Microsoft on Tuesday urged a federal judge in San Francisco to temporarily block the Pentagon's designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk, arguing that immediate enforcement would hurt Microsoft and other government contractors that depend on Anthropic's technology. The government's designation imposes “substantial and wide-ranging costs and risks” on companies that use Anthropic's models “as a foundational layer of their own products and services, which they provide to the U.S. military,” Microsoft said in the filing. The New York Times DealBook called Microsoft's brief “a remarkable act” and “a momentous decision” for a company that is one of the largest government contractors in America, noting that it stands out in a period when corporate America's unwritten rule has been to avoid picking fights with the White House. It came a day after Microsoft launched Copilot Cowork, a new AI product built on Anthropic's Claude models, and four months after Microsoft committed to invest up to $5 billion in the startup in a deal that includes Anthropic spending at least $30 billion on Microsoft Azure. Microsoft hasn't shied away from fighting with Washington, D.C., at key moments in its history, ranging from its landmark antitrust battle with the Justice Department in the late 1990s to its Supreme Court fight against the Trump administration over DACA immigration protections. It followed the collapse of contract negotiations in which Anthropic refused to drop two guardrails on its AI models: no use for fully autonomous weapons and no use for mass domestic surveillance of Americans. President Trump separately directed all federal agencies to stop using Anthropic's technology. In its amicus brief, Microsoft said AI should not be used “to conduct domestic mass surveillance or put the country in a position where autonomous machines could independently start a war,” aligning itself with Anthropic's position on the two sticking points in the negotiations. Without a restraining order, Microsoft warned, it and other companies would have to “act immediately to alter existing product and contract configurations” for the military. Microsoft expands AI roster with Anthropic and xAI integrations, looking beyond OpenAI alliance Microsoft adds Anthropic's Claude AI models to 365 Copilot as OpenAI relationship evolves

Founder Summit 2026 in Boston: Don't miss ticket savings of up to $300. Los Angeles-based EV startup Harbinger has revealed its second vehicle: a smaller, medium-duty work truck. “For too long, fleets have had to compromise between payload, maneuverability, range and onboard capability,” Harbinger's co-founder and CEO, John Harris, said in a statement. “We engineered this platform to outperform legacy diesel options while unlocking new advantages through electrification and our range-extended hybrid system to enable real work in the field.” The company has attracted customers like FedEx and RV-builder THOR Industries with its larger truck chassis, which can also operate all-electric or as a range-extended hybrid. Alongside, Harbinger has been diversifying beyond its truck chassis products. While many electric vehicle startups have failed over the last few years, Harris has previously told TechCrunch he's trying to keep Harbinger “focused and have very high confidence in what we say we're going to do before we say we're going to do it.” The push to create new lines of business has been deliberate, too. “The more we diversify revenue sources, the better kind of long-term, stable company we build that becomes, I think, more tolerant of these wild swings we have in the U.S. market,” Harris told TechCrunch in February. The U.S. electric passenger vehicle market is currently dealing with many headwinds, but Harris has argued that EVs and hybrids make sense in commercial trucking because of the lower total cost of ownership and less frequent maintenance requirements. He has not publicly revealed Harbinger's revenue for 2025 — the first year that it sold its larger truck chassis — though he told TechCrunch last month that the company's sales were a “multiple” of the entire electric truck market in 2024. And since the company is vertically integrated, Harris said there are a number of ways Harbinger can keep trying to build new lines of business. Most recently, he was a reporter at Bloomberg News where he helped break stories about some of the most notorious EV SPAC flops. He previously worked at The Verge, where he also covered consumer technology, hosted many short- and long-form videos, performed product and editorial photography, and once nearly passed out in a Red Bull Air Race plane. DOGE employee stole Social Security data and put it on a thumb drive, report says Meta acquired Moltbook, the AI agent social network that went viral because of fake posts Yann LeCun's AMI Labs raises $1.03B to build world models Cluely CEO Roy Lee admits to publicly lying about revenue numbers last year Cursor is rolling out a new kind of agentic coding tool Meta sued over AI smart glasses' privacy concerns, after workers reviewed nudity, sex, and other footage

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. Iran's state TV just announced that its military will start targeting “economic centers and banks tied to the US and Israel” after an Israeli strike allegedly hit a bank inside the capital of Tehran. Furthermore, an IRGC-affiliated news agency released a list of offices and infrastructure owned by U.S. companies that developed military tech, including prominent companies such as Nvidia, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, and Palantir, as well as cloud services providers, located in Israel and throughout the Middle East. According to the report, the broadcaster claimed Israel had struck a bank branch in Tehran overnight, killing several employees, a move it described as an "illegitimate and unusual act in war," opening up economic centres and banks as targets. Many of the aforementioned tech companies have substantial Middle Eastern presences. It's unclear if the Iranian military's one-kilometer radius warning includes tech offices and infrastructure, but data centers have already been hit before since the conflict began last February 28. Several Amazon Web Services regional data centers in the Middle East have gone offline due to drone attacks, with Iran claiming that it deliberately targeted these sites in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain because they host U.S. military workloads. But with this new threat, it seems that Iran is looking to step up its targeting of tech companies, especially those that the Iranian regime perceives as service providers to the U.S. military. This will be a major cause of concern for tech companies in the Middle East, especially as data centers are expensive to build, and any damage to them could mean millions of dollars in repair costs. More importantly, standard insurance policies often do not cover damage or losses incurred through war, invasion, or military action, meaning these losses will likely solely be borne by the companies that own them. 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. Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher.

