News'n'Clues - TECHNOLOGY Article Summaries

GeekWire Podcast on location at OpenAI in Bellevue, with CTO of Applications Vijaye Raji

Source: {'href': 'https://www.geekwire.com', 'title': 'GeekWire'} Published: 2026-03-07 17:37:48

The Future of Pixar Includes Ghosts, a Musical, & 'Monsters Inc 3'

Source: {'href': 'https://gizmodo.com', 'title': 'Gizmodo'} Published: 2026-03-07 15:32:37

Engineer receives $30,000 for exposing a vulnerability affecting 7,000 robot vacuum cleaners — tinkerer just wanted to drive his robot vacuum with a PS5 controller

Source: {'href': 'https://www.tomshardware.com', 'title': "Tom's Hardware"} Published: 2026-03-07 15:12:26

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. The company reportedly sent Sammy Azdoufal, a software engineer who wanted to drive his DJI Romo robot vacuum with a PS5 controller, an email notifying him of the reward, but did not elaborate on the reasons behind it. DJI insists that it had already started fixing several weaknesses in its backend systems before Azdoufal demonstrated the scale of access he had uncovered, yet questions remain about the reward and patching. According to an email he shared with The Verge, DJI agreed to pay him $30,000 for one of his discoveries, though the company did not clarify which specific discovery is eligible for the reward. DJI confirmed that it had compensated an unnamed researcher, according to The Verge. Yet, the company's past dispute with researcher Kevin Finisterre in 2017 makes it unclear whether Azdoufal would be rewarded at all and how quickly the DJI backend holes will be patched. It all started earlier this year, when Sammy Azdoufal wanted to control his robotic hoover with something more convenient than a smartphone screen. As it turned out, instead of verifying a single robot, DJI's backend granted broad access rights to some 7,000 robot vacuum cleaners located in 24 countries, along with their sensor and data stored in the cloud. The DJI Romo is an advanced robot vacuum cleaner that is not only equipped with the typical set of sensors found in any automatic hoover, but also with a camera and a microphone. As a result of the authorization flaw, Azdoufal gained access to 7,000 live camera feeds with audio and could even compile 2D floor plans of homes operated by other DJI Romos. Azdoufal insists he did not 'hack' anything as he simply encountered a flawed backend service that failed to properly limit device access. DJI then told Popular Science that it discovered the vulnerability during an internal review (so no credit was given to Sammy Azdoufal) in late January and quickly fixed it. DJI also said that no user action was required and added that additional security enhancements were underway without disclosing any details. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds. Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom's Hardware. Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York,

Palantir and Anthropic AI helped the US hit 1k Iran targets in 24 hours

Source: {'href': 'https://news.ycombinator.com', 'title': 'Hacker News'} Published: 2026-03-07 13:59:39

