Kris Guyer

HP has new incentive to stop blocking third-party ink in its printers

HP, printers, Tech / Kris Guyer / March 12, 2026

The third option is for manufacturers to make available, such as via the manufacturer’s website, “to purchasers remanufactured cartridges, either manufacturer or nonmanufacturer branded, for, at minimum, registered products.”

As of this writing, 38,291 devices are under the EPEAT 1.0 registry. There are 163 products registered under EPEAT 2.0, but none are printers. This all underscores how new the EPEAT 2.0 registry is and the likelihood that the GEC is still working to register more devices, like printers.

Still, the Int’l ITC is skeptical about HP ever following EPEAT 2.0’s criteria, especially considering that “HP released firmware 2602A/B on January 29, 2026 across eleven printer models,” the trade group said in a press release last week. (At least some of the firmware updates, including for the nearly 9-year-old OfficeJet Pro 7720, appear to have come out in February.)

“HP’s recent behavior is emblematic of a larger pattern,” the Int’l ITC’s release said. “HP positions itself as a leader in sustainability, circular business models, and responsible product design, but instead of proactively aligning its products and practices with the highest environmental standards, such as EPEAT 2.0, HP puts profits first and waits until external scrutiny or the threat of non-compliance forces change.”

In an email discussion with Ars Technica, Tricia Judge, the Int’l ITC’s executive director and general counsel, pointed out that HP’s firmware update succeeded the launch of the EPEAT 2.0 registry. She explained why the Int’l ITC’s press release called out HP but no other printer manufacturers:

HP is the only one with lockout chips that are triggered using firmware “upgrades” that claim “security” as a justification for their existence. HP is the only one that misleads and frustrates its own customers when locking out the environmentally superior competition. The others have made some interesting attempts in the past to create a competitive advantage.

In 2023, the Int’l ITC wrote a letter to the GEC requesting that the GEC revoke at least 101 of HP’s printers from the (original) EPEAT registry, largely due to Dynamic Security. GEC denied the Int’l ITC’s request.

“EPEAT 1.0 was very basic (no interference with the use of remanufactured cartridges), and HP claimed that its statements (buried in its marketing materials and/or on its website) that it didn’t interfere with the use of remanufactured cartridges was a loophole that the GEC decided was acceptable,” Judge said. “We were trying to close that loophole with EPEAT 2.0. We didn’t get it as airtight as we hoped, but it is better.

HP didn’t respond to Ars Technica’s request for comment for this story.

HP has new incentive to stop blocking third-party ink in its printers Read More »

Apple’s MacBook Neo makes repairs easier and cheaper than other MacBooks

Apple, macbook neo, right to repair, Tech / Kris Guyer / March 12, 2026

Apple’s MacBook Neo is the company’s first serious effort to break into the sub-$1,000 laptop business, challenging midrange Windows laptops and Chromebooks with its $599 starting price and its focus on build quality rather than high-end performance.

One less-advertised change that may make the Neo more appealing to businesses, schools, and the accident-prone is that its internal design is a bit more modular and easier to repair than other modern MacBooks. That’s our takeaway after spending some time thumbing through the official MacBook Neo repair documentation that Apple published on its support site this week.

Replacements for pretty much any component in the Neo are simpler and involve fewer steps and tools than in the M5 MacBook Air. That includes the battery, which in the MacBook Air is attached to the chassis with multiple screws and adhesive strips but which in the Neo comes out relatively easily after you get some shielding and flex cables out of the way.

But the most significant change in the Neo is that the keyboard is its own separate component. For essentially all modern MacBooks, going back at least as far as the late-2000s unibody aluminum MacBook designs, the keyboard has been integrated into the top part of the laptop case and is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to replace independently.

Apple refers to this big, unified component as the “top case,” and anyone who has ever had to pay to repair one out of warranty can attest to how expensive they are. For the old M1 MacBook Air, a top case from Apple’s first-party self-service parts store will run you about $220 after you send the old defective part back to Apple. For the 14-inch MacBook Pro, Apple will only sell you a top case replacement along with a battery, which costs a whopping $440 after you send the old component back to the company.

Apple’s MacBook Neo makes repairs easier and cheaper than other MacBooks Read More »

Report: RFK Jr.’s anti-vaccine agenda curbed as GOP realizes it’s unpopular

anti-vaccine, COVID-19, health, MAHA, mRNA, robert f kennedy jr / Kris Guyer / March 11, 2026

Kennedy’s plans were only getting started. The staunch anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist made his most brazen attack on vaccines in January, slashing the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule from 17 immunizations down to 11 to be in line with recommendations of Denmark, a much smaller country with a relatively homogenous population and universal health care. The US is now an outlier among peer nations for recommending so few childhood vaccines.

Conspiracy theories and political risks

While these and other changes to vaccine recommendations by Kennedy and his underlings have been widely decried by medical and public health experts, they are still not enough for his rabid anti-vaccine followers, who, in no uncertain terms, want all vaccines abolished.

On Monday, the MAHA Institute, a think tank stemming from Kennedy’s Make America Health Again movement, held an event brimming with prominent anti-vaccine activists. Those include Del Bigtree, a prominent conspiracy theorist who leads the anti-vaccine group Informed Consent Action Network, and Mary Holland, who is CEO of the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense, which Kennedy founded.

The event was focused on an alleged “Massive Epidemic of Vaccine Injury,” a nonexistent health crisis the MAHA institute wants to sell to the American public, branded as the catchy term “Mevi.” The six-hour event was essentially an extravaganza of anti-vaccine talking points, with false claims, misinformation, and disinformation about immunizations, including that vaccines cause autism and autoimmune diseases and COVID-19 vaccines are deadly.