The controversial measure creates a 9.9% tax applied to taxable, personal annual income that exceeds $1 million. Washington is currently one of nine states without an income tax and the move is expected to face challenges in court and as a ballot measure. Supporters of Senate Bill 6346 say it will bring some fairness to a regressive tax code that has relied heavily on sales, property and business taxes. The legislation includes tax benefits for low-income families and small businesses. A final fiscal analysis has not been released, but the bill is expected to generate $3.5 billion or more each year in tax revenue beginning in 2029. State leaders this year have been trying to plug a more immediate $2 billion budget gap. “The Millionaires' Tax will apply to less than one half of one percent of Washingtonians, but make life more affordable for millions. But some tech leaders and entrepreneurs worry it could undermine their sector by souring Washington's relatively favorable tax laws for startup founders, investors and high-wage earners. That concern took a high-profile form last night as Howard Schultz, the billionaire former CEO of Starbucks, disclosed on LinkedIn that he and his wife, Sheri, have relocated to Miami. While Schultz —who is retired — framed the move as a desire to be closer to family on the East Coast, he pointedly noted his “hope that Washington will remain a place for business and entrepreneurship to thrive.” “By adopting a state income tax, Washington is giving up one of our primary competitive advantages we have had over other states and regions,” Johnson said, adding that the state is already expensive for families and employers and could push businesses to start, grow or move elsewhere. Rachel Smith, president of Washington Roundtable, a nonprofit representing major employers, credited lawmakers for sunsetting the expanded services sales tax in 2029 — a year earlier than planned — and scaling back the estate tax. SB 6346 marks the first time in decades that state lawmakers have pursued a personal income tax aimed at high‑income residents. No Republican lawmakers supported the measure and eight Democrats voted against it. Microsoft's mission: empowering every person and organization on the planet to achieve more. Learn how Microsoft is thinking about responsible artificial intelligence, regulation, sustainability, and fundamental rights. Click for more about underwritten and sponsored content on GeekWire. Proposed income tax on high earners advances in Washington state Washington's ‘millionaires tax' targets top earners as tech leaders warn of startup fallout

Founder Summit 2026 in Boston: Don't miss ticket savings of up to $300. There's been a bit of controversy around that latter aspect, as people understandably don't want to be recorded by someone without consent. A startup called Taya by former Apple design engineer Elena Wagenmans is trying to address these privacy concerns with a device that records only the user's voice. Priced at $89 for preorders, the Taya Necklace features a button that you can tap to start and stop recording; the mic is off by default. The startup also ships an accompanying iOS app that saves your notes and lets you ask questions about them through an AI-based chat feature. Unlike many of its older rivals, which are building for a wide range of use cases, Taya's focus is on ensuring that the device only captures the user's voice. During onboarding, the app asks you to record a voice snippet, which it uses during recording to prioritize the user's voice and minimize everything else. The company said it is experimenting using directional mics to help with this. Taya said on Wednesday that it had raised $5 million in a seed funding round led by MaC Venture Capital and Female Founders Fund, with participation from a16z Speedrun. Wagenmans founded the startup in 2024 with Cinnamon Sipper and Amy Zhou, who also worked previously at Apple. Wagenmans said she wanted to create a good-looking wearable that only works for the user because people often don't use these devices owing to concerns around social image and privacy. Wagenmans said the startup is experimenting with different mechanisms to make it easier for users to take notes, and also get feedback from the pendant that their note is saved. Currently, the company has five full-time employees, along with a few contractors, who work from its San Francisco office in person. Adrian Fenty, managing partner at MaC Venture Capital, said Taya's positioning as a privacy-first device that doesn't look like a gadget will help it scale beyond early adopters. Those products are ambient recorders; they capture meetings and conversations around you. Taya's intentional, single-player capture is focused on just you. We believe that Taya can be a company that aids human work and personal evolution, and helps humans to understand their own behavior while making it more fun in the process,” Fenty said. DOGE employee stole Social Security data and put it on a thumb drive, report says Meta acquired Moltbook, the AI agent social network that went viral because of fake posts Cluely CEO Roy Lee admits to publicly lying about revenue numbers last year Cursor is rolling out a new kind of agentic coding tool Meta sued over AI smart glasses' privacy concerns, after workers reviewed nudity, sex, and other footage Jensen Huang says Nvidia is pulling back from OpenAI and Anthropic, but his explanation raises more questions than it answers

DOGE staff installed the terminal on the Eisenhower Executive Office Building roof in February 2025 without notifying White House communications or cybersecurity teams, ignoring their prior warnings [2]. The resulting "Starlink Guest" Wi-Fi used only a password—no usernames or two-factor authentication—unlike standard networks requiring full VPN tunneling and device logging.This allowed devices to evade monitoring, transmit untracked data outside secure channels, and potentially enable leaks or hacks, as noted by former officials and experts like ex-NSA hacker Jake Williams. A confrontation ensued with Secret Service when DOGE accessed the roof unannounced [3]. This allowed devices to evade monitoring, transmit untracked data outside secure channels, and potentially enable leaks or hacks, as noted by former officials and experts like ex-NSA hacker Jake Williams. A confrontation ensued with Secret Service when DOGE accessed the roof unannounced [3]. Justin Fox not being able to say what DEI is really tells you everything you need to know about how grants were cancelled. Is there a term for this Jehovah's Witness complex where being ignored is taken as a sign of one's faith? I constantly questioned to myself and them directly if they were legit even if their email address showed as RecruitingUSDS@doge.eop.gov (their public email address seen on USDS). He never gave me his last name (all his emails came from that public address and they signed their emails with first name only) but I found him on Linkedin. From there I was asked to do/turned in a case study and after the govt shutdown I was invited to interview with a DOGE employee whom then her email showed her full name. I didnt make it past her as there was another step in their process which is an in person interview at USDS's office or within another govt agency DOGE working at. Who turned out not to exist.Or when they put loshed that website full of their savings.Which turned out not to exist. Or when they put loshed that website full of their savings.Which turned out not to exist. That said there is a list by propublica: https://projects.propublica.org/elon-musk-doge-tracker/ Agency: "Social Security initially denied Borges's allegations and said the data referenced in his complaint is stored in a secure environment walled-off from the internet. > copied to a flashdriveBoth of these cannot be true. A secure environment does not allow trivial data exfiltration over USB. A secure environment does not allow trivial data exfiltration over USB. There's absolutely no way to guarantee that ever again. You sound like the guys I know who work at banks, talking about all this policy, how secure they are. I suspect the whistleblower is correct, but I don't think it's proven to the point where we can confidently state that "it happened." Paul Graham and Garry Tan were both big cheerleaders of DOGE, so, keep that in mind.A shocking number of the biggest stories about DOGE over the past year were flagged here, probably including the stories about goons physically removing people.Posts questioning this suppression/censorship were flagged.Some people like to argue that since any story about Musk becomes toxic - for some reason - it 'makes sense' to flag every story about anything to with him. You know, like Israel, or US torture, or Assange, or Snowden, or Epstein, etc.For we are but naive children here in the tech industry, and must have a safe space to discuss PCB specs and the meaning of 42 without too much 'current affairs', lest the site 'lose its focus'.It's not like almost the entire top of the industry is neck-deep in collaboration with all this or anything, right?... Anyway, if people here don't know much about DOGE, the massive flagging that's gone on here is probably a big factor as to why. A shocking number of the biggest stories about DOGE over the past year were flagged here, probably including the stories about goons physically removing people.Posts questioning this suppression/censorship were flagged.Some people like to argue that since any story about Musk becomes toxic - for some reason - it 'makes sense' to flag every story about anything to with him. You know, like Israel, or US torture, or Assange, or Snowden, or Epstein, etc.For we are but naive children here in the tech industry, and must have a