Enlarge/ It’s never explained what this collection of app icons quite represents. A disorganized app you tossed together by sideloading? A face that’s frowning because it’s rolling down a bar held up by app icons? It’s weird, but not quite evocative.
You might sideload an Android app, or manually install its APK package, if you’re using a custom version of Android that doesn’t include Google’s Play Store. Alternately, the app might be experimental, under development, or perhaps no longer maintained and offered by its developer. Until now, the existence of sideload-ready APKs on the web was something that seemed to be tolerated, if warned against, by Google.
This quiet standstill is being shaken up by a new feature in Google’s Play Integrity API. As reported by Android Authority, developer tools to push “remediation” dialogs during sideloading debuted at Google’s I/O conference in May, have begun showing up on users’ phones. Sideloaders of apps from the British shop Tesco, fandom app BeyBlade X, and ChatGPT have reported “Get this app from Play” prompts, which cannot be worked around. An Android gaming handheld user encountered a similarly worded prompt from Diablo Immortal on their device three months ago.
Google’s Play Integrity API is how apps have previously blocked access when loaded onto phones that are in some way modified from a stock OS with all Google Play integrations intact. Recently, a popular two-factor authentication app blocked access on rooted phones, including the security-minded GrapheneOS. Apps can call the Play Integrity API and get back an “integrity verdict,” relaying if the phone has a “trustworthy” software environment, has Google Play Protect enabled, and passes other software checks.
Graphene has questioned the veracity of Google’s Integrity API and SafetyNet Attestation systems, recommending instead standard Android hardware attestation. Rahman notes that apps do not have to take an all-or-nothing approach to integrity checking. Rather than block installation entirely, apps could call on the API only during sensitive actions, issuing a warning there. But not having a Play Store connection can also deprive developers of metrics, allow for installation on incompatible devices (and resulting bad reviews), and, of course, open the door to paid app piracy.
Google
“Unknown distribution channels” blocked
Google’s developer video about “Automatic integrity protection” (at the 12-minute, 24-second mark on YouTube) notes that “select” apps have access to automatic protection. This adds an automatic checking tool to your app and the “strongest version of Google Play’s anti-tamper protection.” “If users get your protected app from an unknown distribution channel,” a slide in the presentation reads, “they’ll be prompted to get it from Google Play,” available to “select Play Partners.”
Enlarge/ A woman holds a placard saying “No Forced Births” as abortion rights activists gather at the Monroe County Courthouse for a protest vigil a few hours before Indianas near total abortion ban goes into effect on September 15, 2022.
The more abortion access is jeopardized, the more women turn to sterilization, according to a new report in JAMA that drew on health insurance claims of nearly 4.8 million women in the US.
In states that enacted total or near-total abortion bans following the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in June 2022, the rate of sterilizations among reproductive-age women that July spiked 19 percent. A similar initial spike was seen across the nation, with states that either limited or protected access to abortions seeing a 17 percent increase.
But, after that, states with bans saw a divergent trend. The states that limited or protected abortion access saw sterilization procedures largely level off after July 2022. In contrast, states with bans continued to see increases. From July 2022 to December 2022, use of sterilization procedures increased by 3 percent each month.
The study adds to previous data finding that overturning Roe v. Wade and limiting legal access to abortion spurred reproductive-age people to seek permanent contraception. A study published in JAMA Health Forum in April, for instance, found an abrupt increase in tubal ligation and vasectomies in people aged 18 to 30 shortly after the Dobbs decision. The current study furthers the finding by assessing trends of sterilization procedures in the context of state abortion laws and policies.
The surge in sterilization is just one of the many ways reproductive healthcare in the US has been rocked or upended by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision. In June, a study in JAMA Network Open found that states with the most restrictive abortion policies saw declines in prescriptions filled for birth control pills and emergency contraception. The finding suggests that the abortion bans and limitations have disrupted and created barriers to contraception access in restrictive states.
On Tuesday, meanwhile, the March of Dimes released a report painting a bleak picture for Americans who become pregnant. The analysis found that over half of US counties do not have a hospital that provides obstetric care. In the last two years, 1 in 25 obstetric units shut down. Further, 35 percent of counties in the US are considered maternity deserts, meaning that 1,104 counties in the US do not have a birthing facility or even a single obstetric clinician. Living in a maternity desert is associated with receiving less prenatal care and higher rates of preterm birth. Those 1,104 counties are home to 2.3 million women of reproductive age who gave birth to over 150,000 babies in 2022.
