An anonymous reader shares a report: Boeing is planning a new single-aisle airplane that would succeed the 737 MAX, according to people familiar with the matter, a long-term bid to recover business lost to rival Airbus during its series of safety and quality problems. Earlier this year, Chief Executive Kelly Ortberg met with officials from Rolls-Royce in the U.K., two of the people said, where they discussed a new engine for the aircraft. Ortberg appointed a new senior product chief in Boeing's commercial plane business, whose prior role was developing a new type of aircraft. Boeing has also been designing the flight deck of a new narrow-body aircraft, according to a person familiar with the plans. This new aircraft is in early-stage development and plans are still taking shape, some of the people said. Boeing's plans represent a shift for the company, which had put some new aircraft development work on the back burner while it navigated multiple challenges. They are also a sign that the company is betting that a cutting-edge plane design could power its business for the next few decades.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Trust in America's elite universities has declined sharply over the past decade [non-paywalled source]. A Manhattan Institute survey conducted in June 2025 found that only 42% of Americans have significant trust in higher education, down 15 percentage points from a decade earlier. Trust in Ivy League institutions stands at just 15%. Harvard is considering building trade schools as part of a settlement with the Trump administration. The proposal comes as elite universities face criticism for shifting focus from academic excellence to shaping students' political and moral values. Princeton changed its informal motto in 2016 to "In the Nation's Service and the Service of Humanity." Grade inflation has become prevalent at elite schools. A Bloomberg column argues universities should adopt more objective admissions criteria, reduce grade inflation, and make education their primary mission again rather than attempting to fix societal problems.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Camembert writes: In a move that is sure to make Ripple nervous, traditional financial network Swift announced yesterday that it is partnering with Consensys and more than 30 global banks to build a blockchain based network that will run in parallel with its traditional network. Interestingly, unlike XRP, there is no native coin, rather it aims for interoperability (probably using Chainlink with whom the company did case studies for a few years already). There is also a strong focus on regulatory compliance. There are several news articles and opinion pieces on this event; I linked the Reuters article.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

BrianFagioli shares a report from NERDS.xyz: NASA has awarded Solstar Space a $150,000 SBIR Phase I contract to develop a Lunar Wi-Fi Access Point (LWIFI-AP). The system is designed to provide wireless connectivity for astronauts, rovers, and orbiting spacecraft as part of the Artemis and Commercial Lunar Payload Services programs. Solstar's goal is to build a space-rated, multi-band, multi-protocol access point that can survive radiation, extreme lunar temperatures, and other harsh conditions. NASA has identified Wi-Fi and 3GPP standards as core communication needs across mission systems ranging from the Human Landing System and Lunar Terrain Vehicle to the Lunar Gateway. Although this is only an early-stage contract, Solstar's proposal addresses a clear gap in space-qualified networking hardware. The company says that just as Wi-Fi transformed daily life on Earth, it will be equally important for living and working on the Moon. If the project advances, astronauts could soon be relying on familiar wireless technology that has been adapted for one of the most challenging environments in existence.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Sen. Mark Kelly and three Democratic colleagues urged appropriations leaders to block funding for moving space shuttle Discovery from the Smithsonian's Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia to Houston, arguing the transfer would waste taxpayer money, risk permanent damage, and restrict public access. The relocation, pushed by Texas senators Cornyn and Cruz under a new law, carries an estimated cost of nearly $400 million. Ars Technica reports: "Why should hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars be spent just to jeopardize a piece of American history that's already protected and on display?" wrote Kelly in a social media post on Friday. "Space Shuttle Discovery belongs at the Smithsonian, where millions of people, including students and veterans, go to see it for free." In a letter sent on the same day to the leadership of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Kelly and his three colleagues cautioned that any effort to transfer the winged orbiter would "waste taxpayer dollars, risk permanent damage to the shuttle, and mean fewer visitors would be able to visit it." "It is worth noting that there is little evidence of broad public demand for such a move," wrote Kelly, Warner, Kaine, and Durbin. In the letter, the senators asked that committee chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) and vice chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) block funding for Discovery's relocation in both the fiscal year 2026 Interior-Environment appropriations bill and FY26 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill. [...] "Houston's disappointment in not being selected is wholly understandable," the four senators wrote, "but removing an item from the National Collection is not a viable solution." [...] "There are also profound financial challenges associated with this transfer," wrote Kelly. Warner, Kaine, and Durbin. "The Smithsonian estimates that transporting Discovery from Virginia to Houston could cost more than $50 million, with another $325 million needed for planning, exhibit reconstruction, and new facilities." "Dedicating hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to move an artifact that is already housed, displayed, and preserved in a world-class facility is both inefficient and unjustifiable," the senators wrote. Then there are the logistical challenges with relocating Discovery, which could result in damaging it, "permanently diminishing its historical and cultural value for future generations." "Moving Discovery by barge or road would be far more complex [than previous shuttle moves], exposing it to saltwater, weather, and collision risks across a journey several times longer," the letter reads. "As a one-of-a-kind artifact that has already endured the stresses of spaceflight, Discovery is uniquely vulnerable to these hazards. The heat tiles that enabled repeated shuttle missions become more fragile with age, and they are irreplaceable." Kelly, who previously lived in Houston when he was part of the space program, agrees that the city is central to NASA's human spaceflight efforts, but, along with Warner, Kaine, and Durbin, points out that displaying Discovery would come with another cost: an admission fee, limiting public access to the shuttle. "The Smithsonian is unique among museums for providing visitors with access to a national treasure meant to inspire the American public without placing economic barriers," wrote the senators.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Calendars today may be controlled by a standards body, but that's hardly an inherent fact of timekeeping. Dates and times are arbitrary and we structure them to our convenience.