safe space to discuss PCB specs and the meaning of 42 without too much 'current affairs', lest the site 'lose its focus'.It's not like almost the entire top of the industry is neck-deep in collaboration with all this or anything, right?... Anyway, if people here don't know much about DOGE, the massive flagging that's gone on here is probably a big factor as to why. You know, like Israel, or US torture, or Assange, or Snowden, or Epstein, etc.For we are but naive children here in the tech industry, and must have a safe space to discuss PCB specs and the meaning of 42 without too much 'current affairs', lest the site 'lose its focus'.It's not like almost the entire top of the industry is neck-deep in collaboration with all this or anything, right?... Anyway, if people here don't know much about DOGE, the massive flagging that's gone on here is probably a big factor as to why. You know, like Israel, or US torture, or Assange, or Snowden, or Epstein, etc.For we are but naive children here in the tech industry, and must have a safe space to discuss PCB specs and the meaning of 42 without too much 'current affairs', lest the site 'lose its focus'.It's not like almost the entire top of the industry is neck-deep in collaboration with all this or anything, right?... Anyway, if people here don't know much about DOGE, the massive flagging that's gone on here is probably a big factor as to why. Anyway, if people here don't know much about DOGE, the massive flagging that's gone on here is probably a big factor as to why. Anyway, if people here don't know much about DOGE, the massive flagging that's gone on here is probably a big factor as to why. Anyway, if people here don't know much about DOGE, the massive flagging that's gone on here is probably a big factor as to why. That's the only way I browse HN now because this place is clearly brigaded to bury certain topics. Twice.I fear things have changed and Trump'ism is here to stay. I fear things have changed and Trump'ism is here to stay. In practice, that has always been an ineffective threat against Presidents who are within days of leaving office anyway. And more importantly, the framers of the Constitution seemed to have entirely failed to imagine a party like today's Republicans who value strict personal loyalty to the President over every other principle of government. We've certainly had some colorful presidents in the past, but the current president is engaged in a lot of blatantly impeachable behavior, and as far as I know, we've never had such a passive and complicit Congress before. Allowing China god mode access to U.S. telecommunications infrastructure versus one guy with a USB stick.Biden's senior FBI officials and National Security Advisers admitted they didn't even have the logs to determine when or how they were breached, and the hack was via law enforcement portals.Breathtaking incompetence. The 2024 election was completely compromised due to this security lapse, as both campaigns were wiretapped. Biden's senior FBI officials and National Security Advisers admitted they didn't even have the logs to determine when or how they were breached, and the hack was via law enforcement portals.Breathtaking incompetence. The 2024 election was completely compromised due to this security lapse, as both campaigns were wiretapped. The 2024 election was completely compromised due to this security lapse, as both campaigns were wiretapped. otherwise... can't check from work, but perhaps anna's archive/slsk has you covered? Real quote from a friend when this whole thing was going down. I don't believe anyone here if they say that is honestly a standard that they held through previous administrations.I think there are plenty of ways to criticize Trump without abandoning my own principles. I think there are plenty of ways to criticize Trump without abandoning my own principles. If I was aware of any remotely comparable precedent in any recent administration, I would certainly criticize them for it. But the "DOGE" episode was so far beyond the pale that I can't think of anything else like it. Interesting choice of words and application when discussing gripes against entire administrations. Are the people mad at ICE complaining that immigration was perhaps a little too lax under Biden's admin, and possibly creating a situation where so many people felt inclined to vote for the Mass Deporations Guy?Is there retroactive anger for Biden Admin? Note that I'm talking about a conservative voter's right or wrong stance on the popular-at-the-time migrant caravans and not the actions of a specific person in a mid level position.Not that I've seen, ymmv. Note that I'm talking about a conservative voter's right or wrong stance on the popular-at-the-time migrant caravans and not the actions of a specific person in a mid level position.Not that I've seen, ymmv. You can argue about whether immigration was a real problem or mostly fearmongering. But if policymakers deliberately loosen rules, they can be blamed for the consequences.It is no different from weakening medicine purity standards and then acting surprised when people die. In that case, responsibility clearly falls on the people who made the policy too.It may sound blunt, but assigning blame is a normal part of politics. Politicians are there to make decisions, and they should be praised or blamed for the results. It is no different from weakening medicine purity standards and then acting surprised when people die. In that case, responsibility clearly falls on the people who made the policy too.It may sound blunt, but assigning blame is a normal part of politics. Politicians are there to make decisions, and they should be praised or blamed for the results. It may sound blunt, but assigning blame is a normal part of politics. Politicians are there to make decisions, and they should be praised or blamed for the results. You can wait for the "investigation" to play out, the rest can see that obvious risks were ignored to benefit someone. The point is that a claim like this is clearly plausible and worth investigating because of political decisions this administration made. They took a non-political issue (access to social security data) and explicitly made it political. You don't get to later use those same politics as a protective shield for criticism.> it maps perfectly onto an existing fear people were already primed for.People were primed because of the repeated warning that experts were giving about the security of this data and carelessness in allowing access. You are helping to prove my point that the administration encouraged this by their own actions. > it maps perfectly onto an existing fear people were already primed for.People were primed because of the repeated warning that experts were giving about the security of this data and carelessness in allowing access. You are helping to prove my point that the administration encouraged this by their own actions. People were primed because of the repeated warning that experts were giving about the security of this data and carelessness in allowing access. You are helping to prove my point that the administration encouraged this by their own actions. But, yeah: if you find that the steelman version of the opposing argument won't be borne out in reality that's a promising line of attack. The topic at hand was a whistleblower report, which would have serious ramifications if proven false. however, after inept efforts with immigration, doge and the Iran war I will not be for republicans again. They need to be targeted to keep allies close and wean off of Chinese dependence.So all in all - most of the corruption didn't exist during trumps first term. Musk knew exactly what he was doing when he used his direct control of a multi billion dollar communication network to influence the election.I'm just glad some people are finally saying "hey, wait a minute..." I'm just glad some people are finally saying "hey, wait a minute..." That is to say, there is no reason to extend this administration or anything DOGE-related the benefit of the doubt. The USA is a nation based on "these truths [that] are self-evident", and (as the federal oath puts it) protecting and defending the Constitution.That's not to say that egg-breaking can't be great, but it a) isn't usually to be commended for its own sake, but rather when it's to some specific and important purpose, and b) the "eggs" broken are not those in the preceding paragraph. The USA is a nation based on "these truths [that] are self-evident", and (as the federal oath puts it) protecting and defending the Constitution.That's not to say that egg-breaking can't be great, but it a) isn't usually to be commended for its own sake, but rather when it's to some specific and important purpose, and b) the "eggs" broken are not those in the preceding paragraph. That's not to say that egg-breaking can't be great, but it a) isn't usually to be commended for its own sake, but rather when it's to some specific and important purpose, and b) the "eggs" broken are not those in the preceding paragraph. I bet you said the same thing a year ago when people were warning about exactly this scenario. Instead, I have a steady and ever-growing list of real and vicious shit that the US has done, going back to its formation.You can pretend that everyone is just outraged because of some flavor of the month. But at the end of the day some of us really don't like this stuff because we pay attention and have a memory- if you don't, then that's something you should work on. It's interesting (horrifying) to think of the implications actually. People wouldn't buy this data directly, it's too obviously illegally procured. But laundered through an LLM to provide “insights” without citation? Zuck would be happy to take that data, and