On a Friday evening last November, police chased a silver sedan across the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The fleeing vehicle entered San Francisco and went careening through the city’s crowded streets. At the intersection of 11th and Folsom streets, it sideswiped the fronts of two other vehicles, veered onto a sidewalk, and hit two pedestrians.
According to a local news story, both pedestrians were taken to the hospital with one suffering major injuries. The driver of the silver sedan was injured, as was a passenger in one of the other vehicles.
No one was injured in the third car, a driverless Waymo robotaxi. Still, Waymo was required to report the crash to government agencies. It was one of 20 crashes with injuries that Waymo has reported through June. And it’s the only crash Waymo has classified as causing a serious injury.
Twenty injuries might sound like a lot, but Waymo’s driverless cars have traveled more than 22 million miles. So driverless Waymo taxis have been involved in fewer than one injury-causing crash for every million miles of driving—a much better rate than a typical human driver.
Last week Waymo released a new website to help the public put statistics like this in perspective. Waymo estimates that typical drivers in San Francisco and Phoenix—Waymo’s two biggest markets—would have caused 64 crashes over those 22 million miles. So Waymo vehicles get into injury-causing crashes less than one-third as often, per mile, as human-driven vehicles.
Waymo claims an even more dramatic improvement for crashes serious enough to trigger an airbag. Driverless Waymos have experienced just five crashes like that, and Waymo estimates that typical human drivers in Phoenix and San Francisco would have experienced 31 airbag crashes over 22 million miles. That implies driverless Waymos are one-sixth as likely as human drivers to experience this type of crash.
The new data comes at a critical time for Waymo, which is rapidly scaling up its robotaxi service. A year ago, Waymo was providing 10,000 rides per week. Last month, Waymo announced it was providing 100,000 rides per week. We can expect more growth in the coming months.
So it really matters whether Waymo is making our roads safer or more dangerous. And all the evidence so far suggests that it’s making them safer.
It’s not just the small number of crashes Waymo vehicles experience—it’s also the nature of those crashes. Out of the 23 most serious Waymo crashes, 16 involved a human driver rear-ending a Waymo. Three others involved a human-driven car running a red light before hitting a Waymo. There were no serious crashes where a Waymo ran a red light, rear-ended another car, or engaged in other clear-cut misbehavior.
Digging into Waymo’s crashes
In total, Waymo has reported nearly 200 crashes through June 2024, which works out to about one crash every 100,000 miles. Waymo says 43 percent of crashes across San Francisco and Phoenix had a delta-V of less than 1 mph—in other words, they were very minor fender-benders.
But let’s focus on the 23 most severe crashes: those that either caused an injury, caused an airbag to deploy, or both. These are good crashes to focus on not only because they do the most damage but because human drivers are more likely to report these types of crashes, making it easier to compare Waymo’s software to human drivers.
Most of these—16 crashes in total—involved another car rear-ending a Waymo. Some were quite severe: three triggered airbag deployments, and one caused a “moderate” injury. One vehicle rammed the Waymo a second time as it fled the scene, prompting Waymo to sue the driver.
There were three crashes where a human-driven car ran a red light before crashing into a Waymo:
One was the crash I mentioned at the top of this article. A car fleeing the police ran a red light and slammed into a Waymo, another car, and two pedestrians, causing several injuries.
In San Francisco, a pair of robbery suspects fleeing police in a stolen car ran a red light “at a high rate of speed” and slammed into the driver’s side door of a Waymo, triggering an airbag. The suspects were uninjured and fled on foot. The Waymo was thankfully empty.
In Phoenix, a car ran a red light and then “made contact with the SUV in front of the Waymo AV, and both of the other vehicles spun.” The Waymo vehicle was hit in the process, and someone in one of the other vehicles suffered an injury Waymo described as minor.
There were two crashes where a Waymo got sideswiped by a vehicle in an adjacent lane:
In San Francisco, Waymo was stopped at a stop sign in the right lane when another car hit the Waymo while passing it on the left.
In Tempe, Arizona, an SUV “overtook the Waymo AV on the left” and then “initiated a right turn,” cutting the Waymo off and causing a crash. A passenger in the SUV said they suffered moderate injuries.
