Researchers Find No Amount of Alcohol is Healthy For You
“The cause of that association was not clear, but red wine, researchers theorized, might have anti-inflammatory properties that extended life and protected cardiovascular health…”
More recently, though, research has piled up debunking the idea that moderate drinking is good for you. Last year, a major meta-analysis that re-examined 107 studies over 40 years came to the conclusion that no amount of alcohol improves health; and in 2022, a well-designed study found that consuming even a small amount brought some risk to heart health. That same year, Nature published research stating that consuming as little as one or two drinks a day (even less for women) was associated with shrinkage in the brain — a phenomenon normally associated with aging…
[M]ore people are now reporting that they consume cannabis than alcohol on a daily basis. Some governments are responding to the new research by overhauling their messaging. Last year, Ireland became the first country to pass legislation requiring a cancer warning on all alcohol products sold there, similar to those found on cigarettes: “There is a direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers,” the language will read. And in Canada, the government has revised its alcohol guidelines, announcing: “We now know that even a small amount of alcohol can be damaging to health.” The guidelines characterize one to two drinks a week as carrying “low risk” and three to six drinks as carrying “moderate risk.” (Previously the guidelines suggested that women limit themselves to no more than two standard drinks most days, and that men place that limit at three.)
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Security Lessons from the Change Healthcare Ransomware Catastrophe
There were 44 attacks against the health care sector in April, the most that [cybersecurity firm] Recorded Future has seen in the four years it’s been collecting data. It was also the second-largest month-over-month jump, after 30 ransomware attacks were recorded in March. There were 32 attacks in February and May.
But an analysis by the security-focused magazine CSO says the “disastrous” incident also “starkly illustrated the fragility of the healthcare sector, prompting calls for regulatory action.”
In response to the attack, US politicians have called for mandated baseline cybersecurity standards in the health sector, as well as better information sharing. They have also raised concerns that industry consolidation is increasing cyber risk.
So what went wrong? The attackers used a set of stolen credentials to remotely access the company’s systems. But the article also notes Change Healthcare’s systems “suffered from a lack of segmentation, which enables easy lateral movement of the attack” — and that the company’s acquisition may have played a role:
Mergers and acquisitions create new cyber threats because they involve the integration of systems, data, and processes from different organizations, each with its own security protocols and potential vulnerabilities. “During this transition, cybercriminals can exploit discrepancies in security measures, gaps in IT governance, and the increased complexity of managing merged IT environments,” Aron Brand, CTO of CTERA told CSOonline. “Additionally, the heightened sharing of sensitive information between parties provides more opportunities for data breaches.”
And “In the end, paying the ransom failed to protect UHG from secondary attempts at extortion.”
In April, cybercriminals from the RansomHub group threatened to leak portions of 6TB of sensitive data stolen from the breach of Change Healthcare, and obtained through Nichy, according to an analysis by security vendor Forescout. An estimated one in three Americans had their sensitive data exposed as a result of the attack. Such secondary scams are becoming increasingly commonplace and healthcare providers are particularly at risk, according to compliance experts… The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is investigating whether a breach of protected health information occurred in assessing whether either UHG or Change Healthcare violated strict healthcare sector privacy regulations.
Thanks to Slashdot reader snydeq for sharing the article.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Is C++ More Popular Than C?
1. Python
2. C
3. C++
4. Java
But this month C++ “overtook” C for the first time, TIOBE announced, becoming (according to the same methodology) the #2 most popular programming language, with C dropping to #3. ” C++ has never been that high in the TIOBE index,” says TIOBE Software CEO Paul Jansen in the announcement, “whereas C has never been that low.”
1. Python
2. C++
3. C
4. Java
C++ started a new life as of 2011 with its consistent 3 yearly updates. Although most compilers and most engineers can’t take up with this pace, it is considered a success to see the language evolve.
The main strengths of C++ are its performance and scalability. Its downside is its many ways to get things done, i.e. its rich idiom of features, which is caused by its long history and aim for backward compatibility.
C++ is heavily used in embedded systems, game development and financial trading software, just to name a few domains.
There’s different rankings from the rival PYPL index of programming language popularity. It lumps C and C++ together to award them a collective ranking (#5). But unlike TIOBE, it shows Java [and JavaScript and C#] all being more popular (with Python still the #1 most popular language).
Of course, statistical anomalies could be also skewing the results. Visual Basic also lost two ranks in popularity in the last month, according to TIOBE, dropping from the #7 position to the #9 position (now falling just behind Go and SQL). This becomes the first time that Go has risen as high as #7, according to TIOBE’s announcement — with Rust also reaching an all-time high of #17…
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
GPT-4 Has Passed the Turing Test, Researchers Claim
ELIZA, a system pre-programmed with responses but with no large language model (LLM) or neural network architecture, was judged to be human just 22% of the time. GPT-3.5 scored 50% while the human participant scored 67%. “Machines can confabulate, mashing together plausible ex-post-facto justifications for things, as humans do,” Nell Watson, an AI researcher at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), told Live Science. “They can be subject to cognitive biases, bamboozled and manipulated, and are becoming increasingly deceptive. All these elements mean human-like foibles and quirks are being expressed in AI systems, which makes them more human-like than previous approaches that had little more than a list of canned responses.” Further reading: 1960s Chatbot ELIZA Beat OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 In a Recent Turing Test Study
Read more of this story at Slashdot.