At the start of the event, MAHA Institute President Mark Gordon laid out his grand belief that the medical community has orchestrated an elaborate, global, decades-long conspiracy to hide the dangers of vaccines, which he called poisons, and falsify data showing their benefits. “Vaccines are the greatest scam in medical history,” one of his slides proclaimed.

He concluded that “the childhood vaccination schedule needs to be eliminated and all vaccines need to be removed from the market.”

While Gordon and the other speakers were not concerned about the popularity or political ramifications of their beliefs, the Trump administration appears to be. The Post noted that Trump’s top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, has concluded that vaccine skepticism is “rejected by most voters,” and skepticism of vaccine requirements is “politically risky.” His polling data, like many others, have found broad support for vaccines and vaccine requirements. Fabrizio warned in a December memo that politicians supporting eliminating vaccine recommendations “will pay a price in the election.”

Report: RFK Jr.’s anti-vaccine agenda curbed as GOP realizes it’s unpopular Read More »

Explain it like I’m 5: Why is everyone on speakerphone in public?

culture, speakerphone / Kris Guyer / March 11, 2026

The key to working at a place like Ars Technica is solid news judgment. I’m talking about the kind of news judgment that knows whether a pet peeve is merely a pet peeve or whether it is, instead, a meaningful example of the Ways that Technology is Changing our World.

The difference between the two is one of degree: A pet peeve may drive me nuts but does not appear to impact anyone else. A Ways that Technology is Changing our World story must be about something that drives a lot of people nuts.

“But where is the threshold?” I hear you asking plaintively. “It’s extremely important that I know when something crosses the line from pet peeve to important, chin-stroking journalism topic!”

Fortunately, the answer is simple. The threshold has been breached when your local public transit agency puts up a sign about the behavior in question.

Which brings me to the sign I saw yesterday in Philadelphia.

“Unless the tea is REALLY hot, keep the call off speaker,” it said.

(For those not in the US, “tea” in this context means gossip or news.)

SEPTA, the local transit agency, runs the buses and commuter rail in Philadelphia, and you can tell from the light-hearted-but-seriously-don’t-do-this tone of the message that speakerphone-wielding passengers are now widely complained about by their fellow riders.

I share their disdain, but for me, the dark and judgmental thoughts I have when I see this behavior are also paired with confusion. Why is it happening? Do these people not know that it is actually more work to hold your phone out in front of you than up to your ear? Do they have no common decency, manners, or taste? Do they genuinely not care if everyone in the frozen foods aisle overhears them talking about Aunt Kathy’s diagnosis? It’s bizarre.

At least when it comes to something like TikTok or Spotify, there’s a certain logic. Perhaps you have no headphones but need to unwind after a long day, and you just can’t imagine anyone who might not enjoy the soothing sounds of [Harry Styles/Cannibal Corpse/Wu-Tang Clan]?

Explain it like I’m 5: Why is everyone on speakerphone in public? Read More »

Reentry of NASA satellite will exceed the agency’s own risk guidelines

NASA, reentry, Space, space debris, Van Allen belts, van allen probe / Kris Guyer / March 10, 2026

No one on the ground has ever been injured by falling space junk, but there are examples of space debris causing property damage.

NASA’s two Van Allen Probes launched into elliptical orbits ranging from a few hundred miles above Earth up to an apogee, or high point, of nearly 20,000 miles. The orbits are inclined 10 degrees to the equator, limiting the risk of injury or damage to a swath of the tropics. NASA ended the mission in 2019 when the satellites ran out of fuel.

At that time, NASA engineers expected the spacecraft to reenter the atmosphere in 2034. But higher-than-anticipated solar activity caused the atmosphere to swell outward, increasing atmospheric drag on the satellites beyond initial estimates, according to NASA. Van Allen Probe B is expected to reenter no earlier than 2030, with a similar risk to the public.

The two spacecraft were built by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab. NASA said the mission made several major discoveries, including “the first data showing the existence of a transient third radiation belt, which can form during times of intense solar activity.”

Several NASA satellites have reentered the atmosphere without complying with the government’s risk standard. One of the satellites, the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, fell out of orbit in 2018 with a 1-in-1,000 chance of harming someone on the ground. No one was hurt. RXTE was launched in 1995, just four months before NASA issued its first standard on orbital debris mitigation and reentry risk management.

While NASA has exceeded its standards before, the US government is not a top offender when it comes to unmitigated reentry risks. China launched four heavy-lift Long March 5B rockets between 2020 and 2022, and left its massive core stages in orbit to fall back to Earth. The four abandoned rocket cores, each nearly 24 tons in mass, reentered the atmosphere uncontrolled. Two of them dropped wreckage on land—in the Ivory Coast and Borneo—but no injuries were reported.

Reentry of NASA satellite will exceed the agency’s own risk guidelines Read More »

FDA contradicts Trump admin, declines to approve generic drug for autism

autism, fda, health, leucovorin, makary / Kris Guyer / March 10, 2026

In September, the Trump administration took what it called “bold actions” on autism that included touting the generic drug leucovorin as a promising treatment. In a news release, Marty Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, claimed a “growing body of evidence suggests” the drug could be helpful. And at a White House press event, Makary suggested it might help “20, 40, 50 percent of kids with autism.”

“Hundreds of thousands of kids, in my opinion, will benefit,” he said at another point in the event.

The bold claims were apparently persuasive. A study published in The Lancet last week found that new outpatient prescriptions of leucovorin for children ages 5 to 17 shot up 71 percent in the three months after the Trump administration’s actions.

But it became clear today that the rest of the FDA did not share Makary’s and the other administration officials’ view. In an announcement, the regulatory agency said it had approved leucovorin for a rare genetic condition—but not for autism.