Finally, there were two crashes where another vehicle turned left across the path of a Waymo vehicle:
In San Francisco, a Waymo and a large truck were approaching an intersection from opposite directions when a bicycle behind the truck made a sudden left in front of the Waymo. Waymo says the truck blocked Waymo’s vehicle from seeing the bicycle until the last second. The Waymo slammed on its brakes but wasn’t able to stop in time. The San Francisco Fire Department told local media that the bicyclist suffered only minor injuries and was able to leave the scene on their own.
A Waymo in Phoenix was traveling in the right lane. A row of stopped cars was in the lane to its left. As Waymo approached an intersection, a car coming from the opposite direction made a left turn through a gap in the row of stopped cars. Again, Waymo says the row of stopped cars blocked it from seeing the turning car until it was too late. A passenger in the turning vehicle reported minor injuries.
It’s conceivable that Waymo was at fault in these last two cases—it’s impossible to say without more details. It’s also possible that Waymo’s erratic braking contributed to a few of those rear-end crashes. Still, it seems clear that a non-Waymo vehicle bore primary responsibility for most, and possibly all, of these crashes.
“About as good as you can do”
One should always be skeptical when a company publishes a self-congratulatory report about its own safety record. So I called Noah Goodall, a civil engineer with many years of experience studying roadway safety, to see what he made of Waymo’s analysis.
“They’ve been the best of the companies doing this,” Goodall told me. He noted that Waymo has a team of full-time safety researchers who publish their work in reputable journals.
Waymo knows precisely how often its own vehicles crash because its vehicles are bristling with sensors. The harder problem is calculating an appropriate baseline for human-caused crashes.
That’s partly because human drivers don’t always report their own crashes to the police, insurance companies, or anyone else. But it’s also because crash rates differ from one area to another. For example, there are far more crashes per mile in downtown San Francisco than in the suburbs of Phoenix.
Waymo tried to account for these factors as it calculated crash rates for human drivers in both Phoenix and San Francisco. To ensure an apples-to-apples comparison, Waymo’s analysis excludes freeway crashes from its human-driven benchmark, since Waymo’s commercial fleet doesn’t use freeways yet.
Waymo estimates that human drivers fail to report 32 percent of injury crashes; the company raised its benchmark for human crashes to account for that. But even without this under-reporting adjustment, Waymo’s injury crash rate would still be roughly 60 percent below that of human drivers. The true number is probably somewhere between the adjusted number (70 percent fewer crashes) and the unadjusted one (60 percent fewer crashes). It’s an impressive figure either way.
Waymo says it doesn’t apply an under-reporting adjustment to its human benchmark for airbag crashes, since humans almost always report crashes that are severe enough to trigger an airbag. So it’s easier to take Waymo’s figure here—an 84 percent decline in airbag crashes—at face value.
Waymo’s benchmarks for human drivers are “about as good as you can do,” Goodall told me. “It’s very hard to get this kind of data.”
When I talked to other safety experts, they were equally positive about the quality of Waymo’s analysis. For example, last year, I asked Phil Koopman, a professor of computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon, about a previous Waymo study that used insurance data to show its cars were significantly safer than human drivers. Koopman told me Waymo’s findings were statistically credible, with some minor caveats.
Similarly, David Zuby, the chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, had mostly positive things to say about a December study analyzing Waymo’s first 7.1 million miles of driverless operations.
I found a few errors in Waymo’s data
If you look closely, you’ll see that one of the numbers in this article differs slightly from Waymo’s safety website. Specifically, Waymo says that its vehicles get into crashes that cause injury 73 percent less often than human drivers, while the figure I use in this article is 70 percent.
This is because I spotted a couple of apparent classification mistakes in the raw data Waymo used to generate its statistics.
Each time Waymo reports a crash to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, it records the severity of injuries caused by the crash. This can be fatal, serious, moderate, minor, none, or unknown.
When Waymo shared an embargoed copy of its numbers with me early last week, it said that there had been 16 injury crashes. However, when I looked at the data Waymo had submitted to federal regulators, it showed 15 minor injuries, two moderate injuries, and one serious injury, for a total of 18.
When I asked Waymo about this discrepancy, the company said it found a programming error. Waymo had recently started using a moderate injury category and had not updated the code that generated its crash statistics to count these crashes. Waymo fixed the error quickly enough that the official version Waymo published on Thursday of last week showed 18 injury crashes.