Edit: this Washington Post article seems to be the original source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthrop... " Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. "This quote comes to mind whenever Dario Amodei opens his mouth. This quote comes to mind whenever Dario Amodei opens his mouth. How come HN became so extreme left it can't understand this is a good thing? If that's the case, why did they need help selecting targets? And yet, a week later, the Iranian regime is intact, American allies are still under constant bombardment, interceptor stocks are running low, and half of America's long-range, high-altitude transportable radar have been destroyed.This looks like shooting the broad side of a barn, and then painting bullseyes around every bullet hole. This looks like shooting the broad side of a barn, and then painting bullseyes around every bullet hole. https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/iran-school-strike-us-mil...In this case it seems plausible that the military would have an outdated database, and that an LLM would have "known" it wasn't a base anymore, assuming the LLM was trained on documents/maps with this up to date information. In this case it seems plausible that the military would have an outdated database, and that an LLM would have "known" it wasn't a base anymore, assuming the LLM was trained on documents/maps with this up to date information. Ah, yes, because an LLM has never made a mistake ever. The shift toward war crime whataboutism is a new low for HN, capping off a week of aggressive warmongering and intellectualized cruelty in every comment thread about Iran. Have Iran and their terrorist partners ever restricted what they attack? This isn't even a war according to our laws. Even if we concluded that the firebombing was acceptable (and oodles of people call it a war crime), this does not transfer that justification to these attacks.I am also not terribly interested in using the evil acts of terrorist groups to justify our own evil acts. Would it be acceptable in your mind to behead captured Iranian PoWs because various terrorist groups do this? Would it be acceptable in your mind to behead captured Iranian PoWs because various terrorist groups do this? My generation feels more replacable than ever and this leads to ethics being lost. Ethics can be diluted very easily if you make people wonder about food on the table.I am in school and ethics aren't an concern when we discuss and I am not sure treating it as a subject could help either. Especially when not following ethics sometimes leads to so much financial gains.To me, the way I see it, people sometimes start doing immoral things because they have to put food on the table and then greed takes over.But that being said, I am not sure how job insecurity/this culture can be fixed by a single measure but I just wanted to point out that there's more nuance to it. The only way to meaningfully solve is with having discussions on this topic and having actual change take place.We feel like we go grease ourselves in studies and try to get a job and even when we do but many of us are still not able to afford a house at times :< I am in school and ethics aren't an concern when we discuss and I am not sure treating it as a subject could help either. Especially when not following ethics sometimes leads to so much financial gains.To me, the way I see it, people sometimes start doing immoral things because they have to put food on the table and then greed takes over.But that being said, I am not sure how job insecurity/this culture can be fixed by a single measure but I just wanted to point out that there's more nuance to it. The only way to meaningfully solve is with having discussions on this topic and having actual change take place.We feel like we go grease ourselves in studies and try to get a job and even when we do but many of us are still not able to afford a house at times :< Especially when not following ethics sometimes leads to so much financial gains.To me, the way I see it, people sometimes start doing immoral things because they have to put food on the table and then greed takes over.But that being said, I am not sure how job insecurity/this culture can be fixed by a single measure but I just wanted to point out that there's more nuance to it. The only way to meaningfully solve is with having discussions on this topic and having actual change take place.We feel like we go grease ourselves in studies and try to get a job and even when we do but many of us are still not able to afford a house at times :< To me, the way I see it, people sometimes start doing immoral things because they have to put food on the table and then greed takes over.But that being said, I am not sure how job insecurity/this culture can be fixed by a single measure but I just wanted to point out that there's more nuance to it. The only way to meaningfully solve is with having discussions on this topic and having actual change take place.We feel like we go grease ourselves in studies and try to get a job and even when we do but many of us are still not able to afford a house at times :< But that being said, I am not sure how job insecurity/this culture can be fixed by a single measure but I just wanted to point out that there's more nuance to it. The only way to meaningfully solve is with having discussions on this topic and having actual change take place.We feel like we go grease ourselves in studies and try to get a job and even when we do but many of us are still not able to afford a house at times :< While I worked with a ton of thoughtful, ethical, and talented people from the military, there is a veritable blind spot when it comes to support of the "warfighter." While active warfighters have to follow chain of command, companies can and should apply ethical constraints--but they often don't because DoD contracts are lucrative and (especially if you're not a prime) hard won.I've had a lot of fun playing with Claude 4.6, but it is entirely unacceptable that this technology is being used in this conflict with Iran. I will cancel my account once this month's subscription is up in 2 weeks. Support of this conflict as a private company that supposedly is oriented toward ethics is extremely illuminating.Now with that, I have thought a tremendous amount about whether someone like Dario could even steer the ship away from support of a conflict like this at this point. I've had a lot of fun playing with Claude 4.6, but it is entirely unacceptable that this technology is being used in this conflict with Iran. I will cancel my account once this month's subscription is up in 2 weeks. Support of this conflict as a private company that supposedly is oriented toward ethics is extremely illuminating.Now with that, I have thought a tremendous amount about whether someone like Dario could even steer the ship away from support of a conflict like this at this point. Now with that, I have thought a tremendous amount about whether someone like Dario could even steer the ship away from support of a conflict like this at this point. There's also the consideration that if they come across at too against US military support, the administration can and will make things extremely painful for them. I suspect they've actually gotten off pretty easy just being named a supply chain risk (so far). Imagine the backlash if they'd for example accepted contracts with China. Or even made so much as a hint that they weren't open to most military use cases. Living in accordance with an ethical framework only matters when that decision is hard. But Anthropic has clearly forfeited their right to claim the moral high ground. At one point I got curious about how the US military thinks about insurgencies, so I read their manual on how to fight them. As someone holding a lot of dissident views in the US it was pretty interesting.One thing I took away was the feeling that at no time did the manual ever define what an "insurgent" is, beyond whoever the US government tells them the insurgents are.So you have as situation where, ultimately, there's no external reality testing, and reality is simply whatever "reality" is as defined by the command structure.I know that sounds overly simple- of course military follows a chain of command, unquestionable right up to its civilian commander in chief.Why I feel that is a useful observation is that, to your question, people are constantly deferring their ethical judgements. And I suspect there is some cognitive bias in play that allows folks to feel that deferral can't happen across all these systems.In the case of businesses, it is to "the market"-- which is reactive and as such doesn't have "judgement", and even if it did it's needs aren't "human" so relying on it as a human seems dangerous. So to your question, my answer is usually "probably not". And further, unless people stop deferring their judgments to the imaginary of the spectacular market, eventually shits gonna break.In the case of the military, we can see what happens when radically nihilistic (pedophilic and sociopathic media personalities) are put at the helm.My larger point, though, is that our usual assumption seems to be that all these other folks are likely to exercise their faculties to test out reality and hopefully, when it doesn't line up with that reality, push back and prevent dumb shit from happening.But all these systems are set up to prevent that from happening, it doesn't seem at all strange to me that these systems are starting to break in the ways that the seem to be failing. One thing I took away was the feeling that at no time did the manual ever define what an "insurgent" is, beyond whoever the US government tells them the insurgents are.So you have as situation where, ultimately, there's no external reality testing, and reality is simply whatever "reality" is as defined by the command structure.I know that sounds overly simple- of course military follows a chain of command, unquestionable right up to its civilian commander in chief.Why I feel that is a useful observation is that, to your question, people are constantly deferring their ethical judgements. And I suspect there is some cognitive bias in play that allows folks to feel that deferral can't happen across all these systems.In the case of businesses, it is to "the market"-- which is reactive and as such doesn't have "judgement", and even if it did it's needs aren't "human" so relying on it as a human seems dangerous. So to your question, my answer is usually "probably not". And further, unless people stop deferring their judgments to the imaginary of the spectacular market, eventually shits gonna break.In the case of the military, we can see what happens when radically nihilistic (pedophilic and sociopathic media personalities) are put at the helm.My larger point, though, is that our usual assumption seems to be that all these other folks are likely to exercise their faculties to test out reality and hopefully, when it doesn't line up with that reality, push back and prevent dumb shit from happening.But all these systems are set up to prevent that from happening, it doesn't seem at all strange to me that these systems are starting to break in the ways that the seem to be failing. So you have as situation where, ultimately, there's no external reality testing, and reality is simply whatever "reality" is as defined by the command structure.I know that sounds overly simple- of course military follows a chain of command, unquestionable right up to its civilian commander in chief.Why I feel that is a useful observation is that, to your question, people are constantly deferring their ethical judgements. And I suspect there is some cognitive bias in play that allows folks to feel that deferral can't happen across all these systems.In the case of businesses, it is to "the market"-- which is reactive and as such doesn't have "judgement", and even if it did it's needs aren't "human" so relying on it as a human seems dangerous. And further, unless people stop deferring their judgments to the imaginary of the spectacular market, eventually shits gonna break.In the case of the military, we can see what happens when radically nihilistic (pedophilic and sociopathic media personalities) are put at the helm.My larger point, though, is that our usual assumption seems to be that all these other folks are likely to exercise their faculties to test out reality and hopefully, when it doesn't line up with that reality, push back and prevent dumb shit from happening.But all these systems are set up to prevent that from happening, it doesn't