because he's worth a cool $350 billion, he'll do whatever the fuck he wants with that data, and we'll thank him by cutting his taxes.You think Donald Trump would put him in jail? You think Donald Trump would put him in jail? If you haven't worked in adtech, be quiet and do even the most trivial research before spouting nonsense. Either way this data is definitely going to spread behind closed doors. See if Musk was in any way involved, or acted with such reckless disregard for known security standards that he could be civilly or criminally liable. Do the same as above for him.The only way this stops is if consequences are introduced. The only way this stops is if consequences are introduced. If so, have a local prosecutor build up a case, and arrest and charge them.The Supremacy Clause should be tested in this way. The Supremacy Clause should be tested in this way. Nope, never gonna need it, don't want it, just a potential legal headache with no upside.But when I was younger? It'd make me feel special, having information no one else had. It'd make me feel special, having information no one else had. I don't think there's a risk that it will influence a rare person in power to enforce the rules to go lighter. I just think it encourages people to be less reckless with hoarding data who might otherwise put themselves in danger. Outside of strip searches upon arrival and leaving I'm not sure how you could eliminate that risk. I won't even have Teams or Authenticator on my phone unlike most others here (though wrt Teams, that is at least as much about not wanting work to bother me as it is about the danger of data seepage). I could totally imagine getting a big juicy dataset like that and wanting a copy for myself.I'm pretty sure I never would have done. I've always resisted knowing credentials and personal information that aren't mine (so if anything untoward happens with/using that information there is no way it can be my fault/doing, as well as the less selfish reasons) despite people falling over themselves to do things like tell me their passwords & such when they were wanting some for of tech support.But I think there is a different attitude to data risk in that age group today. They've grown up in a world where very little is really private, and every app and its dog has wanted their contact details and other information (and all too often information about their friends & family), do the idea that data is a free-for-all is dangerously normalised in their heads.I find older people are similarly very lax with their own data, in fact often being rather too trusting of others generally, but not so much with other peoples. There are a lot more people who are appropriately careful (or even paranoid) in their 30s/40s/50s (I'm late 40s myself) - I think we are lucky to be in the middle, being exposed to information dangers enough to not have that “naivety or age” and not desensitised by having lax information security pushed at us from an early age. I could totally imagine getting a big juicy dataset like that and wanting a copy for myself.I'm pretty sure I never would have done. I've always resisted knowing credentials and personal information that aren't mine (so if anything untoward happens with/using that information there is no way it can be my fault/doing, as well as the less selfish reasons) despite people falling over themselves to do things like tell me their passwords & such when they were wanting some for of tech support.But I think there is a different attitude to data risk in that age group today. They've grown up in a world where very little is really private, and every app and its dog has wanted their contact details and other information (and all too often information about their friends & family), do the idea that data is a free-for-all is dangerously normalised in their heads.I find older people are similarly very lax with their own data, in fact often being rather too trusting of others generally, but not so much with other peoples. There are a lot more people who are appropriately careful (or even paranoid) in their 30s/40s/50s (I'm late 40s myself) - I think we are lucky to be in the middle, being exposed to information dangers enough to not have that “naivety or age” and not desensitised by having lax information security pushed at us from an early age. I've always resisted knowing credentials and personal information that aren't mine (so if anything untoward happens with/using that information there is no way it can be my fault/doing, as well as the less selfish reasons) despite people falling over themselves to do things like tell me their passwords & such when they were wanting some for of tech support.But I think there is a different attitude to data risk in that age group today. They've grown up in a world where very little is really private, and every app and its dog has wanted their contact details and other information (and all too often information about their friends & family), do the idea that data is a free-for-all is dangerously normalised in their heads.I find older people are similarly very lax with their own data, in fact often being rather too trusting of others generally, but not so much with other peoples. There are a lot more people who are appropriately careful (or even paranoid) in their 30s/40s/50s (I'm late 40s myself) - I think we are lucky to be in the middle, being exposed to information dangers enough to not have that “naivety or age” and not desensitised by having lax information security pushed at us from an early age. But I think there is a different attitude to data risk in that age group today. They've grown up in a world where very little is really private, and every app and its dog has wanted their contact details and other information (and all too often information about their friends & family), do the idea that data is a free-for-all is dangerously normalised in their heads.I find older people are similarly very lax with their own data, in fact often being rather too trusting of others generally, but not so much with other peoples. There are a lot more people who are appropriately careful (or even paranoid) in their 30s/40s/50s (I'm late 40s myself) - I think we are lucky to be in the middle, being exposed to information dangers enough to not have that “naivety or age” and not desensitised by having lax information security pushed at us from an early age. I find older people are similarly very lax with their own data, in fact often being rather too trusting of others generally, but not so much with other peoples. There are a lot more people who are appropriately careful (or even paranoid) in their 30s/40s/50s (I'm late 40s myself) - I think we are lucky to be in the middle, being exposed to information dangers enough to not have that “naivety or age” and not desensitised by having lax information security pushed at us from an early age. Counterpoint from a UK/EU perspective.....Anybody new being onboarded is given (company compulsory) GDPR training if their role involves any handling or processing of personal data whatsoever. Anybody new being onboarded is given (company compulsory) GDPR training if their role involves any handling or processing of personal data whatsoever. I'm just showing off the cool data no one else has! I'm saving the day, probably, by letting us solve a problem with my cool data that would be impossible otherwise. I had access to insane amounts of highly sensitive data as an early 20-y/o and never once felt inclined to share it or brag about it with anyone.Hiring processes around these roles should distinguish between past-me and past-you. Hiring processes around these roles should distinguish between past-me and past-you. )It doesn't just protect the data from nefarious villains, it also protects young idiots from themselves, who don't realize you can cause harm just by being curious. )It doesn't just protect the data from nefarious villains, it also protects young idiots from themselves, who don't realize you can cause harm just by being curious. )It doesn't just protect the data from nefarious villains, it also protects young idiots from themselves, who don't realize you can cause harm just by being curious. It doesn't just protect the data from nefarious villains, it also protects young idiots from themselves, who don't realize you can cause harm just by being curious. I'm proposing that we both have systems to mitigate insider risk and we try to avoid hiring ideologically motivated and ethically compromised goobers to highly sensitive government jobs.And I'm proposing that we don't write this off as, "welp he's a kid!" And I'm proposing that we don't write this off as, "welp he's a kid!" At DOGE, those somebodies were a bunch of red-piled barely adults that worshiped Musk. But:1) That's why we have traditionally had the safeguards that we have had, to protect against this sort of crime, and2) The allegation in this case is that he later approached coworkers to do something with this data, even if they ultimately didn't help him do it. 1) That's why we have traditionally had the safeguards that we have had, to protect against this sort of crime, and2) The allegation in this case is that he later approached coworkers to do something with this data, even if they ultimately didn't help him do it. 2) The allegation in this case is that he later approached coworkers to do something with this data, even if they ultimately didn't help him do it. In the DOGE case, they specifically broke all the controls that existed to manage insider risk and keep people from making copies like this, but (especially 20-30 years ago) I've been on plenty of networks that just had no concept of insider risk and everything was just open for anyone to access (or protected by shared passwords everyone