In comments to the Associated Press, senior FDA officials said they found little evidence for expanding the drug’s use to autism and, thus, narrowed its review to the treatment of the rare genetic condition, which is cerebral folate deficiency (CFD) in adults caused by a genetic mutation in the folate receptor 1 gene (CFD-FOLR1).

FDA contradicts Trump admin, declines to approve generic drug for autism Read More »

Trump’s divisive FDA vaccine regulator self-destructs, will exit agency (again)

fda, gene therapy, health, Prasad, vaccines / Kris Guyer / March 10, 2026

For the second time, Vinay Prasad is set to leave the Food and Drug Administration.

In a post on social media Friday, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary announced that Prasad will exit in April, adding that he got “a tremendous amount accomplished” during his year at the agency.

Prasad’s tenure was generally marked by controversy, but he is departing amid a cluster of self-destructive decisions. Those include a shocking rejection of an mRNA vaccine (which was over the objections of agency scientists and quickly reversed); a demand for an additional clinical trial on a gene therapy for Huntington’s disease, which was widely seen as moving the goalpost for the therapy; his startling choice to publicly attack the maker of that gene therapy, UniQure; and alleged abuse of FDA staff, who say he created a toxic work environment.

The moves have collectively roiled those within the agency, the Trump administration, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as well as patient advocacy groups.

On Monday, BioSpace reported that financial analysts were all but cheering Prasad’s departure, calling it “a big win for biotech, especially for companies in the rare disease space.” Several biotech companies that have faced setbacks and rejections at the hands of Prasad saw stock bumps on Monday. UniQure, for instance, saw its stock leap around 25 percent from Friday afternoon.

Constant controversy

This will be Prasad’s second exit from the FDA during the current Trump administration. In July, he resigned amid his controversial handling of a gene therapy treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, as well as criticism from far-right activist Laura Loomer, who called Prasad a “leftist saboteur.” He was reinstated less than two weeks later.

Since his return, Prasad has held key roles at the FDA; he is the chief medical and scientific officer and the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which also makes him the top regulator of vaccines, gene therapies, and other biologic products.

His qualifications for those roles were always questionable. While Prasad is a professor at the University of California, San Francisco and a practicing hematology-oncologist (a doctor specializing in blood disorders and cancers), he came to the FDA with no regulatory experience and no expertise in vaccines or gene therapies. Prasad’s rise to regulatory relevance stemmed instead from his online criticism of pandemic-era public health policies, including COVID-19 vaccines, and his appearances on podcasts.

Trump’s divisive FDA vaccine regulator self-destructs, will exit agency (again) Read More »

Testing Apple’s 2026 16-inch MacBook Pro, M5 Max, and its new “performance” cores

Apple, Apple M5, apple m5 max, apple m5 pro, Apple silicon, Tech / Kris Guyer / March 9, 2026

M5 Pro Max’s “performance” CPU cores definitely aren’t just rebranded E-cores.

The 16-inch MacBook Pro with the Apple M5 Max chip inside. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Apple’s M5 Pro and M5 Max make deceptively large changes to how Apple’s high-end laptop and desktop chips are built.

We’ve already covered those changes in some depth, but in essence: The M5 Pro and M5 Max are no longer monolithic chips with all the CPU and GPU cores and everything else packed into a single silicon die. Using an “all-new Fusion Architecture” like the one used to combine two Max chips into a single Ultra chip, Apple now splits the CPU cores (and other things) into one piece of silicon, and the GPU cores (and other things) into another piece of silicon. These two dies are then packaged together into one chip.

M5 Pro and M5 Max both use the same 18-core CPU die, but Pro uses a 20-core GPU die, and Max gets a 40-core GPU die. (Because the memory controller is also part of the GPU die, the Max chip still offers more memory bandwidth and supports higher memory configurations than the Pro one does.)

The other big change is that neither of these chips uses Apple’s “efficiency” CPU cores anymore. All of the M5 family’s large high-performance cores are now called “super” cores as of macOS 26.3.1, including the ones that originally launched as “performance” cores in the regular M5 last fall. The standard M5 still has smaller, slower efficiency cores, but M5 Pro and M5 Max use a third kind of CPU core instead, confusingly also called “performance” cores.

	Fastest cores	“Medium” cores	Efficiency cores	GPU cores	Memory bandwidth
M5 Max	Up to 6 (“super”)	Up to 12 (“performance”)	0	Up to 40	Up to 614 GB/s
M5 Pro	Up to 6 (“super”)	Up to 12 (“performance”)	0	Up to 20	307 GB/s MHz
M5	4 (“super”)	0	6	Up to 10	153 GB/s
M4 Max	Up to 12 (“performance”)	0	4	Up to 40	Up to 546 GB/s
M5	Up to 10 (“performance”)	0	4	Up to 20	273 GB/s
M4	4 (“performance”)	0	6	Up to 10	120 GB/s

Users will experience the M5 Pro and M5 Max mostly as the expected iterative upgrades over last-generation chips, the same thing delivered by most new Apple Silicon processor generations. But for the technically inclined, it’s worth digging a little deeper into the M5 Max, both to learn why it performs the way it does and to dispel confusion about what’s being rebranded (the new “super” cores), and what’s actually different (the new “performance” cores in M5 Pro and M5 Max, which definitely aren’t just rebranded efficiency cores).

If you’re interested in a slightly wider-ranging review of the new MacBook Pros, I’ll point you toward reviews of the M1, M3, and M4 generation models, as well as the one for the low-end 14-inch MacBook Pro with the standard M5 (now $100 more expensive than it was before, but with 1TB of base storage instead of 512GB).