seem at all strange to me that these systems are starting to break in the ways that the seem to be failing. I know that sounds overly simple- of course military follows a chain of command, unquestionable right up to its civilian commander in chief.Why I feel that is a useful observation is that, to your question, people are constantly deferring their ethical judgements. And I suspect there is some cognitive bias in play that allows folks to feel that deferral can't happen across all these systems.In the case of businesses, it is to "the market"-- which is reactive and as such doesn't have "judgement", and even if it did it's needs aren't "human" so relying on it as a human seems dangerous. And further, unless people stop deferring their judgments to the imaginary of the spectacular market, eventually shits gonna break.In the case of the military, we can see what happens when radically nihilistic (pedophilic and sociopathic media personalities) are put at the helm.My larger point, though, is that our usual assumption seems to be that all these other folks are likely to exercise their faculties to test out reality and hopefully, when it doesn't line up with that reality, push back and prevent dumb shit from happening.But all these systems are set up to prevent that from happening, it doesn't seem at all strange to me that these systems are starting to break in the ways that the seem to be failing. And I suspect there is some cognitive bias in play that allows folks to feel that deferral can't happen across all these systems.In the case of businesses, it is to "the market"-- which is reactive and as such doesn't have "judgement", and even if it did it's needs aren't "human" so relying on it as a human seems dangerous. And further, unless people stop deferring their judgments to the imaginary of the spectacular market, eventually shits gonna break.In the case of the military, we can see what happens when radically nihilistic (pedophilic and sociopathic media personalities) are put at the helm.My larger point, though, is that our usual assumption seems to be that all these other folks are likely to exercise their faculties to test out reality and hopefully, when it doesn't line up with that reality, push back and prevent dumb shit from happening.But all these systems are set up to prevent that from happening, it doesn't seem at all strange to me that these systems are starting to break in the ways that the seem to be failing. And further, unless people stop deferring their judgments to the imaginary of the spectacular market, eventually shits gonna break.In the case of the military, we can see what happens when radically nihilistic (pedophilic and sociopathic media personalities) are put at the helm.My larger point, though, is that our usual assumption seems to be that all these other folks are likely to exercise their faculties to test out reality and hopefully, when it doesn't line up with that reality, push back and prevent dumb shit from happening.But all these systems are set up to prevent that from happening, it doesn't seem at all strange to me that these systems are starting to break in the ways that the seem to be failing. In the case of the military, we can see what happens when radically nihilistic (pedophilic and sociopathic media personalities) are put at the helm.My larger point, though, is that our usual assumption seems to be that all these other folks are likely to exercise their faculties to test out reality and hopefully, when it doesn't line up with that reality, push back and prevent dumb shit from happening.But all these systems are set up to prevent that from happening, it doesn't seem at all strange to me that these systems are starting to break in the ways that the seem to be failing. This is the same kind of claim you've all seen before about AI systems doing something amazing and it's really just a bunch of people sitting in a call center in a third world country controlling the system remotely.Only in this case it's a bunch of senior airmen and staff sergeants sitting in an intel shop doing all the work. And Claude probably fixed some typos in the targeting packages. But let's not believe that either system was influential to target selection. We ended up not striking them, but the plans were made after Assad used chemical weapons. I cannot understand how they got such big contracts to make a shitty UI that poorly integrates other systems' data. And Claude probably fixed some typos in the targeting packages. But let's not believe that either system was influential to target selection. We ended up not striking them, but the plans were made after Assad used chemical weapons. I cannot understand how they got such big contracts to make a shitty UI that poorly integrates other systems' data. Any claim that Palantir did something useful for the government should immediately be viewed as suspect. I cannot understand how they got such big contracts to make a shitty UI that poorly integrates other systems' data. It's irrelevant whether AI "makes any mistakes" or not, there are no morals either way, and people just seem to be desensitised to all of this Apart from anything else, Anthropic don't want to be used for this. OpenAI didn't object to anything.They're all bad, but some are worse than others. Let us recall what former Israeli Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi reportedly conveyed about a meeting with Netanyahu. The IDF said they had struck 1,400 targets, yet Netanyahu reportedly slammed the table and angrily asked why it wasn't 5,000, and said “bomb everywhere and destroy the houses.”For the military bureaucracy, the fact that AI can speculate or generate potential targets (which is entirely possible with LLM systems) becomes a convenient mechanism that, at least on paper, allows them to distance themselves from responsibility.Now let's look at the statements made by Anthropic and Hegseth:https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-warhttps://x.com/SecWar/status/2027507717469049070From Anthropic's own statement, we hear that they have actually been quite closely partnered. In Hegseth's tweet we see:“Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service.”This shows that Anthropic is still currently being actively used by the Department of War.My view is that Anthropic and its investors eventually realized that the American war machine will use their technology in reckless ways, and that this will certainly create a massive PR disaster or, in an ideal world, even legal consequences. That realization likely pushed them to adopt what they now frame as a more “humanitarian” position. We have already seen incidents where roughly 180 children were killed due to faulty targeting, assuming and hoping it was not intentional. For the military bureaucracy, the fact that AI can speculate or generate potential targets (which is entirely possible with LLM systems) becomes a convenient mechanism that, at least on paper, allows them to distance themselves from responsibility.Now let's look at the statements made by Anthropic and Hegseth:https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-warhttps://x.com/SecWar/status/2027507717469049070From Anthropic's own statement, we hear that they have actually been quite closely partnered. In Hegseth's tweet we see:“Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service.”This shows that Anthropic is still currently being actively used by the Department of War.My view is that Anthropic and its investors eventually realized that the American war machine will use their technology in reckless ways, and that this will certainly create a massive PR disaster or, in an ideal world, even legal consequences. That realization likely pushed them to adopt what they now frame as a more “humanitarian” position. We have already seen incidents where roughly 180 children were killed due to faulty targeting, assuming and hoping it was not intentional. Now let's look at the statements made by Anthropic and Hegseth:https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-warhttps://x.com/SecWar/status/2027507717469049070From Anthropic's own statement, we hear that they have actually been quite closely partnered. In Hegseth's tweet we see:“Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service.”This shows that Anthropic is still currently being actively used by the Department of War.My view is that Anthropic and its investors eventually realized that the American war machine will use their technology in reckless ways, and that this will certainly create a massive PR disaster or, in an ideal world, even legal consequences. That realization likely pushed them to adopt what they now frame as a more “humanitarian” position. We have already seen incidents where roughly 180 children were killed due to faulty targeting, assuming and hoping it was not intentional. https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-warhttps://x.com/SecWar/status/2027507717469049070From Anthropic's own statement, we hear that they have actually been quite closely partnered. In Hegseth's tweet we see:“Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service.”This shows that Anthropic is still currently being actively used by the Department of War.My view is that Anthropic and its investors eventually realized that the American war machine will use their technology in reckless ways, and that this will certainly create a massive PR disaster or, in an ideal world, even legal consequences. That realization likely pushed them to adopt what they now frame as a more “humanitarian” position. We have already seen incidents where roughly 180 children were killed due to faulty targeting, assuming and hoping it was not intentional. https://x.com/SecWar/status/2027507717469049070From Anthropic's own statement, we hear that they have actually been quite closely partnered. In Hegseth's tweet we see:“Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service.”This shows that Anthropic is still currently being actively used by the Department of War.My view is that Anthropic and its investors eventually realized that the American war machine will use their technology in reckless ways, and that this will certainly create a massive PR disaster or, in an ideal world, even legal consequences. That realization likely pushed them to adopt what they now frame as a more “humanitarian” position. We have already seen incidents where roughly 180 children were killed due to faulty targeting, assuming and hoping it was not intentional. From Anthropic's own statement, we hear that they have actually been quite closely partnered. In Hegseth's tweet we see:“Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service.”This shows that Anthropic is still currently being actively used by the Department of War.My view is that Anthropic and its investors eventually realized that the American war machine will use their technology in reckless ways, and that this will certainly create a massive PR disaster or, in an ideal world, even legal consequences. That realization likely pushed them to adopt what they now frame as a more “humanitarian” position. We have already seen incidents where roughly 180 children were killed due to faulty targeting, assuming and hoping it was not intentional. “Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service.”This shows that Anthropic is still currently being actively used by the Department of War.My view is that Anthropic and its investors eventually realized that the American war machine will use their technology in reckless ways, and that this will certainly create a massive PR disaster or, in an ideal world, even legal consequences. That realization likely pushed them to adopt what they now frame as a more “humanitarian” position. We have already seen incidents where roughly 180 children were killed due to faulty targeting, assuming and hoping it was not intentional. That realization likely pushed them to adopt what they now frame as a more “humanitarian” position. We have already seen incidents where roughly 180 children were killed due to faulty targeting, assuming and hoping it was not intentional. My view is that Anthropic and its investors eventually realized that the American war machine will use their technology in reckless ways, and that this will certainly create a massive PR disaster or, in an ideal world, even legal consequences. That realization likely pushed them to adopt what they now frame as a more “humanitarian” position. We have already seen incidents where roughly 180 children were killed due to faulty targeting, assuming and hoping it was not intentional.