However, as I continued looking at the data, I noticed another apparent mistake: Two crashes had been put in the “unknown” injury category, yet the narrative for each crash indicated an injury had occurred. One report said “the passenger in the Waymo AV reported an unspecified injury.” The other stated that “an individual involved was transported from the scene to a hospital for medical treatment.”
I notified Waymo about this apparent mistake on Friday and they said they are looking into it. As I write this, the website still claims a 73 percent reduction in injury crashes. But I think it’s clear that these two “unknown” crashes were actually injury crashes. So, all of the statistics in this article are based on the full list of 20 injury crashes.
I think this illustrates that I come by my generally positive outlook on Waymo honestly: I probably scrutinize Waymo’s data releases more carefully than any other journalist, and I’m not afraid to point out when the numbers don’t add up.
Based on my conversations with Waymo, I’m convinced these were honest mistakes rather than deliberate efforts to cover up crashes. I could only identify these mistakes because Waymo went out of its way to make its findings reproducible. It would make no sense to do that if the company simultaneously tried to fake its statistics.
Could there be other injury or airbag-triggering crashes that Waymo isn’t counting? It’s certainly possible, but I doubt there have been very many. You might have noticed that I linked to local media reporting for some of Waymo’s most significant crashes. If Waymo deliberately covered up a severe crash, there would be a big risk that a crash would get reported in the media and then Waymo would have to explain to federal regulators why it wasn’t reporting all legally required crashes.
So, despite the screwups, I find Waymo’s data to be fairly credible, and those data show that Waymo’s vehicles crash far less often than human drivers on public roads.
Tim Lee was on staff at Ars from 2017 to 2021. Last year, he launched a newsletter, Understanding AI, that explores how AI works and how it’s changing our world. You can subscribe here.
Enlarge/ More streamlined (but still user-replaceable) battery packs are responsible for some of the Reform Next’s space savings.
MNT Research
The current booting prototype of the MNT Reform Next.
MNT Research
The casing prototype is still being prototyped with 3D prints, but the final version will be anodized aluminum.
MNT Research
One of three “port boards” that handle internal and external connectivity.
MNT Research
More streamlined (but still user-replaceable) battery packs are responsible for some of the Reform Next’s space savings.
MNT Research
The original MNT Reform laptop was an interesting experiment, an earnest stab at the idea of a laptop that used entirely open source, moddable hardware as well as open source software. But as a modern Internet-connected laptop, its chunky design and (especially) its super-slow processor let it down.
MNT Research has been upgrading the Reform laptop and its smaller counterpart, the Pocket Reform, continuously since we took a look at it two-and-a-half years ago. The most significant upgrade is probably the Rockchip RK3588 processor upgrade, which offers four ARM Cortex-A76 CPU cores (the same ones used in the Raspberry Pi 5’s Broadcom SoC) and four ARM Cortex-A55 cores, plus either 16GB or 32GB of RAM. While still not a high-end speed demon, these specs are enough to make it a competent workhorse laptop for browsing and productivity apps.
Now, MNT is revisiting the Reform with a more significant design update. The MNT Reform Next is smaller and thinner, defaults to a more traditional glass trackpad instead of a trackball, and is starting with the Rockchip RK3588 instead of the poky NXP/Freescale processor that the original laptop was saddled with.
MNT says that the new Reform’s thinner profile is enabled by splitting the motherboard into multiple, smaller boards that are easier to replace and by designing “completely custom battery packs that tightly integrated electronics into the mechanical structure.” MNT details a motherboard with a CPU module connected to it and three different “port boards” to add internal and external connectivity.
The batteries themselves are still user-replaceable LiFePO4 batteries, though there are switches on the motherboard for people who want to use Li-ion batteries instead. “This optional user choice trades longer runtime for less safety and environmental friendliness,” according to MNT’s blog post.
The new Reform adds additional ports, including HDMI and USB-C, and it retains the mechanical keyboard that we liked from the original. It charges over USB-C. It also features four PCIe lanes internally for connecting M.2 storage.
Per usual, MNT is announcing this product many months or years before it will be available. The company says the Reform Next is in the “prototype stage,” and to get the first batches, you’ll need to support the project via the Crowd Supply crowdfunding site first. Pricing and more detailed availability information haven’t been announced, but if the idea of an entirely open laptop still appeals to you, the company says it will have more to share “later this week.”
This story was originally published by ProPublica, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Most of the products in the typical kitchen use plastics that are virtually impossible to recycle.