Apple is using the same external design for these laptops that it has been using since 2021—it’s aging pretty well, and we still mostly like it, especially compared to late-Intel-era MacBook Pros. There’s just not much else to say about the design that hasn’t been said.

M5 Max benchmarks

In our testing, the fully enabled M5 Max’s single-core performance is about 10 percent higher than the fully enabled version of the M4 Max in last year’s 16-inch MacBook Pro. The multi-core performance improvements are more variable (Cinebench R23, which shows a 30 percent improvement, seems to be an outlier), but most tests also show a modest 10 or 12 percent improvement.

Graphics performance improvements are slightly more robust, measuring between 20 and 35 percent depending on the test. Apple suggests you may see more uplift on GPU compute workloads that can leverage the neural accelerator Apple has built into each M5-family GPU core.

The jump from the M4 Max to the M5 Max isn’t quite as large, expressed as a percentage, as it has been for the last couple generations; both M3 Max and M4 Max were big leaps from what had come before. But assuming you’re upgrading from an M1 or M2-based Pro, you’ll still be taking a big leap. Fears that stepping down from 12 of Apple’s best-performing CPU cores (in M4 Max) to just six of the best-performing cores are also a bit overblown, based on these results.

Compared to the basic M5 in the 14-inch MacBook Pro, the M5 Max’s single-core performance is roughly the same, which is in keeping with how Apple usually does things—stepping up to higher-end chips gets you better multi-core and graphics performance, but Apple doesn’t push the clock speeds upward on the individual cores the way that Intel or AMD do with their higher-end processors.

Multi-core performance increases between 66 percent (Geekbench) and 120 percent (Cinebench R23)—for sustained heavy workloads, an 18-core M5 Pro or M5 Max ought to be just about twice as fast as the M5, give or take. And jumping from the M5’s 10 GPU cores to the M5 Max’s 40 cores typically gets you between three and four times the graphics performance.

Measuring the M5 Max’s CPU power consumption with the powermetrics command-line tool, average power consumption during our Handbrake video encoding test is about 23 percent higher than M4 Max, and because of that increase, the chip uses just a bit more energy overall to do the same work. We observed a similar increase when comparing the M4 to the M5. But overall, power efficiency is roughly in line with past Apple Silicon generations.

While Apple only sent us an M5 Max-equipped MacBook Pro to test, for most CPU-based tasks, the M5 Pro should perform similarly. That’s because both chips are using the exact same silicon die for the CPU cores, Neural Engine, Thunderbolt and display controllers, and SSD controller. It’s the GPU die that separates the Pro from the Max; the Pro has up to 20 GPU cores and 307 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and the Max has up to 40 GPU cores and up to 614 GB/s of memory bandwidth (these are two totally different GPUs—the Max GPU isn’t just two Pro GPUs joined together with the Fusion Architecture).

M5 Max under the hood: Definitely not efficiency cores

The whole “performance cores are now super cores in all M5 chips” thing has created a lot of confusion around the non-Super cores. The M5 Pro and M5 Max come with six super cores and 12 of what Apple is now calling “performance” cores, but are those just efficiency cores that have been rebranded to create the impression of higher speeds?

Apple has said publicly that these new performance cores are “all-new” and “optimized for power-efficient, multithreaded workloads,” and we’re told that the performance cores are new designs that are derived from the super core. There’s precedent for this; AMD ships functionally identical but physically smaller, lower-clocked Zen 4c and Zen 5c cores in many of its laptop CPUs, rather than using different core designs for the big and little cores (as Intel still does, and as Apple has likely been doing up till now).

I can’t speak to the actual low-level architecture of each type of CPU core, but using both powermetrics and the sysctl command, we can confirm that these aren’t just rebranded efficiency cores. The new performance cores have more L2 cache than the M5’s efficiency cores and run at much higher peak clock speeds.

	L1 instruction cache	L1 data cache	L2 cache	Minimum clock	Maximum clock
M5/M5 Pro/M5 Max super core	192KB	128KB	16MB per cluster	1,308 MHz	4,608 MHz
M5 Pro/M5 Max performance core	128KB	64KB	8MB per cluster	1,344 MHz	4,308 MHz
M5 efficiency core	128KB	64KB	6MB per cluster	972 MHz	3,048 MHz

The new non-super performance cores have the same L1 cache sizes as Apple’s E-cores, but slightly more L2 cache per 6-core cluster and much higher minimum and maximum clock speeds. At about 4.3 GHz, the M5 Max’s performance cores come in only 300 MHz lower than the super cores’ 4.6 GHz peak.

We can also report that the powermetrics tool uses new under-the-hood nomenclature for reporting data about these performance cores. Powermetrics still refers to the cluster of super cores as the “P-cluster,” and the M5’s E-cores are still referred to as the “E-cluster.” But the new performance core clusters are labeled “M0 cluster” and “M1 cluster.” (M for Middle, maybe? Medium? It’s very likely that Apple started working on these core designs before it decided what their public-facing name should be.)

What I can’t say is whether macOS treats these new performance cores any differently than it would treat the E-cores. From the operating system’s perspective, you still have one group of CPU cores that runs at high speeds and one group that runs at lower speeds, and my guess would be that anything that would be directed at an E-core in the M5 or an older Mac will simply be directed to the performance cores in an M5 Pro or M5 Max system. But it’s totally possible that M5 Pro or M5 Max systems could assign tasks to different CPU cores slightly differently, since the performance gap between the “big” and “little” cores isn’t as large.

Finally, let’s look at how the M5 Max’s CPU cores perform under the sustained heavy load of our Handbrake video encoding test.

Clock speed measurements for the “super” clusters on M5 and M5 Max during our CPU-based Handbrake video encoding test, which uses all CPU cores in a system at once.