Oracle reportedly set to axe thousands of jobs and freeze hiring as AI data center bets ignite financial perfect storm — cuts in cloud division to be backfilled with AI

Source: {'href': 'https://www.tomshardware.com', 'title': "Tom's Hardware"} Published: 2026-03-07 13:20:00

It's Time to Wrangle Your Messy Wires With Our Handy Guide to Cable Management

Source: {'href': 'https://www.wired.com', 'title': 'WIRED'} Published: 2026-03-07 13:10:00

If there's one thing most of today's gadgets have in common, it's that they typically need to be plugged in from time to time. But all those cables, cords, and wires can be tough to manage. They don't have to end up in a tangled nest under your desk; you can bring order to the cable chaos. As a gadget reviewer, I have more cords than most people, which is why I also have a regimented cable management strategy to keep everything orderly. Now, you can start planning routes and figuring out which cables it would make sense to bundle together. Ideally, cables will be the exact required length, so if you have spares or you don't mind snagging some new cables, it's worth switching and getting as close as possible to exact lengths to reduce the excess cable you have to hide. If you have a standing desk, remember to take into account the cable length required for a standing position (trust me, dear reader, it's no fun when you hit stand on the desk and it pulls your PC tower into the air by a DisplayPort cable that is now forever stuck in that port). You also likely have a bunch of cable ties in your junk drawer or toolbox, so gather them together. This cheap kit from Ikea is pretty good for covering a range of cable scenarios. These Velcro-style cable ties are my favorite because they can accommodate all sizes of cables or thick bundles of multiple cables (you can even combine two for extra fat bundles), and they are very easy to adjust or reuse. These lengths of plastic raceway come in different sizes with various shapes, including bends, so you can cobble together a cable run. There's enough room for a few cables inside, they are easy to open, and you can even paint them to help them blend into your wall. You have a few choices to hide those ugly power strips. Many power strips have holes in the back so you can mount them on screw heads or hooks. You just need a good out-of-sight spot behind your desk. An under-desk tray is often the best option, especially if you have a standing desk. This clamping tray from Ikea fits most desks, but you should also check if your desk manufacturer offers something specifically designed for your desk. They work great if you're happy to have your power strips sit on the floor. One last thing that can save you some hassle later is to label the plugs, so you don't need a trial-and-error approach to unplug your monitor. I find it easier to work when my desk is relatively free of clutter. If you have an iPhone with MagSafe or a Qi2 phone, this handy wireless charger keeps it neatly out of the way. It has a suction pad to stick firmly to your desktop with cable management on the back and a couple of adhesive-backed cable clips. Maybe you need to charge a whole bunch of devices. Alternatively, place it under your desk in a box or tray and run cables to the holders below. These simple adhesive-backed plastic clips come in rows with two to four cable slots that are perfect for keeping the ends of cords accessible. There are many alternative styles that do the same job. I quite like the fabric-finished magnetic Smartish Cable Wrangler ($30). WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.

Nvidia dominates gaming GPU market with 95 percent share as sales of AMD Radeon graphics plummet to a historical low of 5 percent

Source: {'href': 'https://www.tomshardware.com', 'title': "Tom's Hardware"} Published: 2026-03-07 12:40:00

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. However, the vast majority of graphics boards sold last year carried a GeForce GPU from Nvidia, whereas sales of AMD Radeon-badged cards hit an all-time low, based on data from JPR. The industry shipped 44.28 million graphics cards in calendar 2025, up from 34.7 million units in 2024, mainly because Nvidia released its GeForce RTX 50-series graphics processors based on the Blackwell architecture. Sales of standalone graphics cards for desktops peaked in Q3, when the industry supplied 12 million units, and were slightly down sequentially in Q4, when makers of add-in-boards (AIBs) shipped 11.48 million units, which was still up from 8.4 million units year-over-year. However, this was not the case in 2025 due to a variety of reasons. "The AIB market, largely supported by gamers, is being squeezed from the bottom by powerful new notebooks and CPU integrated graphics, and from the high end by rising pricing due to competition (supply and demand), memory prices, and Trump administration tariffs that bounce around," explained Dr. Jon Peddie, president of Jon Peddie Research. By contrast, AMD shipped 8% of graphics cards in the first quarter of 2025 as it was getting ready to launch its Radeon RX 9000-series GPUs and exited the year with a 5% share in Q4 as these products failed to garner popularity among the target audience, perhaps due to scarce availability at recommended prices early in the lifecycle. The company can, of course, boast of a significant share of the integrated GPU market, as nearly all Ryzen processors for desktops carry an iGPU, but this is an entirely different market that is far less loyal or lucrative than the market for standalone graphics cards for desktops. Again, selling 570,000 graphics cards in a quarter is the lowest result for both AMD and its predecessor, ATI. When it comes to Intel, although the company released some new Arc graphics cards based on the Battlemage architecture, they were mostly targeted at select niches, which is why Intel has not gained any market share in 2025. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Due to constrained supply of GPUs, high GDDR memory prices, and geopolitical uncertainties, the market of graphics cards for desktops will decline by 10% year-over-year, according to Jon Peddie Research. "We think because of these unstable conditions, the PC and AIB market will decline almost 10% in 2026." Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds. Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom's Hardware. Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher.

Iranian drone strikes hit three AWS data centers in the UAE and Bahrain — Iran confirms it targeted Amazon cloud infrastructure

Source: {'href': 'https://www.tomshardware.com', 'title': "Tom's Hardware"} Published: 2026-03-07 11:40:00

Two of ME-CENTRAL-1's three availability zones went offline after Iran targeted Amazon's cloud infrastructure. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Drone strikes damaged three Amazon Web Services data centers in the UAE and Bahrain on Sunday, March 1, knocking two of the ME-CENTRAL-1 region's three availability zones offline and triggering outages across EC2, S3, DynamoDB, Lambda, RDS, and other core services, thereby marking the first confirmed military attack on a hyperscale cloud provider, according to Uptime Institute. AWS confirmed on its health dashboard that two facilities in the UAE were "directly struck" and that a third site in Bahrain sustained damage from a nearby explosion. The strikes caused structural damage, disrupted power delivery, and, in some cases, triggered fire suppression systems that produced additional water damage, according to the AWS Health Dashboard. Each AWS region is built around multiple availability zones, which are physically separated data centers, each with independent power, cooling, and networking, designed so that the loss of one zone does not take a region offline. The Bahrain region (ME-SOUTH-1) lost one zone (mes1-az2) to a localized power issue. AWS's redundancy model is designed to survive the failure of a single zone, but not a coordinated attack across multiple sites within the same region. These outages then cascaded into consumer-facing services across the Gulf. AWS advised customers to activate disaster recovery plans and migrate workloads away from the affected Middle East regions. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps stated it targeted the Bahrain facility specifically because AWS hosts U.S. military workloads there; AWS declined to comment on that claim. Sean Gorman, Air Force contractor and CEO of Zephr.xyz, told DefenseScoop on Tuesday that classified government workloads at Impact Level 4 and 5 are held in U.S.-only facilities, but acknowledged that “contractor and non-operational data… may have been impacted,” at the struck sites. Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher.