knew). And if I see any interesting files, and I make a copy to look at later, that's not a crime, is it?I'd like to think my younger self, if he'd been hired at the SSA or somewhere similar, would see the difference between "the personal data of hundreds of millions of people" and the networks I actually had access to at the time. I know I wouldn't be trying to sell the data or trying to otherwise leverage it for financial gain, but I don't really have such a high opinion of my younger self's judgement that I would completely rule out making a copy for objectively dumb reasons. But look around the network, see what file shares are world readable, maybe see if there's any FTPs or Telnet servers with no username/password (or at least, no password stronger than "guest"). And if I see any interesting files, and I make a copy to look at later, that's not a crime, is it?I'd like to think my younger self, if he'd been hired at the SSA or somewhere similar, would see the difference between "the personal data of hundreds of millions of people" and the networks I actually had access to at the time. I know I wouldn't be trying to sell the data or trying to otherwise leverage it for financial gain, but I don't really have such a high opinion of my younger self's judgement that I would completely rule out making a copy for objectively dumb reasons. I know I wouldn't be trying to sell the data or trying to otherwise leverage it for financial gain, but I don't really have such a high opinion of my younger self's judgement that I would completely rule out making a copy for objectively dumb reasons. The only conclusion I can come to is "stealing elections". I'll include this partial list I made of Republican voter suppression efforts going back decades [1].I believe out there someone is collecting all this data into an AI model to predict how people will vote, something that Cambridge Analytica was a toy version of. Likewise, data will be constructed to strike off people from voter rolls if the system believes they won't vote how you want. We've seen efforts like this where similar-sounding names of felons in other states are used to strike off people from voter rolls. And that's a real problem because people might not know they're no longer registered to vote and in some states you have to register 30 or more days before the election.There is essentially infinite money available to fund Republicans stealing elections because it results in public funding cuts to give even more tax breaks to billionaires.You can't directly use the SSA databsae obviously so any effort must be small enough to not draw attention, involve part or all of the computing done overseas to avoid legal scrutiny and/or "washing" that data through data provider services. I would bet if you started exhaustively looking at various companies in or adjacent to these spaces, you'd find some pretty dodgy stuff. I believe out there someone is collecting all this data into an AI model to predict how people will vote, something that Cambridge Analytica was a toy version of. Likewise, data will be constructed to strike off people from voter rolls if the system believes they won't vote how you want. We've seen efforts like this where similar-sounding names of felons in other states are used to strike off people from voter rolls. And that's a real problem because people might not know they're no longer registered to vote and in some states you have to register 30 or more days before the election.There is essentially infinite money available to fund Republicans stealing elections because it results in public funding cuts to give even more tax breaks to billionaires.You can't directly use the SSA databsae obviously so any effort must be small enough to not draw attention, involve part or all of the computing done overseas to avoid legal scrutiny and/or "washing" that data through data provider services. I would bet if you started exhaustively looking at various companies in or adjacent to these spaces, you'd find some pretty dodgy stuff. There is essentially infinite money available to fund Republicans stealing elections because it results in public funding cuts to give even more tax breaks to billionaires.You can't directly use the SSA databsae obviously so any effort must be small enough to not draw attention, involve part or all of the computing done overseas to avoid legal scrutiny and/or "washing" that data through data provider services. I would bet if you started exhaustively looking at various companies in or adjacent to these spaces, you'd find some pretty dodgy stuff. You can't directly use the SSA databsae obviously so any effort must be small enough to not draw attention, involve part or all of the computing done overseas to avoid legal scrutiny and/or "washing" that data through data provider services. I would bet if you started exhaustively looking at various companies in or adjacent to these spaces, you'd find some pretty dodgy stuff. Nobody should have permission to query 70M Americans, it's a huge security flaw for the average citizen. But Pentagon has been doing this for a while a la Snowden, and the average american doesn't seem to be worried. With Snowden becoming a menace rather than a hero.Once private government data from Americans starts being heavily used to mess up elections, or even worse, persecute people with a different opinion than the ruling party...Americans will finally wake up that GDPR doesn't stiffle innovation, but rather protect its citizens from an evil actors.But it may be too late, like when NSDAP started chasing jews and migrants. Once private government data from Americans starts being heavily used to mess up elections, or even worse, persecute people with a different opinion than the ruling party...Americans will finally wake up that GDPR doesn't stiffle innovation, but rather protect its citizens from an evil actors.But it may be too late, like when NSDAP started chasing jews and migrants. Americans will finally wake up that GDPR doesn't stiffle innovation, but rather protect its citizens from an evil actors.But it may be too late, like when NSDAP started chasing jews and migrants. But it may be too late, like when NSDAP started chasing jews and migrants. Yet here on HN, what have we been arguing about? Google and Meta have been allowed to become boogeymen in this community out of all proportion to the actual threat they posed[1].While the actual boogeyman stealing our data to exploit in the market? [1] I mean, lets be honest, while everyone has abstract complaints the truth is that they've actually been remarkably benign stewards of our data over the past 20 years. [1] I mean, lets be honest, while everyone has abstract complaints the truth is that they've actually been remarkably benign stewards of our data over the past 20 years. [1] I mean, lets be honest, while everyone has abstract complaints the truth is that they've actually been remarkably benign stewards of our data over the past 20 years. Since the beginning of DOGE, it has not been especially bold to predict:- DOGE will cost more than it saves. The seminal errors, mistaking $ millions for $ billions, world-write permissions on their Drupal site, etc. convinced us that we can't expect deliberate professionalism.- The very first whistleblower, out of NTSB, convinced us that exfiltration was the goal. No one doubts that threats against Tesla dealerships were civil libertarian radicals, not recently-fired USAID bean counters.- When Peter Theil's FBI handler, Johnathan Buma, went whistleblower a few months into DOGE, it wasn't about Theil. He saw a Russian active measure influencing Musk's inner circle. One of Kash Patel's first acts as FBI director was to order Buma arrested.So, the commentary worrying about "big tech" was commentary within Y Combinator's sphere. The seminal errors, mistaking $ millions for $ billions, world-write permissions on their Drupal site, etc. convinced us that we can't expect deliberate professionalism.- The very first whistleblower, out of NTSB, convinced us that exfiltration was the goal. No one doubts that threats against Tesla dealerships were civil libertarian radicals, not recently-fired USAID bean counters.- When Peter Theil's FBI handler, Johnathan Buma, went whistleblower a few months into DOGE, it wasn't about Theil. He saw a Russian active measure influencing Musk's inner circle. One of Kash Patel's first acts as FBI director was to order Buma arrested.So, the commentary worrying about "big tech" was commentary within Y Combinator's sphere. No one doubts that threats against Tesla dealerships were civil libertarian radicals, not recently-fired USAID bean counters.- When Peter Theil's FBI handler, Johnathan Buma, went whistleblower a few months into DOGE, it wasn't about Theil. He saw a Russian active measure influencing Musk's inner circle. One of Kash Patel's first acts as FBI director was to order Buma arrested.So, the commentary worrying about "big tech" was commentary within Y Combinator's sphere. No one doubts that threats against Tesla dealerships were civil libertarian radicals, not recently-fired USAID bean counters.- When Peter Theil's FBI handler, Johnathan Buma, went whistleblower a few months into DOGE, it wasn't about Theil. He saw a Russian active measure influencing Musk's inner circle. One of Kash Patel's first acts as FBI director was to order Buma arrested.So, the commentary worrying about "big tech" was commentary within Y Combinator's sphere. He saw a Russian active measure influencing Musk's inner circle. One of Kash Patel's first acts as FBI director was to order Buma arrested.So, the commentary worrying about "big tech" was commentary within Y Combinator's sphere. HN has a tunnel vision disease on this subject. HN has a tunnel vision disease on this subject.

