

    One outing, several different stories

    After a reported Six Flags outing involving Raye and Michael B. Jordan, online speculation supplied a romance plot. But a reported outing and a relationship claim are separate things. The corkboard can connect those dots; the highlighter labeled “maybe calm down” is there for a reason.

    In an ExtraTV interview published September 27, Raye addressed the dating speculation by describing herself and Jordan as friends who liked roller coasters. That is her public response. It does not confirm the relationship rumor, and the reported outing does not turn every story attached to it into a fact.

    Then came the visual evidence department, which appears to have been staffed by an algorithm wearing a trench coat. Vanity Fair reported on October 2 that images appearing to be AI-generated circulated online and portrayed the pair as a couple. One image purported to show them together at the VMAs. Vanity Fair reported that Jordan did not attend the event, making that image a useful reminder that a picture can look like documentation while depicting something that did not happen.

    When a picture gets mistaken for proof

    Images offer a shortcut to belief: we see a scene, and our brains start filling in the caption. But visual polish is not provenance. An image alone does not establish where it came from, whether it depicts a real event, or whether the people pictured endorse the story attached to it. Here, Vanity Fair described the images as appearing AI-generated. That is the publication’s account of their appearance, not independent confirmation of how each image was made.

    The rumor machinery works best when distinctions get flattened. “They were reportedly at an amusement park,” “Raye said they are friends,” and “an image purported to show them at an event Jordan did not attend, according to Vanity Fair” are separate statements. Turn them into one romance storyline and it becomes easier to share—and easier to mistake speculation for evidence. The people pictured get assigned a plot; the accounts and feeds circulating it may get another round of attention. Follow the thread, sure. Check the knot, too.

    The modest takeaway is to pause before treating a viral image as a receipt. Ask who reported it, what the people involved actually said, and whether the pictured event checks out. A reported outing can remain just that. It does not need a relationship attached, and an image that appears fabricated does not become true because it arrived in high definition.

  • |

    The Internet’s Public Tab and Meta’s Private Receipt

    ByLee Keybum

    ARPANET, UCLA research, and DARPA belong in the internet’s origin story. Public and university work helped establish the foundations; Facebook arrived later as a private platform, and Meta built an advertising economy on top of the digital world people use. That isn’t the same as saying the public owned the whole internet or Meta took it over. It is a reason not to tell the platform’s success story as if every useful connection began with a company logo.

    Here’s my user-dividend audit: advertising and platform wealth on one side; ordinary people supplying attention, logging in, and accepting terms on the other. No legal claim to Meta’s profits is needed to ask why the rewards look so concentrated. The public helped lay some of the road. Our payout is access, a password reset, and another “agree” button. Somewhere, the tollbooth has a very good ad business.

  • |

    The Polling-Place Panic Was AI-Labeled

    ByHolden McGroin

    Holden’s corkboard has a new thread, and this time the warning label was already attached. Lead Stories reports that a TikTok creator posted the polling-place video on September 14, 2026, and labeled it AI-generated. A later post framed the clip as a warning about a coming election. The contradiction is almost too tidy: the label said “AI-generated,” while the panic department stamped “urgent evidence” and sent it down the hall.

    It is understandable that a vivid, frightening clip can make people stop scrolling. Election fears are not a character flaw; they are exactly the kind of alarm that gets people checking on one another and asking what is happening. The problem is the machinery that converts alarm into certainty before context gets a turn. The people swept into the group chat are not the punchline. The rumor pipeline is.

    Lead Stories reported that it found no credible evidence or news reporting that the incident depicted in the video had happened. That matters. The creator’s AI-generated label is one clue about the clip’s origin; the lack of credible reporting about the alleged event is another reason not to treat it as proof. Neither clue requires a private investigator’s corkboard or a doctorate in suspicious eyebrow movement. It requires letting the question “Where did this come from?” arrive before the siren.

    But rumor travels in a hurry because hurry is part of the product. A charged clip gives people something easy to react to, while the context asks them to pause, read, and tolerate not knowing for a minute. The first task takes a tap. The second asks the rumor to remove its trench coat and show its paperwork. That is a rough contest when a post is already wearing the emotional uniform of breaking news.

    So the useful lesson is modest: an AI label is meaningful, and a dramatic election claim still needs context before it becomes evidence. Lead Stories’ account makes the sequence plain—the creator labeled the TikTok AI-generated, then a later post presented it as an election warning, despite the lack of credible support for the depicted incident. The label was not hidden. The panic simply treated it like fine print. Follow the thread, sure; just check the knot before the rumor sells you premium string.