How Each Gulf Country Is Intercepting Iranian Missiles and Drones

Source: {'href': 'https://www.wired.com', 'title': 'WIRED'} Published: 2026-03-07 11:00:00

In cities like Dubai and Abu Dhabi, videos of interceptions have spread quickly across social media, turning what is normally a largely unseen security architecture into something suddenly visible. Authorities have urged people not to film or share footage online of interceptions or military activity, warning that such videos could reveal sensitive information about defense operations. Iran has launched waves of missile and drones toward several Gulf countries in retaliation for US-Israeli strikes which killed Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei. These attacks have triggered air-defense responses across the region. The UAE operates a layered air-defense network designed to intercept threats at different stages of flight. Closer to the ground, Patriot missile-defense batteries developed by Raytheon provide another layer capable of intercepting missiles and other aerial threats at lower altitudes. Radar networks detect launches hundreds of kilometers away, allowing operators to calculate trajectories and launch interceptors within minutes. Of those, 181 were destroyed by air-defense systems, 13 fell into the sea, and two missiles landed inside UAE territory. The attacks resulted in three fatalities and 78 injuries, most caused by falling debris rather than direct missile impacts. “I would assess Gulf missile-defense performance as tactically capable but strategically stressed,” says Andreas Krieg, an associate professor at the Department of Defense Studies at King's College London. In prolonged conflicts, maintaining interceptor stocks and coordinating defense across multiple sites becomes a major strategic challenge. “Once you get into repeated raids, mixed salvos, and long-duration drone pressure, the limiting factor becomes magazine depth, resupply speed. and the economics of using very expensive interceptors against cheap, persistent threats,” he says. Saudi Arabia operates one of the largest air-defense networks in the Middle East, shaped by years of defending against missile and drone attacks targeting its cities and energy infrastructure. It also operates the PAC-3 MSE interceptor, a more advanced Patriot missile developed by Lockheed Martin, designed to destroy incoming ballistic missiles through direct impact. As of writing, Saudi authorities reported intercepting multiple missiles and drones entering the kingdom's airspace. In one recent incident, nine drones were intercepted and destroyed shortly after entering Saudi airspace. Officials also said two cruise missiles were intercepted in Al-Kharj Governorate. Air-defense systems intercepted drones approaching the Ras Tanura oil refinery, though falling debris triggered a small fire that was quickly contained. Defending large territories against repeated waves of missiles and drones remains a difficult task. “Even when interception rates look good on paper, the attacker doesn't need perfect success,” Krieg says. “It needs a few penetrations, plus fear and disruption, to create strategic effect.” Saudi Arabia's geography adds to the challenge: Major cities, military installations, and energy infrastructure are spread across vast distances, expanding the area that air-defense systems must protect. Qatar's air-defense posture is closely tied to broader regional security architecture, particularly through Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US military installation in the Middle East. Like several other Gulf states, Qatar operates the Patriot missile-defense system produced by Raytheon. Qatar's role in the regional defense network extends beyond protecting its own airspace. But coordination between countries does not always extend to the interception stage itself. “Where gaps persist is at the ‘shoot' layer,” Krieg adds. Engagement authorities remain largely national decisions, meaning each country ultimately controls when and how its systems respond to incoming threats. Kuwait has also activated its air-defense systems as attacks spread across the Gulf. Like most of its neighbors, the country operates the US-made Patriot missile-defense system, designed to intercept ballistic missiles and other aerial threats approaching population centers and critical infrastructure. As of writing, Kuwaiti authorities reported intercepting several drones and missiles during the latest escalation. Like several other Gulf states, Bahrain operates the Patriot missile-defense system, including PAC-3 interceptors. These systems work alongside radar and early-warning networks that monitor aerial threats approaching the country. As of writing, authorities said Bahraini air-defense systems intercepted 75 missiles and 123 drones since the attacks began. The International Institute for Strategic Studies noted that smaller Gulf states face structural defense constraints due to their limited size and military depth. In Bahrain, the island's small geographic footprint leaves little buffer between incoming threats and populated areas, meaning interceptions often occur closer to urban areas. While many incoming threats can be intercepted before reaching their targets, attacks arriving in waves across multiple countries can still result in a small number of threats getting through. Instead, Oman relies on shorter-range air-defense systems such as the Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System alongside radar networks designed to monitor aerial threats approaching its coastline and strategic ports. As of writing, the country has also experienced attacks on maritime infrastructure. Oman's Duqm commercial port has been hit by several drone attacks. Jordan has also activated its air-defense systems during the escalation, intercepting missiles and drones that crossed or violated its airspace as attacks spread across the region. Intercepting them is primarily aimed at preventing debris or incoming weapons from striking populated areas. “Intercepting projectiles crossing its airspace is basic territorial defense,” Krieg says. Radar networks, interceptor missiles and layered air-defense systems have prevented far greater damage in many cases. But the past week has also shown that even advanced systems cannot eliminate risk entirely when attacks arrive in repeated waves across multiple countries. In your inbox: Our biggest stories, handpicked for you each day What a Google subpoena response looks like—courtesy of the Epstein files Replay: Livestream on the hype, reality, and future of EVs WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.

Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues

Source: {'href': 'https://news.ycombinator.com', 'title': 'Hacker News'} Published: 2026-03-07 09:25:33

