Le Journal

Un attaquant peut provoquer une corruption de mémoire de LibTIFF, via TIFFReadRGBAImageOriented(), afin de mener un déni de service, et éventuellement d'exécuter du code. Voir en ligne : https://vigilance.fr/vulnerabilite/...

The Netflix login screen is displayed on a phone screen with Netflix visible in the background in this photo illustration in Brussels, Belgium, on January 5, 2025. | Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images It’s no secret that the way we consume media these days is different than it was 10 years ago. Who doesn’t like to be on their phone while they’re watching TV? Well, Hollywood has noticed your attention is split. And as a result, individuals like Kris Jenner and companies like Disney are investing in new forms of entertainment. Enter: the vertical micro-drama. Filmed quickly and with scrolling in mind, they are short episodes, sometimes as short as 45 seconds, intended to grab the viewer with over-the-top premises. But that isn’t the only change. The magazine n+1 reported earlier this year that Netflix executives are asking their screenwriters to “have this character announce what they’re doing so that viewers who have this program on in the background can follow along” — in other words, dumb down the script so that inattentive viewers can still follow along. So, is what we’re watching getting worse? Today, Explained co-host Noel King brought that question to Puck News correspondent Julia Alexander. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. <EMBED> When people in the industry talk about the second screen problem, what do they mean? If you talk to creatives, the second screen — meaning, the phone that you’re watching TikToks on while watching a movie on your big TV — is just a lack of attention that is being paid to the main movie or film on the television. But, if you talk to executives, the question of the second screen is one of: Does the adoration for TikTok, and Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts mean that people will spend less time with our streaming services that they’ll cancel, and we have to fight back for those subscribers? Before the phone came around, people would do this with magazines, and they would do it with books, and they would do it with other things. We’ve just never had as many things competing for such tiny slices of the attention pie. There was reporting in n+1 saying that Netflix executives are telling writers to dumb down the writing in TV shows and movies. Do people who cover the industry, did they know that this was happening? I think it’s important to clarify that no one, no executive is out [there] saying, “Dumb this down.” No executive is out in the town saying, “Hey, by the way, make shittier television that’s really going to help us when we increase prices again,” right? What they’re saying, if this is being said to people — and I have personally never heard it in my reporting — what they would be saying is, “We understand that our audience has less attention than they might have 10 years ago, and our audience has more opportunities to put that attention on another video format, whether they’re watching Reels or TikTok. And we understand that that is our direct competitor in a way that someone flipping through a magazine while watching a movie was not going to be a direct competitor.” It’s not about dumbing down, it’s about acknowledging where the future of competition is coming from. Why do you think the idea of dumbing TV writing down makes us angry? We all want to believe that we are of higher-quality caliber than in fact we are. I mean, I’d be outraged if someone came out and said, “Netflix is purposely dumbing stuff down.” But, in reality, I was watching Frankenstein the other night with my fiance, and he was playing Candy Crush the entire time, and then, in a group chat the next day, he’s complaining about the quality of films. But, the quality of the film, such as Frankenstein, a beautiful Guillermo del Toro movie, has nothing to do with a Netflix executive coming out and saying, “You’ve got to dumb this…