  • |

    The Scam Ad Got Optimized

    ByMike Rotch

    At my kitchen table, the contradiction is simple: platforms sell advertisers tools to find an audience, but when an impersonation scam may use those systems to find a consumer, the person who gets fooled can end up holding the bill. The Federal Trade Commission is now asking what responsibility platforms should have for scam ads. That is a question about the machinery, not a character test for people who got targeted.

    The FTC says consumers reported nearly $3.5 billion in losses to impersonation fraud in 2025. It also reports that nearly 30% of consumers who said they lost money to scammers said social media was their first contact. Those figures are based on consumer reports, not a complete count of every scam or victim, but they are plenty to make “just be more careful” sound like a customer-service script written by the people who don’t have to replace the money.

    On September 24, the FTC sought public comment on whether to update its rule on impersonation of government and businesses to address platforms. The agency is asking about platform responsibilities that could include vetting advertisers, monitoring ads, and removing confirmed impersonation ads. That is an inquiry into possible action, not a finalized rule and not a finding that any particular platform knowingly ran a scam ad. The distinction matters; paperwork should have teeth, but it should also have facts.

    Here is the performance review: the ad system is being asked to explain how it handles impersonation scams before anyone has settled what the platform must do or who cleans up when a consumer loses money. Meanwhile, the targeting tools are presented as a reason legitimate advertisers can reach people. If that same reach can help a scam find its mark, “the algorithm did it” is not a satisfying answer from the people who built the sales pitch around the algorithm.

    Ordinary consumers deserve clear responsibilities, not a shrug, a password reset, and a support form that disappears into the national filing cabinet. The FTC is still asking what the rules should be; until that question has an answer, the people harmed by scams should not automatically carry the whole cost. The ad got its performance review. Now let’s see whether the system has to clean up after its own work.

    Sources

  • |

    The Public Rocket, Private Invoice

    ByHarlan Quill

    The public-to-private pipeline begins with NASA, Defense Department work, universities, government laboratories, and taxpayer-backed engineering doing the unglamorous lifting. SpaceX then commercializes the capability, while Elon Musk’s private fortune becomes the part of the story printed in large numbers. The valuation and wealth figures attached to that argument are estimates, not gospel carved into a launch gantry. Still, the accounting question survives: when public institutions help absorb the risk, why does the public receive a receipt instead of a seat at the table?

    A public return need not mean taxpayers receive SpaceX stock certificates in the mail. It could mean durable national capability, useful research, reliable services, fair contracts, or accountability strong enough to show who benefited and on what terms. But if the shared side pays the tax, tuition, and medical bills while the private side gets the soaring valuation headline, the spreadsheet needs another column. The national balance sheet is a launchpad with no landing gear for the people who paid for it.

  • |

    America’s License-Plate Database Has Entered Its ‘LMAO’ Era

    ByHugh Jass

    The filing blinked first. Atlanta’s September 14 audit reported that 99.93% of 115,578 year-to-date Flock searches complied with department policy, a number so reassuring it arrived wearing a tie and carrying a binder. Then the footnote cleared its throat: 79 searches, or 0.07%, still required investigation. Statistically, that is tiny. For the people whose vehicle-location data was searched, “tiny” is not necessarily a synonym for “please stop worrying.”

    This is the institutional fantasy at the heart of automated license-plate readers: install cameras, add a search-reason field, and accountability will emerge like a well-trained office plant. But the technology can record a search without preventing an officer from treating the national road system like personal browser history. The audit trail exists; the question is whether the rules behind it have enough teeth to matter.

    That concern is not theoretical paperwork theater. A USA TODAY records investigation described repeated or improper Flock searches across agencies, with cases leading to arrests, firings, or internal investigations. That does not mean every flagged search was illegal or malicious, and it does not make every department equally culpable. It does mean the system’s clean percentage cannot be allowed to become a ceremonial curtain hiding the people who need to examine the exceptions.

    Meanwhile, reporting from Huntsville described a public-records dispute involving requests for Flock audit logs. That is not proof that records were destroyed, and it is not proof that misconduct occurred. It is, however, a useful reminder that surveillance accountability has two doors: the database must remember what happened, and the public must have a meaningful way to inspect the memory. A locked filing cabinet is not transparency merely because it contains excellent notes.