Observe the standard Apple M5 in the 14-inch MacBook Pro. The M5’s four super cores maintain a peak multi-core clock speed of 4.24 GHz for a bit less than a minute, then fall slightly to a clock speed closer to 4.1 GHz, and ramp down further to about 4.0 GHz for the last stretch of the test. (Note that the fanless version of the M5 in the MacBook Air starts lower, drops off faster, and settles down to a sustained clock speed somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 GHz.)

The standard M5’s E-cores also run at fairly consistent speeds of around 3 GHz throughout the test, with some peaks and valleys but little sign of any performance throttling.

Now look at the lines for the M5 Max in the 16-inch MacBook Pro. The 6-core supercluster maintains its maximum clock speed for just a few seconds, quickly dropping down to a sustained clock speed of around 3.9 GHz (with periodic dips as low as 3.4 GHz). There are two extra cores in the M5 Max’s super cluster, so slightly lower sustained clock speeds are to be expected.

But those performance cores are where a lot of M5 Max’s multi-core speed is coming from. In terms of clock speed, the two performance core clusters behave more like efficiency cores, insofar as they maintain a fairly stable clock speed without significant performance throttling. But these cores are running between 4.3 and 4.2 GHz rather than 3 GHz; even without other architectural changes, that means that these performance cores are going to run things quite a bit faster than the efficiency cores do.

Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue.

Testing Apple’s 2026 16-inch MacBook Pro, M5 Max, and its new “performance” cores Read More »

An unlikely set of clues helps reconstruct ancient Chinese disasters

ancient china, anthropogenic climate change, Archaeology, El Niño, extreme weather, Science, typhoons / Kris Guyer / March 9, 2026

Shang Dynasty oracle bones and modern weather models feature in the same study.

This diorama at Xinxiang City Museum, Henan Province shows what a Shang Dynasty village might have looked like. Credit: Gary Todd, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Warmer waters in the Pacific Ocean may have brought devastating floods to the cradle of ancient Chinese civilization, according to a recent study in which its authors link three wildly different lines of evidence to tell the story.

People in Shang Dynasty China, around 3,000 years ago, probably didn’t realize that the massive floods sweeping through their heartland were the product of typhoons battering the southern Chinese coast hundreds of kilometers away. They certainly couldn’t have seen that the sheer intensity of those typhoons was fueled by a sudden shift in temperature cycles over the Pacific Ocean thousands of kilometers to the south and east. But, with the benefit of 3,000 years of hindsight and scientific progress, Nanjing University meteorologist Ke Ding and colleagues recently managed to connect the dots. The results are like a handwritten warning from the Shang Dynasty about how to prepare for modern climate change.

Typhoons, oracle bones, and abandoned settlements

Around 3,000 years ago, two great civilizations were flourishing in central China. In the Yellow River Valley, the Shang Dynasty rose to prominence, producing the first Chinese writing and also sacrificing thousands of people in ceremonies at the capital, Yinxu. Meanwhile, on the Chengdu Plain in southwestern China, the Shanxingdui culture built a walled capital city and sculpted large bronze heads, gold foil masks, and tools of jade and ivory, which they buried in huge sacrificial pits.

Archaeological sites across central China reveal that at various points between 2,500 and 4,000 years ago, disasters rocked these thriving societies, decimating the population, forcing settlements to relocate, and causing major cultural shifts and political upheaval.

Both civilizations rebounded after these disruptions; it didn’t take long, in the archaeological scheme of things, for populations to swell and settlements to rebuild. But for a little while, life was clearly disrupted.

A few wildly different clues point to the cause—or at least, one of the causes—of this upheaval: modern weather simulations, archaeological sites hundreds of miles from the Chinese coast, coastal sediments in Japan and South Korea that record the intensity of ancient typhoons, and even Shang Dynasty divination texts. All three of these lines of evidence converged on the same dates, telling a single horrifying story.

Reconstructing ancient storm seasons

We have a pretty good idea of how the size and intensity of a storm determines what kind of footprint it leaves on coastal sediments. Researchers look for similar traces in ancient sediments and use them to reconstruct what tropical storm seasons were like in the past (the field is called paleotempestology, which is your faithful correspondent’s new favorite word).

Based on paleotempestology records not only in China, but also along the coasts of South Korea and southwestern Japan, typhoons moving west across the Pacific Ocean tended to be more intense during the storm seasons around 2,800 years ago. Typhoons that curved northward had more intense seasons around 3,800 years ago and again around 3,300 years ago.

Those bouts of more intense typhoons may be related to something that happened off the coast of Peru around 3,000 years ago, when El Niño events suddenly got more frequent, more extreme, and longer-lasting. Paleoclimate researchers know this because around this time, shellfish species that live in cool water (but can’t take the heat) all but disappear from the Peruvian archaeological record, replaced by more heat-tolerant species. Around the same time, people living along the coast gave up building huge monumental temples, and villages shrank. You’re going to want to keep those dates in mind, because…

Ding and colleagues charted radiocarbon dates from sites across China’s Central Plains and Chengdu Plain, hoping to pinpoint changes in population and potential signs of a society in crisis. They noticed that the number of sites on the Central Plain, home to the Shang Dynasty, decreased sharply around 3,800 years ago and again about 3,300 years ago; at the sites that weren’t abandoned, changes suggested smaller populations overall. On the Chengdu Plain, something similar happened around 2,800 years ago. Villages, towns, and cities shifted toward higher ground; layers of mud left behind by flooding hint at the reason.

map of the Pacific ocean and China showing typhoon paths — This map shows the tracks of typhoons during the 1995 storm season; note that some plow straight west, while others veer northward. Credit: By Nilfanion – Created using Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks. The background image is from NASA [1]. The tracking data is from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center’s best track database, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2505757

How does a typhoon in the Pacific flood inland China?