Additionally, looking at Google Trends[0], it seems they peaked in 21st-century online popularity in 2008 and had another notable uptick in 2017.I think a lot of us want the assholes to have suffered real consequences for their behavior, but want is different from did. I think a lot of us want the assholes to have suffered real consequences for their behavior, but want is different from did. If you're just some nobody representing yourself instead of an expensive lawyer acting on behalf of a large company, maybe the judge will even try to be extra nice when he explains why the argument doesn't hold water. [0] I don't like to say "represent yourself." Many judges take a dim view of expensive lawyers trying to pull the wool over their eyes with sophisticated but fallacious arguments. They would initially send a letter asking for around $3 per song that was being shared, threatening to sue if not paid. This typically came to a total in the $2-3k range. There were a few where the initial request was for much more such as when the person was accused of an unusually high volume of intentional distribution. But for the vast majority of people who were running file sharing apps in order to get more music for themselves rather than because they wanted to distribute music it averaged in that $2-3k range.2. If they could not come to an agreement and actually filed a lawsuit they would pick maybe 10-25 songs out of the list of songs the person was sharing (typically around a thousand) to actually sue over. The range of possible damages in such a suit is $750-30000 per work infringed, with the court (judge and jury) picking the amount [1].NOTE: it is per "work infringed", not per infringement. There would be more settlement offers before the lawsuit actually went to trial. Less than a dozen cases actually reached trial, and most of those settled during the trial for the same reasons in the above paragraph that most people settled before trial. Those were in the $3-15k range with most being around $5k. [1] If the defendant can prove they are in "innocent infringer", meaning they didn't know they were infringing and had no reason to know that, then the low end is lowered to $200. They would initially send a letter asking for around $3 per song that was being shared, threatening to sue if not paid. This typically came to a total in the $2-3k range. There were a few where the initial request was for much more such as when the person was accused of an unusually high volume of intentional distribution. But for the vast majority of people who were running file sharing apps in order to get more music for themselves rather than because they wanted to distribute music it averaged in that $2-3k range.2. If they could not come to an agreement and actually filed a lawsuit they would pick maybe 10-25 songs out of the list of songs the person was sharing (typically around a thousand) to actually sue over. The range of possible damages in such a suit is $750-30000 per work infringed, with the court (judge and jury) picking the amount [1].NOTE: it is per "work infringed", not per infringement. There would be more settlement offers before the lawsuit actually went to trial. Less than a dozen cases actually reached trial, and most of those settled during the trial for the same reasons in the above paragraph that most people settled before trial. Those were in the $3-15k range with most being around $5k. [1] If the defendant can prove they are in "innocent infringer", meaning they didn't know they were infringing and had no reason to know that, then the low end is lowered to $200. If they could not come to an agreement and actually filed a lawsuit they would pick maybe 10-25 songs out of the list of songs the person was sharing (typically around a thousand) to actually sue over. The range of possible damages in such a suit is $750-30000 per work infringed, with the court (judge and jury) picking the amount [1].NOTE: it is per "work infringed", not per infringement. There would be more settlement offers before the lawsuit actually went to trial. Less than a dozen cases actually reached trial, and most of those settled during the trial for the same reasons in the above paragraph that most people settled before trial. Those were in the $3-15k range with most being around $5k. [1] If the defendant can prove they are in "innocent infringer", meaning they didn't know they were infringing and had no reason to know that, then the low end is lowered to $200. There would be more settlement offers before the lawsuit actually went to trial. Less than a dozen cases actually reached trial, and most of those settled during the trial for the same reasons in the above paragraph that most people settled before trial. Those were in the $3-15k range with most being around $5k. [1] If the defendant can prove they are in "innocent infringer", meaning they didn't know they were infringing and had no reason to know that, then the low end is lowered to $200. There would be more settlement offers before the lawsuit actually went to trial. Those were in the $3-15k range with most being around $5k. [1] If the defendant can prove they are in "innocent infringer", meaning they didn't know they were infringing and had no reason to know that, then the low end is lowered to $200. Almost everyone settled at that point, because they realized that (1) they had no realistic chance of winning, (2) they had no realistic chance of proving they were were an "innocent infringer", (3) minimal statutory damages then of $750/song x 10-15 songs was more than the settlement offer, and (4) on top of that they would have not only their attorney fees but in copyright suits the loser often has to pay the winner's attorney fees.4. Those were in the $3-15k range with most being around $5k. [1] If the defendant can prove they are in "innocent infringer", meaning they didn't know they were infringing and had no reason to know that, then the low end is lowered to $200. Those were in the $3-15k range with most being around $5k. [1] If the defendant can prove they are in "innocent infringer", meaning they didn't know they were infringing and had no reason to know that, then the low end is lowered to $200. [1] If the defendant can prove they are in "innocent infringer", meaning they didn't know they were infringing and had no reason to know that, then the low end is lowered to $200. They were not all the same, some were fairly complicated cases, and one was undoubtedly for distribution.`The court's instructions defined “reproduction” to include “[t]he act of downloading copyrighted sound recordings on a peer-to-peer network.”'From:https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/11-282... `The court's instructions defined “reproduction” to include “[t]he act of downloading copyrighted sound recordings on a peer-to-peer network.”'From:https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/11-282... Linear arithmetic is one hell of a drug. Certainly a difference, not convinced justification is required or even advisable. Certainly a difference, not convinced justification is required or even advisable. I don't think it's appropriate for billion dollar companies to abuse copyrighted authored material for their own profit streams. They can either pay or not use the material. By no means were they suing for downloading alone. They were suing for sharing while downloading, and seeding after, and as "early seeders" they helped thousands obtain copies.Right or wrong, it was absolutely not about just downloading. However, please don't provide an abridged account, slanted to create a conclusion in the reader. Right or wrong, it was absolutely not about just downloading. However, please don't provide an abridged account, slanted to create a conclusion in the reader. In their eyes, it was about copyng then handing out tens of thousands of copies for free.Again, not saying it was right. However, please don't provide an abridged account, slanted to create a conclusion in the reader. However, please don't provide an abridged account, slanted to create a conclusion in the reader. It can be proved false in minutes by the plaintiffs. Leeching a file, downloading and sharing no forward packets is possible. While the "social contract" of seeding is entirely a norm enforced by private trackers and community shame. Leeching a file, downloading and sharing no forward packets is possible. While the "social contract" of seeding is entirely a norm enforced by private trackers and community shame. you're uploading before seeding, and i'm willing to bet Meta weren't seeding but, as they correctly stated in that regard, they're sharing even when they try their best not to because of the way the protocol works as zero-upload is typically impractical for any significant size filessome trackers will additionally penalise you for not sharing file parts, but this depends on the tracker some trackers will additionally penalise you for not sharing file parts, but this depends on the tracker The original design called for some kind of tit-for-tat algorithm, but it's long obsolete and you get whatever bandwidth the seeder has. Most people that speak of leeching or not seeding really are talking about not seeding at all after they've completed. In fact, most clients will let you set upload speeds to a trickle but not zero (zero means unlimited in most clients). From a legal standpoint, that already means you uploaded. I'm not aware of any clients that will refuse to share data with clients that are configured to not upload. I don't even see how they could determine that, especially in situations where there are no other peers to upload to, and given that stats are entirely self-reported and clients that send bogus numbers exist.You would need a central tracker that cares, which is what private torrent communities rely on, but not public/DHT torrents such as those discussed here. You would need a central tracker that cares, which is what private torrent communities rely on, but not public/DHT torrents such as those discussed here. The case for doing this would be just so you can have this ridiculous legal defence Meta seem to be trying to pull out. Even for the most parasitic leeches, zero upload is a bad strategy. You totally CAN disable all uploads in the torrent protocol. Just set the "upload budget" to zero in most clients. Just nobody realizes they can do that.Bittorrent is wildly successful in part because every popular client makes it nontrivial to "opt out" of it's more socialist components (chunk trading, DHT participation, seeding by default).Making an "leech behavior only" torrent client is straightforward and viable. Bittorrent is wildly successful in part because every popular client makes it nontrivial to "opt out" of it's more socialist components (chunk trading, DHT participation, seeding by default).Making an "leech behavior only" torrent client is straightforward and viable. Making an "leech behavior only" torrent client is straightforward and viable. This is pirating-while-trillion-dollar-corporation, which falls under a completely different section of the law. If it's fair use, no licensing fee is needed. ...uhhh, I mean, maybe my perspective is skewed because I largely run in bluegrass/deadhead circles, but the venn diagram of these two seems to be nearly a circle.https://pickipedia.xyz/wiki/DRM-free Nobody would give a shit if Meta was just torrenting Nintendo's IP and OpenAI was torrenting Netflix IP, except the lawyers working for these companies. More than often I'd just buy some indie book from a small publisher which has much better stories than the whole mainstream.Heck; every time I try to read some Spaniard technotriller it justs sucks because they focus on crappy emotions everytime focusing near nil on scientific facts or tecnological backgrounds. Modulo the magic, the author applied as a diplomat for Spain a few decades ago so he knows how to create a thriller by predicting how the characters will behave psichologically much better than the Gómez Jurado's books creating an Aspie Mary Sue character getting aspull skills.The mainstream alternative? Some Humanities woman as the maincharacter alleging bullshit 'prime number finding' in order to boost IQ as a goverment experiment against another high IQ psychopath.The media in Spain sucks because Spain arrived late to a scientifical mindset socially -thanks, Francoist /s- and male/female Humanities people dominate both the press and the literary world. Instead of Gideon Crew like books (which are a bit bullshit, but with a bit of