A health worker draws blood at a clinic in Benin. Lenacapavir, a new twice-yearly shot to prevent HIV, could soon be rolled out in similar settings around the world. | Pascal Deloche/Godong/Universal Images Group via Getty Images How often, on average, do you forget to take your daily meds? For me, it’s about twice a week. And that’s for something as low-stakes as a vitamin D supplement. It’s not the end of the world if I’m a little deficient. But when it comes to HIV prevention, missing a dose of your prescribed daily prevention pills could mean the difference between protection and a new infection. A new drug called lenacapavir might entirely change the game, though. Right now, our most widely used tool to stave off HIV — which killed an estimated 630,000 people last year — is through prevention pills, called pre-exposure prophylaxis. PrEP works extremely well and has prevented millions of HIV infections in the 13 years it’s been around. But the catch is that the pills need to be taken every single day. In much of the Global South, having consistent access to it remains a big hurdle, on top of issues with adherence and stigma. That’s the reason why, by 2023, only about 6 million people worldwide were on PrEP, a fraction of the tens of millions who could benefit. Each year, another 1.3 million people still acquire HIV. But a discreet shot taken just twice a year, like lenacapavir, removes forgetfulness — and some stigma — out of the equation. For a field where breakthroughs have been rare, lenacapavir has almost vaccine-like efficacy (even though it’s not one). In clinical trials, the drug showed 100 percent protection in women and approximately 96 percent in men, transgender, and nonbinary people. Those are the kind of numbers policymakers can’t ignore. The US Food and Drug Administration approved it in June, the World Health Organization endorsed it in July, and the European Union followed in August. The Trump administration — which grounded its lifesaving global health work to a near-complete stop eleven months ago — recently made lenacapavir the center of its “America First” global health strategy. For once, science (and its notoriously slow bureaucracy) is not the holdup. Lenacapavir went from US approval to shots in African clinics in just a few months, and the first shipments have already arrived in Eswatini and Zambia. “We have never seen a health technology enter low- and middle-income markets with this speed,” Mitchell Warren from the advocacy organization AVAC told me. But the rollout is now being wielded as a political tool. What that “America First” slogan actually means for global health is starting to come into focus. Just days ago, the State Department announced it will not supply South Africa — the country with the world’s highest HIV burden — with any of the US-funded lenacapavir doses. Who gets this breakthrough drug first is starting to look less like a question of where HIV is worst and more like a question of who’s in the administration’s good books. What is lenacapavir? Four decades ago, an HIV infection was a near-death sentence. But since then, we’ve marched toward progress — making better drugs with simpler regimens and widening access. But even after all that work, we still don’t have a cure or a true vaccine. That’s why an innovation like lenacapavir feels notable. For years, HIV drugs targeted the virus’s enzymes, and it wasn’t obvious that targeting anything else would work. Then, in the 1990s, researchers backed by the National Institutes of Health began studying how the virus builds its cone-shaped shell, called the capsid. Most scientists dismissed it as “undruggable” — a smooth protein structure with no obvious place for a medicine to stick. But a small band of virologists thought differently. They spent years hunting for a molecule that could jam the capsid’s formation. After countless dead ends, that hunch paid off. The work led to lenacapavir, the first drug to successfully attack the…

Cattle at a large feedlot in Texas. Some of the world’s biggest meat companies are finally facing a degree of accountability for allegedly deceiving the public about their pollution. On Monday, America’s largest meat producer, Tyson Foods, agreed to stop marketing a line of its so-called climate-friendly beef and to drop its claim that it could reach “net-zero” emissions by 2050. The changes are the result of a lawsuit settlement with the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that sued Tyson for allegedly misleading consumers. Meat and dairy production are two of the highest polluting industries, accounting for 14.5 to 19 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, with much of it stemming from beef. As part of the settlement, Tyson must refrain from making these environmental claims for five years and can’t make new ones unless they’re verified by experts. “This settlement reinforces the principle that consumers deserve honesty and accountability from the corporations shaping our food system,” Caroline Leary, general counsel and chief operating officer at EWG, said in a press release. This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Tyson Foods declined an interview request for this story. In a statement to Vox, a Tyson spokesperson said the decision to settle “was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods.” (If you’re wondering how Tyson was ever allowed to make these claims in the first place, it’s because the US Department of Agriculture lets meat companies say pretty much whatever they want on their packaging.) Less than two weeks ago, the US subsidiary of Brazil-based JBS — the world’s largest meat company — paid $1.1 million to settle a similar lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James over the company’s claim that it could reach net-zero emissions by 2040. “Bacon, chicken wings and steak with net-zero emissions,” the company stated in a 2021 full-page New York Times ad. “It’s possible.” (It’s not.) The terms of the settlement will require JBS to discuss net zero as a goal or ambition, as opposed to a pledge or commitment. “This settlement does not reflect an admission of wrongdoing, and JBS USA remains driven to advance sustainable agriculture,” a JBS spokesperson wrote in a statement to Vox. It all amounts to what two environmental researchers have called a form of “epistemic pollution” that shapes “what we know, understand and believe” about meat’s climate footprint. This pollution of public discourse has worked: Polls show people significantly underrate animal agriculture’s environmental impact. The two settlements represent an antidote to that pollution, and a rare shred of justice for an industry that has otherwise evaded climate accountability. But if the events of the last 10 days at the world’s largest climate change conference are any indication, the meat giants aren’t deterred and are as emboldened as ever to mislead the public on their pollution and obstruct efforts to regulate it. Calling the meat industry’s bluff This month, over 50,000 people descended on Belém, Brazil, to attend the United Nations’ annual COP (conference of the parties) climate summit, where world leaders meet to assess the state of climate change and pledge to cut emissions. The conference largely focuses on fossil fuels, but in recent years, it’s begun to put more attention on food and agriculture, which account for around one-third of global climate-warming emissions. In response, meat and dairy companies have ramped up their presence at COP events to influence negotiations. This year was no different. In fact, JBS led the food industry’s officially recognized effort to develop environmental policy recommendations for governments to consider. Unsurprisingly, JBS and its peers…