Seeing how well those dates lined up with when coastal sediments suggest more intense typhoons had been churning through the Pacific, Ding and colleagues ran some computer simulations using an LLM-based program called Pango-weather. The goal was to figure out how a typhoon on the coast could bring torrential rains and flooding to communities hundreds of miles inland. The answer wasn’t that the typhoon swept across the entire country; often, the typhoons in question never even made landfall. But they didn’t have to make landfall to stir up easterly winds that carried more water vapor across hundreds of miles to the plains.

Both the Shang Dynasty and Shu civilizations set up their capitals on plains just to the east of large mountain ranges. Normally, that works out very well for farmers, because the mountains force eastbound air upward, where it cools; water vapor condenses and rain falls. But settlements on the windward side of mountain ranges are also vulnerable to extreme rainfall events—like the ones caused by typhoons messing with the region’s airflow patterns.

Ding and colleagues’ results suggest that an increase in the average intensity of typhoons (which means that the researchers boosted the storms’ starting wind speed from about 54 kilometers per hour to about 126 kilometers per hour) caused more moisture to gather over regions like the Chengdu Plain and the Central Plains. Specifically, the Chengdu Plain was more impacted by typhoons moving west, while the Central Plains caught more flooding from typhoons that followed northward tracks. The effects were on the order of an extra 51 millimeters of rain a day in the Central Plains and extra 24 millimeters a day on the Chengdu Plain.

Consulting the oracle bones

The people of the Shang Dynasty and the Shu civilization probably didn’t know that large-scale weather systems, or even larger-scale climate shifts, were to blame for their woes, but they were definitely aware that they were living through periods in which serious floods were more likely. Writings on more than 55,000 pieces of burned bone from the late Shang Dynasty (2,996–3,200 years ago) reveal that Shang royals and nobles were very worried about heavy rains and floods during the period—worried enough to ask oracles to try to predict them.

Shang Dynasty rulers took their most pressing questions to oracles, who would throw oxen shoulder blades (scapulae) or the bony undersides of turtle shells (plastrons) onto a fire, then interpret the pattern of cracks in the burned bone. Fortunately for modern historians, those oracles also inscribed both the question and the answer into the bone itself, producing some of China’s first systematic writing.

Ding and colleagues counted the references to “upcoming rain” and “upcoming heavy rain” in the texts and found that Shang nobility asked their diviners about downpours much more often during the exact time periods when sediments suggest more intense typhoons and archaeological evidence suggest major social and political upheaval. And you don’t tend to keep asking if there’s going to be a big flood unless you have good reason to think that there might be.

photo of an ox scapula inscripted with early Chines characters in columns — 3,000 years ago, a Shang Dynasty oracle tossed this ox scapula into a fire, looking for hints about the future in the way the burned bone cracked. Credit: By Gary Lee Todd 2011-09-01 12: 34: 54 https://www.flickr.com/photos/101561334@N08/9830601816/, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=96430584

When it rains, it pours

Of course, it’s not possible to say that these periods of unrest and struggle in ancient China happened entirely thanks to more intense typhoons, but the cycle of worsening storm seasons probably played a role. And in between floods, the lack of water may have been another major factor.

Paleoclimate records in ancient sediment reveal that even as typhoons were getting more intense, central China was baking under a drought—also thanks to the same cycle that drives El Niño today (recent studies suggest that El Niño years lead to severe droughts in central China and more intense typhoons in the Pacific). And the oracle bones reflect Shang dynasty rulers’ concerns about drought, too: references to prayers for rain and plagues of locusts closely match the periods of El Niño conditions identified in previous studies. The Shang Dynasty was getting hit with a one-two punch of climate disasters: years of drought, punctuated by heavy rains and devastating floods.

“This pattern bears similarities to the climatic challenges faced by the Maya civilization,” wrote Ding and colleagues, “where prolonged El Niño-like conditions may reduce overall rainfall while intensified cyclone activity could increase extreme rainfall, ultimately contributing to social declines.”

Why it matters today

Those 3,000-year-old oracle bones hold a warning for modern China. The character for “disaster” in the oracle bone scripts is a set of squiggly horizontal lines that immediately calls to mind floodwaters, and floods are still one of the deadliest and costliest disasters that China faces. Not only are floodwaters destructive, but they can leave behind too much salt in the soil and can also lead to outbreaks of insects and other pests (for both people and crops).

The mechanics that connect typhoon intensity to flooding in inland China work the same way they did during the Shang Dynasty. Current climate models predict that typhoons could be 14 percent more intense, on average, by the end of this century, thanks to humans and our pollution habits.

But the message from the oracle bones isn’t about despair; it’s about planning. As Ding and colleagues put it: “This study urges better preparation against the disastrous impact of intensified typhoons, especially in inland areas where facilities to mitigate extreme rainfalls and floods are relatively inadequate.”

Science Advances, 2026 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.eaeb1598 (About DOIs).

Kiona is a freelance science journalist and resident archaeology nerd at Ars Technica.

An unlikely set of clues helps reconstruct ancient Chinese disasters Read More »

Apple users in the US can no longer download ByteDance’s Chinese apps

Apple, bytedance, china, Policy, syndication, tiktok / Kris Guyer / March 7, 2026

In recent years, however, Apple has been developing more sophisticated mechanisms to identify where an App Store user is physically located. In 2023, the tech outlet 9to5Mac reported that Apple devices had created a new system called “countryd” to precisely determine a person’s location based on “data such as current GPS location, country code from the Wi-Fi router, and information obtained from the SIM card.”