If we rewind to ancient Rome, you had the role of Pontifex Maximus. This was the religious leader of Rome, and since honoring the correct feasts and festivals at the right time was part of the job, it was also the standards body which kept the calendar. It was, ostensibly, not a political position, but there was also no rule that an aspiring politician couldn't hold both that post and a political post, like consul. This was a loophole Julius Caesar ruthlessly exploited; if his political opposition wanted to have an important meeting on a given day, whoops! The signs and portents tell us that we need to have a festival and no work should be done!

There's no evidence to prove it, but Julius Caesar is exactly the kind of petty that he probably skipped Pompey's birthday every year.

Julius messed around with the calendar a fair bit for political advantage, but the final version of it was the Julian calendar and that was our core calendar for the next 1500 years or so (and in some places, still is the preferred calendar). At that point Pope Gregory came in, did a little refactoring and fixed the leap year calculations, and recalibrated the calendar to the seasons. The down side of that: he had to skip 13 days to get things back in sync.

The point of this historical digression is that there really is no point in history when dates made sense. That still doesn't excuse today's Java code, sent to us by Bernard.

GregorianCalendar gregorianCalendar = getGregorianCalendar(); XMLGregorianCalendar xmlVersion = DatatypeFactory.newInstance().newXMLGregorianCalendar(gregorianCalendar); return gregorianCalendar.equals(xmlVersion .toGregorianCalendar());

Indenting as per the original.

The GregorianCalendar is more or less what it sounds like, a calendar type in the Gregorian system, though it's worth noting that it's technically a "combined" calendar that also supports Julian dates prior to 15-OCT-1582 (with a discontinuity- it's preceeded by 04-OCT-1582). To confuse things even farther, this is a bit of fun in the Javadocs:

Prior to the institution of the Gregorian calendar, New Year's Day was March 25. To avoid confusion, this calendar always uses January 1. A manual adjustment may be made if desired for dates that are prior to the Gregorian changeover and which fall between January 1 and March 24.

"To avoid confusion." As if confusion is avoidable when crossing between two date systems.

None of that has anything to do with our code sample, it's just interesting. Let's dig into the code.

We start by fetching a GregorianCalendar object. We then construct an XMLGregorianCalendar object off of the original GregorianCalendar. Then we convert the XMLGregorianCalendar back into a GregorianCalendar and compare them. You might think that this then is a function which always returns true, but Java's got a surprise for you: converting to XMLGregorianCalendar is lossy so this function always returns false.

Bernard didn't have an explanation for why this code exists. I don't have an explanation either, besides human frailty. No matter if the original developer expected this to be true or false at any given time, why are we even doing this check? What do we hope to learn from it?

[Advertisement] Picking up NuGet is easy. Getting good at it takes time. Download our guide to learn the best practice of NuGet for the Enterprise.