US President Donald Trump (left) greets Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on October 17, 2025, in Washington, DC. | Chen Mengtong/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images The Trump administration has been something of a pendulum in its position on the war in Ukraine, swinging between pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia positions over the past year. This week, it is swinging hard toward Moscow. Earlier this week, Axios reported on a new 28-point Trump administration plan to end the war in Ukraine, echoing the 20-point plan that led to last month’s ceasefire in Gaza. The plan was formally presented to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday by US Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll in Kyiv. The points, published by the Financial Times on Friday, include several serious concessions that are red lines for the Ukrainians. Those include ceding territory not currently under Russian control, land that would give Russia full control of the disputed Donbas region. The Ukrainian military would also be capped at 600,000 troops, down from 900,000 today, under the plan. And Ukraine would have to enshrine in its constitution that it would not seek NATO membership and would be prohibited from hosting foreign troops on its soil, effectively scuttling Europe’s main plan to secure the peace. Europe’s main plan to fund Ukraine’s postwar rebuilding would also be hampered by the provision giving the US 50 percent of the funds from frozen Russian assets. The plan does vaguely gesture toward security guarantees for Ukraine, leaves open the door to EU membership, and includes reassurances about Ukrainian sovereignty. But this plan would still be viewed by Ukraine as effectively surrender. The government “must reject it. Ukrainian society won’t accept this,” Olena Halushka, a civil society activist with the International Center for Ukrainian Victory, told Vox. There are indications that the US is dialing up the pressure on Ukraine to accept, however. Ukrainian officials told the Financial Times that the Americans want Zelenskyy to sign the deal by Thanksgiving and that the whole process should be wrapped up by early December. US officials have also reportedly suggested that they will cut military aid and intelligence sharing if Ukraine doesn’t take the deal. Zelenskyy said he was willing to work with the Americans on the plan, but on Friday, he said Ukraine was facing “one of the most difficult moments in our history” and was facing a painful choice between “the loss of dignity, or the risk of losing a key partner.” In short, readers in the US may feel like they’ve seen this all before several times since President Donald Trump took office. But everyone involved is indicating that this time feels different, and they’re taking it very seriously. Everything is moving very quickly, and there’s still a lot of uncertainty around the deal that we can separate into five main questions. 1. Where did this plan even come from? There’s clearly some churn behind the scenes in US-Russia diplomacy. Notably, Keith Kellogg, Trump’s official Ukraine envoy who has been considered one of the more pro-Kyiv figures in the administration, quit just after news of the deal leaked. And Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov hasn’t been seen in weeks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s initial statement was extremely equivocal and vague. The agreement appears to have been cooked up by Trump’s all-purpose envoy Steve Witkoff and Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, who has been in talks with the Americans over the war. After Axios posted its story, Witkoff — perhaps confusing his tweets and his texts — posted on X that the reporters “must have got this from K,” presumably Kirill. The plan, as published by the Financial Times, includes a number of factual and spelling errors, suggesting the work of amateur diplomats. Witkoff has gotten over his skis in talks with the Russians before, and there was some initial skepticism from observers…