    So here is my formal finding, entered into Exhibit A with a trembling administrative stamp: Atlanta’s 99.93% may describe broad compliance, but it does not settle whether questionable searches are consequentially investigated or publicly reviewable. A system that remembers every plate while making the public fight for the audit trail is less a safeguard than a surveillance spreadsheet with a locked cabinet. The document has a pulse. Someone should be allowed to check its browser history.

    Sources

  • |

    Google’s Public Starter Kit, Private Jackpot

    ByLee Keybum

    Lee Keybum here, reporting from the Terms of Surrender: Google grew inside a publicly supported scientific and technological ecosystem, then turned that runway into a private empire. That does not mean one company invented nothing. It means Big Tech loves treating public research, public infrastructure, and shared knowledge like a free starter kit while presenting concentrated wealth as the natural ending.

    Meanwhile, the ordinary user gets search results, targeted ads, another service agreement, and a privacy bargain written in font size suitable for ants. Google’s checkout screen should include a tip jar labeled “Taxpayer contribution.” The question is not whether private companies can build useful things. It is whether the public that helped make the conditions possible should receive more than the privilege of paying with attention, data, and an afternoon clicking “Agree.”

  • |

    Meta Wants Rent for the AI in Your Apps

    ByLee Keybum

    Meta’s latest definition of “free” is simple: Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Meta AI still let you walk in without paying, but the better chairs are increasingly behind a monthly desk. In its September 15 announcement, Meta introduced Meta One plans beginning at $2.99, including a $7.99 Core bundle and a $19.99 Premium tier. The apps remain open; the useful upgrades are waiting at the platform toll booth.

    Meta says those paid tiers will bring expanded AI usage along with additional expression, creator, business, and personalization features. That is not the same as saying every useful feature is disappearing from the free version. It is more precise—and somehow more irritating. The company is keeping the front door unlocked while building a growing hallway of doors marked “more capable,” “more expressive,” and “please confirm your payment method.”

    This is the corporate meaning of free: admission costs nothing, but convenience is itemized. Meta is not charging you to enter the mall. It is charging separately for the escalator, the fitting room, the comfortable bench, the shopping assistant, and the chatbot explaining why the escalator improves your lifestyle. TechCrunch described the move as part of Meta’s expanding subscription push, while TechRadar captured the user reaction that some people might prefer paying for less AI rather than more of it.

    For ordinary users, the issue is not that Meta is allowed to sell subscriptions. Companies can charge for premium services. The issue is the steady relocation of the attractive parts into a paid layer while “free” remains the friendly label on the front gate. Lee reads the terms so you do not have to, and this one comes with a subscription barnacle: the platform is free to enter, but the richer experience increasingly arrives with monthly rent attached.

    Meta may call this a free core with optional upgrades. Users may call it an airport: free entry, separate charges for the seat, Wi-Fi, luggage, gate access, and the chatbot explaining why all four fees are reasonable. At some point, “free” stops describing what the service costs and starts describing how carefully the company avoids saying what it wants to sell you next.

  • |

    The Walmart Recall Text Is the Product Nobody Ordered

    ByHolden McGroin

    My corkboard has encountered a supposed Walmart recall text, and the first red flag is that the emergency package appears to be a stranger’s link. The notice borrows the language of consumer protection—danger, urgency, act now—then turns the shopper’s reasonable fear into a phishing funnel. It is a tiny customer-service thriller in which the scammer plays both the alarm bell and the helpful clerk.

    Walmart’s official fraud-alert guidance says the company does not send product-recall texts, and it warns consumers about messages impersonating Walmart. That matters because a real safety notice is supposed to move people toward verifiable information, not hustle them through an unfamiliar doorway. The fake version wears a safety vest while steering everyone away from the safety desk.

    Walmart maintains an official recalls page for product-safety information, while legitimate recall details may also come through the manufacturer or an appropriate regulator. That is the boring system, which is precisely why the panic machine hates it. Boring asks you to check the source. Panic asks you to obey the flashing red button before your brain finishes loading.

    Amazon’s broader consumer-safety guidance describes the same retail-scam weather: impersonation, urgency, and messages designed to make ordinary people surrender information before they have time to verify who is speaking. The business model is not public safety. It is fear with a checkout page, a subscription service for paranoia paid for with passwords, payment details, and whatever else the stranger can persuade you to unwrap.

    So follow the thread, but check the knot. The supposed recalled product may be a phantom, while your personal data is the item being carefully boxed for shipment. Somewhere, a scammer has already printed the shipping label. Walmart’s real warning points shoppers toward official information; the hoax points them toward the scammer. Same alarm bell, very different fire.

End of content

End of content