perhaps a bit off-topic, but what is coincidental about this and/or what is the relevance of Ghislaine Maxwell here? For example Donald Barr (father of twice-former US Attorney General Bill Barr) hiring college-dropout Jeffrey Epstein whilst headmaster at the elite Dalton SchoolAdditional fun facts about Donald Barr: he served in US intelligence during WWII, and wrote a sci-fi book featuring child sex slaves Additional fun facts about Donald Barr: he served in US intelligence during WWII, and wrote a sci-fi book featuring child sex slaves Robert Maxwell was a crook, he used pension funds (supposed to be ring-fenced for the benefit of the pensioners) to prop up his companies, so, after his slightly mysterious death it was discovered that basically there's no money to pay people who've been assured of a pension when they retire.He was also very litigious. So this means the sort of people who call out crooks were especially unhappy about Robert Maxwell because he was a crook and he might sue you if you pointed it out. So this means the sort of people who call out crooks were especially unhappy about Robert Maxwell because he was a crook and he might sue you if you pointed it out. Also who's funding you for replication work? Its not just journals being picky.Also the people committing fraud aren't ones who will say "gosh I will replicate things now!" Literally every single know that designs academia is tuned to not incentivize what you complain about. Its not just journals being picky.Also the people committing fraud aren't ones who will say "gosh I will replicate things now!" That might legitimately be enough to save science on its own. Not all of course, and taking (subjectively measured) impact into account. "We tried to replicate the study published in the same journal 3 years ago using a larger sample size and failed to achieve similar results..." OR "after successfully replicating the study we can confirm the therapeutic mechanism proposed by X actually works" - these are extremely important results that are takin into account in meta studies and e.g. form the base of policies worldwide. The marginal cost for publishing a study online at this point is essentially nil. I'm sure you can more narrowly tune your email alerts FFS. > Replicating work is far more difficult than a lot of original work.Only if the original work was BS. Only if the original work was BS. top on my list of things to do if i were a billionaire: launch an institute for the sole purpose of reproducing other's findings. With that said, due to the apparent sizes of the fraud networks I'm not sure this will be easy to address. Having some kind of kill flag for individuals found to have committed fraud will be needed, but with nation state backing and the size of the groups this may quickly turn into a tit for tat where fraud accusations may not end up being an accurate signal.May you live in interesting times. If the fraudsters “fail to replicate” legitimate experiments, ask them for details/proof, and replicate the experiment yourself while providing more details/proof. the effort to publish a fraudulent study is less (sometimes much less) than the effort to replicate a study. Look at Dan Ariely: Caught red-handed faking data in Excel using the stupidest approach imaginable, and outed as a sex pest in the Epstein files. Duke is still giving him their full backing.It's easy to find fraud, but what's the point if our institutions have rotten all the way through and don't care, even when there's a smoking gun? It's easy to find fraud, but what's the point if our institutions have rotten all the way through and don't care, even when there's a smoking gun? Machine Learning papers, for example, used to have a terrible reputation for being inconsistent and impossible to replicate.That didn't make them (all) fraudulent, because that requires intent to deceive. So it's fine to lose replicability here for us. I'd rather have that paper than replicability through dataset openness. There was this guy, well connected in the science world, that managed to publish a poor study quite high (PNAS level). It was not fraud, just bad science. Attending to metrics (citations, don't matter if they are citing you to say you were wrong and should retract the paper! It was rage bait before Facebook even existed. and select "Mathematics and Computer Science", you'll find the top-ranked university is the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China.My Chinese colleagues have heard of it, but never considered it a top-ranked school, and a quick inspection of their CS faculty pages shows a distinct lack of PhDs from top-ranked Chinese or US schools. It's possible their math faculty is amazing, but I think it's more likely that something underhanded is going on... My Chinese colleagues have heard of it, but never considered it a top-ranked school, and a quick inspection of their CS faculty pages shows a distinct lack of PhDs from top-ranked Chinese or US schools. It's possible their math faculty is amazing, but I think it's more likely that something underhanded is going on... Non-scientists often seem to think that if a paper is published, it is likely to be true. Most practicing scientists are much more skeptical. If it goes against a vast amount of science (e.g. bacteria that use arsenic rather than phosphorus in their DNA), I don't believe it (and can think of lots of ways to show that it is wrong). In lower impact journals, papers make claims that are not very surprising, so if they are fraudulent in some way, I don't care.Science has to be reproducible, but more importantly, it must be possible to build on a set of results to extend them. But if results cannot be extended, they have little effect. Science really is self-correcting, and correction happens faster for results that matter. Most fraud is unfortunate, and should be reduced, but has a short lived impact. But if results cannot be extended, they have little effect. Science really is self-correcting, and correction happens faster for results that matter. Most fraud is unfortunate, and should be reduced, but has a short lived impact. And finanacially too..>Science really is self-correcting..When economy allows it.... >Science really is self-correcting..When economy allows it.... firstly, there are basically no legal repercussions for scientific misconduct (e.g. falsifying data, fake images, etc.). most individuals who are caught doing this get either 1) a slap on the wrist if they are too big to fail or in the employ of those who are too big to fail or 2) disbarred, banned, and lose their jobs. i don't see why you can go to jail for lying to investors about the number of users in your app but don't go to jail for lying to the public, government, and members of the scientific community about your results.secondly, due to the over production of PhD's and limited number of professorship slots competition has become so incredibly intense that in order to even be considered for these jobs you must have Nature, Cell, and Science papers (or the field equivalent). for those desperate for the job their academic career is over either way if they caught falsifying data or if they don't get the professorship. so if your project is not going the way you want it to then...sad state of things all around. i've personally witnessed enough misconduct that i have made the decision to leave the field entirely and go do something else. secondly, due to the over production of PhD's and limited number of professorship slots competition has become so incredibly intense that in order to even be considered for these jobs you must have Nature, Cell, and Science papers (or the field equivalent). for those desperate for the job their academic career is over either way if they caught falsifying data or if they don't get the professorship. so if your project is not going the way you want it to then...sad state of things all around. i've personally witnessed enough misconduct that i have made the decision to leave the field entirely and go do something else. i've personally witnessed enough misconduct that i have made the decision to leave the field entirely and go do something else. Unfortunately I don't think a dialogue around vague anecdotes is going to be particularly enlightening. What matters is culture, but also process--mechanisms and checks--plus consequences. Consequences don't happen if everyone is hush-hush about it and no one wants to be a "rat". That is where being good at politics come into play. And if you are good at it, instead of being career-ending, fraud will put you in the highest of the positions!No one wants a "plant" who cannot navigate scrutiny! No one wants a "plant" who cannot navigate scrutiny! I worked for exactly one academic, and he indulged in impossible-to-detect research fraud. You would have to be right in the middle of the experiment to notice anything, and he just waved me off when I did.This same professor was the loudest voice in the department when it came to critiquing experimental designs and championing rigor. And he really appeared to mean it, but when push came to shove, he fiddled, and was probably even lying to himself.So I came away feeling that academic fraud is probably rampant, because the incentives all align that way. You would have to be right in the middle of the experiment to notice anything, and he just waved me off when I did.This same professor was the loudest voice in the department when it came to critiquing experimental designs and championing rigor. And he really appeared to mean it, but when push came to shove, he fiddled, and was probably even lying to himself.So I came away feeling that academic fraud is probably rampant, because the incentives all align that way. This same professor was the loudest voice in the department when it came to critiquing experimental designs and championing rigor. And he really appeared to mean it, but when push came to shove, he fiddled, and was probably even lying to himself.So I came away feeling that academic fraud is probably rampant, because the incentives all align that way. So I came away feeling that academic fraud is probably rampant, because the incentives all align that way. Over time I learned that most papers in my field (computational biology) are embellished to some extent or another (or cherry-picked/curated/structured for success) and often irreproducible- some key step is left out, or no code is provided that replicates the results, etc. it's sufficient to read the paper, apply priors, and move on (possibly learning whatever novel method/technique the paper shows so they can apply it in their own hands). It allows the field innovators to move quickly and discover new things, but is prone to all sorts of reliability/reproducibility problems, and ideally science should be egalitarian, not credentials-based. it's sufficient to read the paper, apply priors, and move on (possibly learning whatever novel method/technique the paper shows so they can apply it in their own hands). It allows the field innovators to move quickly and discover new things, but is prone to all sorts of reliability/reproducibility problems, and ideally science should be egalitarian, not credentials-based. 2) science should be done by geniuses; the leaders in the field don't need to replicate their competitors paper. it's sufficient to read the paper, apply priors, and move on (possibly learning whatever novel method/technique the paper shows so they can apply it in their own hands). It allows the field innovators to move quickly and discover new things, but is prone to all sorts of reliability/reproducibility problems, and ideally science should be egalitarian, not credentials-based. How many will see the connections between this and our capitalist mode of production? Probably few since modern lit/news is allergic to systemic analysis.The blatant flaws of capitalism can't be ignored for much longer. The blatant flaws of capitalism can't be ignored for much longer. Some things should not have been democratized. The soviets may have rigged a few studies; but the democratized world now faces almost all studies being rigged. Whether or not people will build resilient chains is another story, contingent on whether the strength of that chain actually matters to people. It probably doesn't for a lot of people. I guess, to convert it into this context, we can say that if you mix the high minded and infantile (which I think is what Internet and social media did), the high minded becomes infantile, instead of the other way around.