realism too) like sagas, we get drama bound thrillers with no actual research; if any, hidden Apple product placements.You would say, heck, Dan Brown it's the same and Tom Clancy's novels are a joke against the ones from actually versed people throwing stereotypes away because they did a good research (the US is not just a bigger Texas and Spain is not a big Andalusia), but that's not the issue here.The matter it's that most of the readers in Spain are women, and somehow they are afraid of reading a thriller with less drama and emotions and more action (action women do exist you know) and resolution and developing actual skills o the spot instead of aspulling them.Just look at text adventures. Anchorhead it's just a modern Lovecraft retelling but it has a female protagonist and you as the player should drive her solving all the ingame puzzles. If something like that existed in 1998, the Spaniard should be able to write tons of interesting media (books and series) where crimes were not solved with people just happening to be in the right spot at some specific time. Heck; every time I try to read some Spaniard technotriller it justs sucks because they focus on crappy emotions everytime focusing near nil on scientific facts or tecnological backgrounds. Modulo the magic, the author applied as a diplomat for Spain a few decades ago so he knows how to create a thriller by predicting how the characters will behave psichologically much better than the Gómez Jurado's books creating an Aspie Mary Sue character getting aspull skills.The mainstream alternative? Some Humanities woman as the maincharacter alleging bullshit 'prime number finding' in order to boost IQ as a goverment experiment against another high IQ psychopath.The media in Spain sucks because Spain arrived late to a scientifical mindset socially -thanks, Francoist /s- and male/female Humanities people dominate both the press and the literary world. Instead of Gideon Crew like books (which are a bit bullshit, but with a bit of realism too) like sagas, we get drama bound thrillers with no actual research; if any, hidden Apple product placements.You would say, heck, Dan Brown it's the same and Tom Clancy's novels are a joke against the ones from actually versed people throwing stereotypes away because they did a good research (the US is not just a bigger Texas and Spain is not a big Andalusia), but that's not the issue here.The matter it's that most of the readers in Spain are women, and somehow they are afraid of reading a thriller with less drama and emotions and more action (action women do exist you know) and resolution and developing actual skills o the spot instead of aspulling them.Just look at text adventures. Anchorhead it's just a modern Lovecraft retelling but it has a female protagonist and you as the player should drive her solving all the ingame puzzles. If something like that existed in 1998, the Spaniard should be able to write tons of interesting media (books and series) where crimes were not solved with people just happening to be in the right spot at some specific time. Meanwhile, people writting half-fantasy/half-geopolitics fiction such as Fabián Plaza with its book depicting a paranormal Cold War were the Spanish Francoist regime never ended and the USSR took the whole Germany for itself, you will get more enganing books. Modulo the magic, the author applied as a diplomat for Spain a few decades ago so he knows how to create a thriller by predicting how the characters will behave psichologically much better than the Gómez Jurado's books creating an Aspie Mary Sue character getting aspull skills.The mainstream alternative? Some Humanities woman as the maincharacter alleging bullshit 'prime number finding' in order to boost IQ as a goverment experiment against another high IQ psychopath.The media in Spain sucks because Spain arrived late to a scientifical mindset socially -thanks, Francoist /s- and male/female Humanities people dominate both the press and the literary world. Instead of Gideon Crew like books (which are a bit bullshit, but with a bit of realism too) like sagas, we get drama bound thrillers with no actual research; if any, hidden Apple product placements.You would say, heck, Dan Brown it's the same and Tom Clancy's novels are a joke against the ones from actually versed people throwing stereotypes away because they did a good research (the US is not just a bigger Texas and Spain is not a big Andalusia), but that's not the issue here.The matter it's that most of the readers in Spain are women, and somehow they are afraid of reading a thriller with less drama and emotions and more action (action women do exist you know) and resolution and developing actual skills o the spot instead of aspulling them.Just look at text adventures. Anchorhead it's just a modern Lovecraft retelling but it has a female protagonist and you as the player should drive her solving all the ingame puzzles. If something like that existed in 1998, the Spaniard should be able to write tons of interesting media (books and series) where crimes were not solved with people just happening to be in the right spot at some specific time. Some Humanities woman as the maincharacter alleging bullshit 'prime number finding' in order to boost IQ as a goverment experiment against another high IQ psychopath.The media in Spain sucks because Spain arrived late to a scientifical mindset socially -thanks, Francoist /s- and male/female Humanities people dominate both the press and the literary world. Instead of Gideon Crew like books (which are a bit bullshit, but with a bit of realism too) like sagas, we get drama bound thrillers with no actual research; if any, hidden Apple product placements.You would say, heck, Dan Brown it's the same and Tom Clancy's novels are a joke against the ones from actually versed people throwing stereotypes away because they did a good research (the US is not just a bigger Texas and Spain is not a big Andalusia), but that's not the issue here.The matter it's that most of the readers in Spain are women, and somehow they are afraid of reading a thriller with less drama and emotions and more action (action women do exist you know) and resolution and developing actual skills o the spot instead of aspulling them.Just look at text adventures. Anchorhead it's just a modern Lovecraft retelling but it has a female protagonist and you as the player should drive her solving all the ingame puzzles. If something like that existed in 1998, the Spaniard should be able to write tons of interesting media (books and series) where crimes were not solved with people just happening to be in the right spot at some specific time. Instead of Gideon Crew like books (which are a bit bullshit, but with a bit of realism too) like sagas, we get drama bound thrillers with no actual research; if any, hidden Apple product placements.You would say, heck, Dan Brown it's the same and Tom Clancy's novels are a joke against the ones from actually versed people throwing stereotypes away because they did a good research (the US is not just a bigger Texas and Spain is not a big Andalusia), but that's not the issue here.The matter it's that most of the readers in Spain are women, and somehow they are afraid of reading a thriller with less drama and emotions and more action (action women do exist you know) and resolution and developing actual skills o the spot instead of aspulling them.Just look at text adventures. Anchorhead it's just a modern Lovecraft retelling but it has a female protagonist and you as the player should drive her solving all the ingame puzzles. If something like that existed in 1998, the Spaniard should be able to write tons of interesting media (books and series) where crimes were not solved with people just happening to be in the right spot at some specific time. You would say, heck, Dan Brown it's the same and Tom Clancy's novels are a joke against the ones from actually versed people throwing stereotypes away because they did a good research (the US is not just a bigger Texas and Spain is not a big Andalusia), but that's not the issue here.The matter it's that most of the readers in Spain are women, and somehow they are afraid of reading a thriller with less drama and emotions and more action (action women do exist you know) and resolution and developing actual skills o the spot instead of aspulling them.Just look at text adventures. Anchorhead it's just a modern Lovecraft retelling but it has a female protagonist and you as the player should drive her solving all the ingame puzzles. If something like that existed in 1998, the Spaniard should be able to write tons of interesting media (books and series) where crimes were not solved with people just happening to be in the right spot at some specific time. Anchorhead it's just a modern Lovecraft retelling but it has a female protagonist and you as the player should drive her solving all the ingame puzzles. If something like that existed in 1998, the Spaniard should be able to write tons of interesting media (books and series) where crimes were not solved with people just happening to be in the right spot at some specific time. Anchorhead it's just a modern Lovecraft retelling but it has a female protagonist and you as the player should drive her solving all the ingame puzzles. If something like that existed in 1998, the Spaniard should be able to write tons of interesting media (books and series) where crimes were not solved with people just happening to be in the right spot at some specific time. And I think the larger issue is that the big corpo pirates get away with what 2025 personal pirates wouldn't.Anyways, my opinion is that we should get rid of IP, but only with a replacement that ensures creators still get paid. I lean towards piracy being a small sin: immoral, but you can easily be a pirate and still overall moral person. Anyways, my opinion is that we should get rid of IP, but only with a replacement that ensures creators still get paid. I lean towards piracy being a small sin: immoral, but you can easily be a pirate and still overall moral person. [citation needed]> 2005 pirates allegedly harmed artists by decreasing their sales.provably false > 2005 pirates allegedly harmed artists by decreasing their sales.provably false Oh no, its just legal for the big companies. Few tens of thousands of dollars is a rounding error in Meta's bottom line but if this case goes anything like the Anthropic one, I would see it likely.Of course it wouldn't prevent authors from asking LLM's for content from their books and suing Meta again but I imagine authors would be less likely to with less evidence. Of course it wouldn't prevent authors from asking LLM's for content from their books and suing Meta again but I imagine authors would be less likely to with less evidence. The way Disney &co coopted law to pack their coffers is a travesty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act My best idea for a solution is better education, so people don't make bad laws then badly enforce them. as someone that's disabled upload when I'm downloading copyrighted material via bittorrent for decades, it is absolutely a choiceso there's that On the other hand, it'd be absolutely hilarious if they succeeded with this argument. VPN vendors would not find that as hilarious I bet.And on another the hypocrisy is mindboggling. I guess you can't blame the lawyers from going after every angle, but this is quite creative.But really I do just want to find out if money continues to buy justice.I sincerely hope Facebook loses and is found to have knowingly infringed on copyright of all the books in the lawsuit. At $150K per violation, I'd almost feel bad for the poor shareholders. I guess you can't blame the lawyers from going after every angle, but this is quite creative.But really I do just want to find out if money continues to buy justice.I sincerely hope Facebook loses and is found to have knowingly infringed on copyright of all the books in the lawsuit. At $150K per violation, I'd almost feel bad for the poor shareholders. But really I do just want to find out if money continues to buy justice.I sincerely hope Facebook loses and is found to have knowingly infringed on copyright of all the books in the lawsuit. At $150K per violation, I'd almost feel bad for the poor shareholders. I sincerely hope Facebook loses and is found to have knowingly infringed on copyright of all the books in the lawsuit. At $150K per violation, I'd almost feel bad for the poor shareholders. They couldn't be bothered setting upload speed to 0?