Observers theorized that the new system was created in response to the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, which went into effect in 2024 and required Apple to begin allowing people in the EU to download apps from third-party app marketplaces. Apple complied with the EU regulation, but it restricted the accessibility of alternative app stores only to people physically in the territory of the EU.

The exact mechanism Apple uses to enable geoblocking of iPhone apps is unclear, says Friso Bostoen, assistant professor of law at Tilburg University who has studied the effect of EU regulations on Apple. “Presumably, there’s some on-device processing saying, ‘Look, this phone is somewhere in the EU borders, so you get an eligibility green check mark.’” And if the device detects that an EU resident leaves the region for more than 90 days, according to Apple’s policy, that eligibility is withdrawn, Bostoen says.

The new restriction on ByteDance apps in the US resembles the EU-specific geographical restrictions that were previously reported. Some ByteDance users have said that they are able to circumvent the restrictions by using virtual private networks, which allow people to spoof their device’s location, but the work-arounds aren’t foolproof.

“Apple may use the IP address of your Internet connection to approximate your location in order to determine whether certain apps that are subject to legal restrictions in some regions can be made available to you,” the App Store’s legal terms explicitly state. But according to online archives of the terms page, this specific sentence was added at the end of January 2025, shortly after the company first removed ByteDance apps from the US version of the App Store.

So far, there’ve been few instances of Apple actually implementing technical capabilities to geoblock users. “However, you could think about this having some wider spillover effects if this becomes the more general way of ensuring that apps that shouldn’t be available indeed aren’t available,” Bostoen says. “If Apple gets more sophisticated about blocking access in a way that cannot simply be circumvented with a VPN, obviously citizens in those places are now left with much less liberty.”

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Apple users in the US can no longer download ByteDance’s Chinese apps Read More »

With Gateway likely gone, where will lunar landers rendezvous with Orion?

artemis, blue moon, human landing system, NASA, Space, starship / Kris Guyer / March 7, 2026

Drink up, astrodynamicists!

“We will challenge every requirement, clear every obstacle, delete every blocker.”

Artist’s illustration of Starship on the surface of the Moon. Credit: SpaceX

Last week, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman unveiled a major shakeup in the Artemis Program, intended to put the nation on a better path back to the Moon. The changes focused largely on increasing the launch cadence of NASA’s large SLS rocket and putting a greater emphasis on lunar surface activities. Days later, the US Senate indicated that it broadly supported these plans.

This is all well and good, but it neglects a critical element of the Artemis program: a lander capable of taking astronauts down to the lunar surface from an orbit around the Moon and back up to rendezvous with Orion. NASA has contracted with SpaceX and Blue Origin to develop these landers, Starship and Blue Moon MK2, respectively.

As part of his announcement, Isaacman said a revamped Artemis III mission will now be used to test one or both of these landers near Earth before they are called upon to land humans on the Moon later this decade.

NASA will launch Artemis III next year, he said, to be followed by one or possibly even two lunar landings in 2028. A single landing before the end of 2028 seems like a stretch, even for glass-half-full optimists in the space community. And for there to be a chance of happening, SpaceX or Blue Origin, or both, need to get hustling quickly.

Can they?

“Challenge every requirement”

Isaacman is mindful of these challenges, and one of his first moves as administrator was meeting with engineers from SpaceX and Blue Origin to hear their ideas for accelerating NASA’s Artemis timeline.

After this meeting on January 13, Isaacman said NASA would do what it could to facilitate the faster development of a Human Landing System: “We will challenge every requirement, clear every obstacle, delete every blocker and empower the team to deliver… and we will do it with time to spare.”

What does this actually mean? It suggests that Isaacman has directed his teams to make working with NASA less cumbersome for SpaceX and Blue Origin.

For example, to reach the Moon during the initial Artemis missions, a lander must dock with the Orion spacecraft. That may sound routine, as spacecraft have been rendezvousing and docking in space for six decades.

However, Orion is saddled with thousands of requirements, and virtually every decision point regarding docking must be signed off on by the lander company—SpaceX or Blue Origin—as well as NASA, Orion’s contractor Lockheed Martin, and the European service module contractor Airbus. Additionally, Orion has a lot of sensitive elements to work around, such as the plumes of its thrusters, and engineers have spent a lot of time working on issues such as ensuring consistent cabin pressures between vehicles. In short, it gets complicated fast.

A carbonated orbit emerges

One way NASA is helping the lander companies is by no longer requiring them to dock with Orion in a near-rectilinear halo orbit, an elliptical orbit that comes as close as 3,000 km to the surface of the Moon and as far as 70,000 km. This is where NASA planned to construct the Lunar Gateway space station, which is now likely to be canceled. It’s a boon for lunar landers since it required more energy to first stop there before dropping down to the surface.

Why not simply have Orion meet the landers in a low-lunar orbit, similar to the Apollo Program? This would allow the landers to consume less propellant on the way down and back up from the Moon. The reason is that, due to a number of poor decisions over the last 15 years, the Orion spacecraft’s service module does not have the performance needed to reach low-lunar orbit and then return safely to Earth. Hence the use of a near-rectilinear halo orbit.

A comparison between the NRHO and EPO/CoLA orbits. Credit: American Astronautical Society conference paper

However, a research paper published in July 2022 by NASA engineers at Johnson Space Center analyzes several other circular and elliptical orbits that Orion could reach with its present propulsive capabilities. Out of this analysis came another useful orbit with a name that just rolls off the tongue: Elliptical Polar Orbit with Coplanar Line of Apsides, or EPO/CoLA.

There are many details about the EPO/CoLA orbit in the research paper, but critically, its closest point to the Moon lies just 100 km above the Moon’s surface (the apolune distance is 6,500 km). For many landing sites, the paper notes, a Human Landing System vehicle can perform a single burn to reach a much lower orbit.