If you live in a major city in the US, China, or certain European nations, you've likely seen a few food delivery robots by now. Anthropomorphized with googly eyes and names, these autonomous urban rovers brave inclement weather, navigate broken sidewalks, and dispassionately steer around the bodies of the unhoused to bring you your treats. Not everyone is thrilled to share the sidewalk with them, of course. Yes, the cute little guys delivering your Uber Eats have also been caught delivering their camera footage to the LAPD. Getting people to give these things a shot is hard enough without also having to shake the stigma that they're a new part of the panopticon. Perhaps that's why the companies behind these things have taken them on a bit of PR rehab blitz in recent years. The peak of this mania came last spring when the Netflix talk show Everybody's Live With John Mulaney made Serve Robotics' “Saymo” delivery robot a recurring character, pretty much third-billed after the host and Richard Kind. A recent partnership between another major player in the last-mile autonomous delivery space and a company tangentially connected to a beloved gaming IP may be just the magic bullet needed to finally sell us on the machines. Coco Robotics, known for its robots' neon pink paint jobs, has struck a deal with Niantic Spatial, the AI spinoff of the AR company that brought us Pokémon Go. The data you willingly handed over while throwing your Poké Balls, of course. As laid out in a recent piece by MIT Technology Review, Niantic plans to use the trove of photos users took in AR mode while playing the game to digitally construct models of densely populated urban areas. Those models will then be used by the Coco bots to make navigating the city streets a bit easier. “If you look at that blue dot on your phone, you'll often see it drift 50 meters, which puts you on a different block going a different direction on the wrong side of the street.” The massive success of Pokémon Go may end up giving an edge to Coco, where other companies are still struggling with spotty service. McClendon claims 500 million users installed the app in the first two months, and 100 million players were still active in 2024. It was such a big part of the zeitgeist that even Jeffrey Epstein was emailing about it back then. It's too soon to tell if this deal will be a win for Coco, let alone change public perception on delivery bots. But if they keep leaning into the Pikachu of it all and downplaying the presence of AI, which people hate more than ever, they may yet have a chance to be the very best. Created in 1897, it's over two decades older than the term "robot." A new report from the city claims app design changes made tipping harder.

Phison is increasingly serving cloud service providers and AI hyperscalers, with enterprise customers now hitting 30% of its revenue share from a previous 10% last quarter. 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. According to Digitimes, the Taiwanese semiconductor company has now started delivering its products directly to cloud service providers (CSPs) and AI hyperscalers, resulting in a 30% revenue share for its enterprise SSD solutions. Aside from that, it has also started asking its customers for a shorter time frame when it comes to payments, with some clients even asked to pay upfront, because Phison's own suppliers are doing the same. This shows that the company is pivoting towards the more lucrative enterprise market, with AI tech firms with deep pockets willing to pay a premium just to ensure that they get the memory and storage chips they need to get their data centers running. To address the uncertainty brought about by these spiraling price increases in both memory and storage costs, the company says it has already signed long-term agreements (LTAs) with six NAND manufacturers and two DRAM suppliers across the globe. The CEO said that these agreements are set in place primarily to secure sufficient supply, implying that cost is not a primary focus. In line with this, the value of Phison's inventory grew from NT$35.6 billion (around US$1.12 billion) to NT$50 billion (around US$1.57 billion) in a matter of months, but the CEO says that it's still facing challenges when it comes to supply, remarking, "our current concern is that both money and inventory are insufficient." Aside from this, Phison said that it's not relying on the lower cost of its existing inventory to drive profit margins on its products, although it does certainly help. 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. Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher.

Two years ago, the Intel Core Ultra 200 series brought PC gamers to a state of existential crisis. The chipmaker's desktop CPUs bore few performance gains and occasionally performed worse than Intel's 14th-gen chips. Now, Intel is looking for redemption not by trying to win against the competition's absolute peak gaming CPUs, but by claiming solid performance for a reasonable price. However, Intel promises it has massively boosted specs necessary for gaming with huge gains in multithreaded performance. Intel's VP of client computing, Robert Hallock, said in a release that these chips are “the fastest desktop gaming processors Intel has ever built.” Yes, that includes the last-gen flagship Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. Each chip now has four more efficiency cores than its previous counterpart. The 24-core Ultra 7 270K Plus CPU has eight performance and 16 efficiency cores. The Ultra 5 chip is based on an 18-core model configured with six performance and 12 efficiency cores. The chip may have more modest gains in titles like Star Wars Outlaws at 9% and Assassin's Creed: Shadows with a mere 4% uplift. The chipmaker's own benchmarks promise you'll see between 83% and 100% increases in multithreaded performance compared to those midrange AMD chips. Those CPUs will still take the crown for netting higher frame rates in games. What may prove more interesting in the long run is Intel's Binary Optimization Tool. It's built to save performance when trying to run games from “a game console or an earlier architecture.” This could mean these chips are better for retro or modern emulation than other x86 processors. If Intel isn't aiming for the top-of-the-line, then it becomes a factor of price. Those prices are on par with AMD's mid-lane chips. Intel is effectively saying its new Ultra 7 270K Plus, as its “fastest gaming processor,” will beat a Core Ultra 9 285K for gaming at a price that's nearly half that of the chip that launched for $589 in 2025. If you're a gamer who bought Intel's top-end Arrow Lake chip at launch, Intel's claim may have you gnawing on your finger to keep from screaming. The Arrow Lake chips proved to be such poor sellers that retailers and even Intel slashed prices just a few months after launch. This is not a whole new chip launch on par with Intel's Panther Lake for laptops. These aren't even the Bartlett Lake chips built for older Intel chip sockets. The company let AMD snatch a stranglehold on desktop gaming CPU and now it has to claw its way back into the gamer's good graces. Considering the price of RAM and other PC components like Nvidia's GPUs, offering a relatively affordable gaming CPU for DDR5 builds may be the right approach. Nvidia promises you may finally get use out of that 240Hz refresh rate on your expensive QD-OLED monitor. Sorry PC players, but Sony has more at stake than game sales outside of PlayStation 5. Lenovo is betting more on mobile PC gaming without the need for a discrete GPU.