Rad Power Bikes' new owner wants to rehire employees, open stores and return e-bike brand to glory days

Source: {'href': 'https://www.geekwire.com', 'title': 'GeekWire'} Published: 2026-03-07 02:15:55

Robert Provost has big plans for Rad Power Bikes, the recently bankrupt Seattle-based electric bike maker that he thinks can reclaim its industry dominance — and grow even larger. In an interview with GeekWire on Friday, Provost, the CEO of South Florida-based Life Electric Vehicles Holdings, Inc., laid out an ambitious roadmap to overhaul Rad following his company's acquisition of the startup's assets, which closed this week. Under a new corporate entity called Rad Life Mobility, owned by Life EV Holdings, Provost said offers have been extended to re-hire 95% of employees who were laid off as part the bankruptcy process. Provost said about 70 people have accepted so far and he wants to hear from anyone who may have been missed — even former employees who helped build Rad during its heyday before and during the pandemic. It was up to us on the workforce, we could actually hire them or not,” he said. “So we made the decision to go ahead and hire them. Provost said Life EV added another 15 or 20 of its people to Rad Life Mobility, including a new president, Salt Lake City-based Jim Brown, a Life EV investor who has extensive automotive dealership retail experience with Larry H. Miller Automotive Group in Utah. Based in Deerfield Beach, Fla., Life Electric Vehicles Holdings — publicly traded on the OTC market as LFEV — is a micro-mobility platform company focused on acquiring and scaling established e-bike brands. In November 2023, it acquired Serial 1, the in-house electric bicycle company originally started by motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson. Speaking during a Zoom call from his Florida office, Provost could hardly slow down while listing all that he and Life EV hope to accomplish with Rad Life Mobility, including: Rad raised more than $300 million in 2021 and branded itself as North America's largest e-bike seller. But the momentum faded in 2022 as demand cooled and a series of missteps and macroeconomic challenges led to more than seven rounds of layoffs. The startup, originally founded by e-bike tinkerer Mike Radenbaugh and longtime friend Ty Collins, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December 2025 following surprising news in November that the company was fighting for survival as it faced “significant financial challenges.” Rad's assets were acquired by Life EV for $13.2 million, which Provost called a deal in relation to its onetime valuation of $1.65 billion. But Provost said the company intends to introduce new products, build up sufficient inventory, make the company profitable and get everyone from investors to employees excited again. “The most important part out of this conversation, for me, is to let the Rad community know we are there for them,” Provost said. Have a scoop that you'd like GeekWire to cover? Rad Power Bikes brand will live on as Life EV completes acquisition of Seattle e-bike maker's assets Used e-bike trade-in program at Rad Power Bikes stores aims to broaden electric mobility access Rad Power Bikes closing stores in Vancouver, B.C., and Florida; 7 more will remain open