As part of his change in plans, Isaacman said the Space Launch System rocket’s upper stage would be “standardized” for Artemis IV and beyond. That means the first lunar landing mission will use a new upper stage, likely the Centaur V built by United Launch Alliance. This will have more propulsive capabilities than the current rocket, so it is possible that for Artemis IV, Orion could reach an even more favorable orbit (i.e., closer to the Moon, requiring less energy to reach the surface) than EPO/CoLA.

Can Starship be accelerated?

At the end of the day, it’s helpful to find new orbits and relax requirements where appropriate. But it will still be up to the lander contractors to deliver the goods, and for NASA, the sooner the better.

Last November, Ars looked at several ways Starship might be brought online faster as a lunar lander. Perhaps the biggest problem with using Starship as a lander is the need to fly multiple uncrewed tanker missions to refuel Starship in low-Earth orbit before it transits to the Moon and awaits a crew aboard Orion. This necessitates an estimated one- or two-dozen launches.

The best solution we could come up with was flying an optimized, expendable Starship tanker stage that would maximize propellant delivery per flight. When asked about this, though, SpaceX founder Elon Musk shot down the idea. Once Starship begins flying at rate, Musk believes, a dozen or more tanker missions per lunar flight will not pose a major impediment.

So it should come as no surprise that SpaceX has not proposed significant changes to its Human Landing System hardware. In response to NASA’s desire to accelerate the Artemis timeline, the company has indicated that it will prioritize the Human Landing System more as part of the Starship program. The company also suggested that eliminating the requirement to dock in near-rectilinear halo orbit could open up new mission plans, including potentially docking with Orion in orbit around Earth rather than the Moon.

What about Blue Origin?

Blue Origin, founded by Jeff Bezos, has been more responsive. Last October, Ars reported that the company had started working on a faster architecture that would not require orbital refueling. A month later, Blue Origin’s chief executive, Dave Limp, said the company “would move heaven and Earth” to help NASA reach the Moon sooner.

Based on recent documents reviewed by Ars, the company is continuing to refine its plan for a human lunar landing. Without a requirement to rendezvous in a near-rectilinear halo orbit, a lunar landing could potentially be accomplished with as few as three launches of Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket. This would require the more powerful 9×4 variant of the New Glenn rocket now in development. The EPO/CoLA orbit described above enables such a mission profile.

One mission plan seen by Ars shows the launch of a simplified MK2 lander on one rocket, and two more launches of transfer stages, which subsequently dock in low-Earth orbit. The first transfer stage pushes this stack out of low-Earth orbit before separating. The second transfer stage pushes the lander into EPO/CoLA, where it docks with Orion and two astronauts move on board MK2. This second transfer stage then moves the lander to a 15 x 100 km lunar orbit before separating. MK2 then flies down to the Moon.

After a short stay on the Moon, the interim MK2 lander would ascend back to the EPO/CoLA, where it meets up with Orion.

There are plenty of questions about the readiness of the Blue Origin hardware, of course. And there are a lot of moving pieces now with the Moon landing moving to Artemis IV and the probable use of new orbits for a rendezvous with Orion near the Moon. So all of this remains very notional.

Neither NASA nor Blue Origin has spoken publicly about their accelerated landing plans. Hopefully, that will change soon, because it’s entirely possible that NASA’s best chance to reach the Moon before China will come down to the ability of a company that proudly sports a turtle as a mascot to move a little more quickly.

Note: This story was updated at 11: 30 am ET Friday with additional information.

Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston.

With Gateway likely gone, where will lunar landers rendezvous with Orion? Read More »

Why are vertebrate eyes so different from those of other animals?

Biology, evolution, eyes, Science / Kris Guyer / March 7, 2026

“We think that in this early deuterostome, the median eye contained both ciliary and rhabdomeric cells,” Kafetzis explains. As a result, both cellular lineages were incorporated into a single, ancient, cyclopean eye, which later evolved into the vertebrate eyes.

The vertebrate third eye

A trace of this transformation may still survive in the pineal complex at the base of the brain—often referred to as a vertebrate “third eye.” Scientists have long recognized striking similarities between the retina and the pineal organ, leading many to suspect that the two evolved from a single ancestral structure, with the pineal representing a more rudimentary version.

Kafetzis and his colleagues see it differently.

Many researchers suspect that one class of neurons—the bipolar cells—is unique to the retina and represents a key evolutionary innovation of the vertebrate eye. Bipolar cells connect rods and cones to ganglion cells (hence the name “bipolar”). “We think that these bipolar-like cells already exist in the pineal,” says Kafetzis. “It’s just that they don’t look like the typical bipolar—they don’t have a cell before and a cell after.”

For this reason, Kafetzis and his colleagues argue that bipolar neurons are not a de novo evolutionary invention but instead have a chimeric origin, blending features of both rhabdomeric and ciliary cells and bridging the two photoreceptor lineages.

Though grounded in existing ideas and data, the new proposal offers a potentially far-reaching synthesis. Several aspects still require firmer evidence. The idea that the ancestral chordate adopted a burrowing lifestyle remains debated, and the claim that early bilaterians already possessed paired lateral eyes is still speculative.

The authors acknowledge that their model now needs testing. In the paper, they lay out several ways to do so—from molecular comparisons of pineal and retinal cells to developmental studies and broader sampling of eye development across other deuterostome species.

“We want to put forward some literature-based and inspired hypotheses that are testable, and now we can go out and test them,” concludes Kafetzis.

Cell, 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.12.056

Federica Sgorbissa is a science journalist; she writes about neuroscience and cognitive science for Italian and international outlets.

Why are vertebrate eyes so different from those of other animals? Read More »

Author name: Kris Guyer