Arrow Lake is suddenly looking a lot more attractive. 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. Intel has finally revealed its long-awaited Arrow Lake Refresh CPUs. Dubbed Core Ultra 200S Plus, Intel is introducing two new chips in its lineup, both of which come with a price cut compared to their non-Plus predecessors. Arrow Lake Refresh brings three new SKUs total: two CPUs and one variant. Both come with an extra 4 E-cores compared to their stock designs, along with up to a 900MHz boost in die-to-die frequency, and they'll be available in both K (unlocked) versions. The Core Ultra 5 250K is also available in a KF (unlocked without integrated graphics) version. Arrow Lake is one of Intel's most complex architectures to date, and the first to use a chiplet design (or tile-based design, as Intel calls it), brought together with Foveros packaging. But that's only one part of the gaming boost, according to Intel. The other side of it is the Intel Binary Optimization Tool, or iBOT, which Intel says is “a first-of-its-kind binary translation layer optimization capability that can improve native performance in select games.” This feature, according to Intel, can increase instruction per clock (IPC) in certain games, even if that game has been optimized for a different architecture or game console. Notably, Intel says it improves performance even for workloads optimized for other x86 architectures; this isn't an ARM translation layer along the lines of Microsoft Prism or Apple Rosetta. iBOT is one of the most interesting features of Arrow Lake Refresh, but we still don't know much about it. Intel has kept its technical capabilities vague, so it's something we'll need to look into once we get our hands on the Core Ultra 7 270K and Core Ultra 5 250K. For now, Intel says iBOT is “a key aspect of Intel's long-term performance roadmap for enthusiasts.” What we do know is that iBOT is an optional feature within Intel Application Optimization (APO) when you switch to advanced mode. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Outside of the chips themselves, Intel is bringing faster memory speeds and early support for 4R CUDIMMs on select 800-series motherboards. With the Boost BIOS profile, warrantied speeds go up to 8,000MT/s. 4R CUDIMM support (four-rank) allows much higher memory capacities on consumer-grade motherboards, offering up to 128GB of capacity per DIMM. MSI and ADATA were the first to demonstrate stability of 4R CUDIMMs in November of last year, and Intel says it's opening up support for them on new 800-series motherboards launching throughout 2026. This title, along with Hitman 3, where the 270K showed a 22% uplift, use iBOT. Elsewhere, the gains are less pronounced but still present. Outside of iBOT, the gains are still solid, with Battlefield 6 showing a 10% uplift and Star Wars Outlaws climbing by 8%. For all game testing, Intel used a 1080p resolution at High settings and took the median result of three runs. In applications, Intel claims up to a 2x performance improvement compared to AMD's Zen 5 competition, but it's not exactly a fair battle. Intel's newest CPUs come with massive core arrays compared to the homogenous architecture of Zen 5. It's a battle that Intel is always going to win. However, there is something to be said about getting a CPU with 24 cores for $300, especially if you plan on running heavily-threaded workloads like Blender or Handbrake. Intel has drastically cut the list price of these chips compared to their Arrow Lake counterparts. These prices make Arrow Lake Refresh significantly more competitive for gamers at budget price points. Although AMD holds a clear lead in gaming performance with the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, Arrow Lake Refresh comes in at a much lower price. If Intel's 15% claim holds up, Arrow Lake Refresh takes the lead in this price bracket. Once again, that 15% jump would put Intel on top in this price bracket, and finally give Intel a faster gaming CPU than its 14th-Gen offerings. Intel says you'll be able to find Core Ultra 200S Plus CPUs at retailers starting on March 26. Our test benches are already running at full tilt with Intel's latest, so we'll have more to share on performance in full reviews shortly. Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds. Jake Roach is the Senior CPU Analyst at Tom's Hardware, writing reviews, news, and features about the latest consumer and workstation processors. Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher.

Founder Summit 2026 in Boston: Don't miss ticket savings of up to $300. Wiz provides a security platform that protects major cloud environments by preventing and responding to cybersecurity threats. While the company will join Google Cloud, it will maintain its brand and commitment to securing customers across all cloud environments, the company said. As large organizations increasingly work across different clouds — including Google Cloud, AWS, Azure, and Oracle Cloud — having Wiz onside is a clear move by Google to win more enterprise clients with a multi-cloud security platform. Together, the two companies will work on delivering a “unified security platform” to help organizations deal with threats faster — an essential task as the rise of vibe coding has resulted in an increase in security vulnerabilities and prompt-based attacks become more commonplace. Wiz has leaned into its own use of AI to improve threat detection and investigation at every layer of a cloud's environment, from code and infrastructure to runtime. Google initially approached Wiz in 2024 with an offer to buy the startup for $23 billion. Its CEO Assaf Rappaport said, at the time, that he felt the business could grow to be a lot bigger than that. Google and Wiz revived acquisition talks in the first few months of 2025, and Google announced it was buying Wiz for $32 billion in March 2025. This story has been updated with more information about the deal and Wiz's 2025 financials. Rebecca Bellan is a senior reporter at TechCrunch where she covers the business, policy, and emerging trends shaping artificial intelligence. Rivian spin-out Mind Robotics raises $500M for industrial AI-powered robots EV startup Harbinger reveals a smaller work truck with electric and hybrid variants Meta didn't buy Moltbook for bots — it bought into the agentic web Amazon expands a program that lets customers shop from other retailers' sites Meta rolls out new scam detection tools to Facebook, WhatsApp, and Messenger

Some took that as a dig at co-star Gal Gadot, who is Israeli, but Zegler never elaborated on that. And Zegler never deleted the post; it's still viewable some 18 months later. Perhaps inevitably, she's still being asked about the backlash. In a new interview with Harper's Bazaar (via Entertainment Weekly), she talked about what she learned from the experience. “I've said what I feel, and that will always be a testament to my core beliefs as a human. Even though she still believes in what she wrote, it was a teaching moment in regard to “intent versus impact” because “you live and you learn, and there's a caution that comes with that.” “There's an understanding that the temptation to speak doesn't always mean that it must be done, and that there are a lot of opportunities to make more meaningful change than a tweet.” You can read the full interview at Harper's Bazaar, where Zegler also notes one positive takeaway from being in the box-office flop Shazam! Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what's next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who. Despite Disney's recent big-screen success with live-action adaptations, 'Tink' will bring its tales of the 'Peter Pan' fairy to streaming. If you've been holding out hope all this time for a 'Gravity Falls' art book, Alex Hirsch and Rob Renzetti have something for you. New blood and some returning faves are all being cooked up over at Pixar and hitting theaters in the near future. It's a shame they cut this and not some of the other bizarre things the 'Doctor Who' spinoff does with its underwater attackers. Inspired by the rival Epic Universe, Disney's Villains Land is reportedly becoming a little less evil.

“I am not prepared to offer any commitments on that issue,” James Harlow, a Justice Department attorney, told US district judge Rita Lin over videoconference on Tuesday. In fact, the government is gearing up to take another step designed to sideline the company from doing business with federal agencies. President Trump is currently finalizing an executive order that would formally ban usage of Anthropic tools across the government, according to a person at the White House familiar with the matter but not authorized to discuss it. Tuesday's hearing stemmed from one of the two federal lawsuits Anthropic filed against the Trump administration on Monday, alleging that the government unconstitutionally designated it a supply-chain risk and turned it into a tech industry pariah. Billions of dollars in revenue for Anthropic is now at risk, with current customers and prospective ones dropping out of deals and demanding new terms, according to the company. Anthropic is seeking a preliminary court order suspending the risk designation and barring the administration from taking further punitive measures against it. Michael Mongan, an attorney for Anthropic at WilmerHale, told Lin he was less concerned about delaying it until April if the Trump administration could commit to not taking additional action. After Harlow declined, Lin moved up the date of the hearing to March 24 in San Francisco, though that timeline was still later than Anthropic wanted. “The case is quite consequential from both sides, and I want to make sure I'm deciding on an expedited record but also a full record,” the judge said. Scheduling in the other case, which is in Washington, DC, is on hold while Anthropic pursues an administrative appeal to the Department of Defense, which is expected to fail on Wednesday. The Defense Department contends usage decisions are its prerogative. “If this is a one-off, you might give the president some deference,” says Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale Law School professor who worked in the Barack Obama presidential administration and has written about the Anthropic case. “But now, it's just unmistakable that this is just the latest in a chain of events related to a punitive presidency.” Software companies that rely on Anthropic's suite of tools known as Claude are confused about whether they need to pursue alternatives. OpenAI and Google are moving forward with Pentagon deals to supplant Anthropic, despite pressure from their employees to push back on government demands over how their technology should be used. Zohra Tejani, a partner at the law firm Seyfarth Shaw who counsels tech companies on federal contracts, says that Anthropic may ultimately succeed in freeing itself of the supply-chain-risk label and resume its normal work with many customers. But it may not win back business with the current administration, she says. “The Pentagon is sending a message to every other AI company: If you defy the Pentagon, you risk nationalization and heavy-handed government intervention,” says Christoph Mlinarchik, a former Pentagon contracting officer who now advises federal suppliers. The authors of ICE's ‘mega' detention center plans College campuses are in upheaval over faculty ties to Epstein 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.