This article was an interesting read. It goes into detail about Gary Bowser's life growing up, his role in Team Xecuter, what his life is like today, and his thoughts about his $14.5m fine to Nintendo.

Some choice quotes:

“I started becoming a middleman in between the people doing the development work, and the people actually owning the mod chips, playing the games,” [Gary Bowser] says. “I would get feedback from the testers, and then I would send it to the developers … I can handle people, and that’s why I ended up getting more involved.”

Bowser was charged with fraud over his connection to Team Xecuter. While in custody, he was also hit with a civil suit from Nintendo. Between the civil and criminal cases, he was ordered to pay $14.5m.

Pirates are usually fined in court, but Bowser’s case was meant to draw attention. “The sentence was like a message to other people that [are] still out there, that if they get caught … [they’ll] serve hard time,” he says. As he tells it, Bowser didn’t make or develop the products that sent him to prison; he “just” updated the websites that told people what they could buy, and kept them informed about what was coming next.

Bowser maintains that he could have fought the allegations, and that other members of the hacking group remain at large. But fighting against 13 charges would have cost time and money. It was easier, he claims, to plead guilty and only deal with a couple of the charges. As a part of that agreement, Bowser now has to send Nintendo 20-30% of any money left over after he pays for necessities such as rent.

“I’ll pay them what I can, which won’t be very much money, that’s for sure,” he says. Despite his predicament, Bowser counts his blessings. “It could be a lot worse,” he says. Bowser has now managed to secure housing, and he thinks that after rent, he has a couple of hundred dollars leftover for food and other necessities. He assumes he’ll be turning to food support services.

Note that this poll only targetted around 3000 UK adults aged 16+. Nonetheless I personally think the trend this poll highlights is worrying and worthy of discussion.

Also note I changed the original title to not use the terms "Gen Z" and "baby boomers" since I think putting in the ages is clearer.

Some choice quotes:

On feminism, 16% of [16 to 29-year-old] males felt it had done more harm than good. Among over-60s the figure was 13%.

One in four UK males aged 16 to 29 believe it is harder to be a man than a woman.

37% of men aged 16 to 29 consider “toxic masculinity” an unhelpful phrase, roughly double the number of young women who don’t like it.

The figures emerged from Ipsos polling for King’s College London’s Policy Institute and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership.

“This is a new and unusual generational pattern,” said Prof Bobby Duffy, director of the Policy Institute. “Normally, it tends to be the case that younger generations are consistently more comfortable with emerging social norms, as they grew up with these as a natural part of their lives.”

But Duffy said: “There is a consistent minority of between one-fifth and one-third who hold the opposite view. This points to a real risk of fractious division among this coming generation.”

Prof Rosie Campbell, director of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s, said: “The fact that this group is the first to derive most of their information from social media is likely to be at least part of the explanation.

In the meantime, social media algorithms are filling the vacuum, she said. “This could be something that changes when young men enter the workforce but we can’t take that for granted given how important social media is in the way we understand ourselves.”

[A study] show[s] [that domestic cats] eat more than 2,000 species globally – including hundreds that are of conservation concern.

“Our study sheds light on the predatory habits of one of the world’s most successful and widely distributed invasive predators,” the researchers, led by Christopher Lepczyk from Auburn University in the US, wrote in the paper.

A public statement signed by more than 1,000 scientists in support of meat production and consumption has numerous links to the livestock industry[.]

The declaration and associated studies are viewed as “propaganda” by leading environmental scientists. Prof Matthew Hayek of New York University in the US said: “The scientific consensus is that we need rapid meat reduction in the regions that can afford that choice.”

Studies in the highest-ranking scientific journals have concluded that cutting meat and dairy consumption in rich countries is the single best way to reduce a person’s impact on the environment and that the climate crisis cannot be beaten without such cuts. People already eat more meat than health guidelines recommend in most developed nations.

The statement has been used to target top EU officials against environmental and health policies and has been endorsed by the EU agriculture commissioner [...] The EU was pursuing policies to reduce meat consumption on environmental and health grounds, but some of these have recently been dropped.