The film that acts as a lid on Dole Sunshine fruit bowls, the rings securing jars of McCormick dried herbs, the straws attached to Juicy Juice boxes, the bags that hold Cheez-Its and Cheerios—they’re all destined for the dumpster.
Now a trade group representing those brands and hundreds more is pressuring regulators to make plastic appear more environmentally friendly, a proposal experts say could worsen a crisis that is flooding the planet and our bodies with the toxic material.
The Consumer Brands Association believes companies should be able to stamp “recyclable” on products that are technically “capable” of being recycled, even if they’re all but guaranteed to end up in a landfill. As ProPublica previously reported, the group argued for a looser definition of “recyclable” in written comments to the Federal Trade Commission as the agency revises the Green Guides—guidelines for advertising products with sustainable attributes.
The association’s board of directors includes officials from some of the world’s richest companies, such as PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, Land O’Lakes, Keurig Dr Pepper, Hormel Foods Corporation, Molson Coors Beverage Company, Campbell Soup, Kellanova, Mondelez International, Conagra Brands, J.M. Smucker, and Clorox.
Some of the companies own brands that project health, wellness, and sustainability. That includes General Mills, owner of Annie’s macaroni and cheese; The Honest Co., whose soaps and baby wipes line the shelves at Whole Foods; and Colgate-Palmolive, which owns the natural deodorant Tom’s of Maine.
ProPublica contacted the 51 companies on the association’s board of directors to ask if they agreed with the trade group’s definition of “recyclable.” Most did not respond. None said they disagreed with the definition. Nine companies referred ProPublica back to the association.
“The makers of America’s household brands are committed to creating a more circular economy which is why the industry has set sustainability goals and invested in consumer education tools” with “detailed recycling instructions,” Joseph Aquilina, the association’s vice president and deputy general counsel, wrote in an email.
The Green Guides are meant to increase consumer trust in sustainable products. Though these guidelines are not laws, they serve as a national reference for companies and other government agencies for how to define terms like “compostable,” “nontoxic” and “recyclable.” The Federal Trade Commission is revising the guides for the first time since 2012.
Most of the plastic we encounter is functionally not recyclable. It’s too expensive or technically difficult to deal with the health risks posed by the dyes and flame retardants found in many products. Collecting, sorting, storing and shipping the plastic for reprocessing often costs much more than plowing it into a landfill. Though some newer technologies have pushed the boundaries of what’s possible, these plastic-recycling techniques are inefficient and exist in such limited quantities that experts say they can’t be relied upon. The reality is: Only 5 percent of Americans’ discarded plastic gets recycled. And while soda bottles and milk jugs can be turned into new products, other common forms of plastic, like flimsy candy wrappers and chip bags, are destined for trash heaps and oceans, where they can linger for centuries without breaking down.
The current Green Guides allow companies to label products and packaging as “recyclable” if at least 60 percent of Americans have access to facilities that will take the material. As written, the guidelines don’t specify whether it’s enough for the facilities to simply collect and sort the items or if there needs to be a reasonable expectation that the material will be made into something new.
Apple plans to release the next versions of iOS, iPadOS, macOS, and watchOS to the general public on September 16, the company announced via its website following its iPhone-centric product event earlier today. We should also see updates for tvOS and the HomePod operating system on the same date.
The new releases bring a number of new features and refinements to Apple’s platforms: better texting with Android devices thanks to support for the RCS standard, iPhone Mirroring that allows you to interact with your iPhone via your Mac, more UI customization options for iPhones and iPads, and other improvements besides.
What won’t be included in these initial releases is any hint of Apple Intelligence, the batch of generative AI and machine learning features that Apple announced at its Worldwide Developers Conference in June. Apple is testing some of the Apple Intelligence features in betas of iOS 18.1, iPadOS 18.1, and macOS 15.1, updates that will be released later this fall. When Apple Intelligence does arrive, compatibility will be limited: it will require an iPhone 15 Pro or one of the just-announced iPhone 16 or 16 Pro models; an iPad Air or Pro with an M1, M2, or M4 chip; or an Apple Silicon Mac. Apple will also be withholding Apple Intelligence from devices in the EU, at least for now.
The new operating systems will run on most of the same hardware that is currently compatible with iOS 17, iPadOS 17, and macOS Sonoma, including the last few generations of Intel Macs from 2018, 2019, and 2020. But there are a handful of exceptions, like the 2018 MacBook Air and a handful of older iPads. Phones as old as 2018’s iPhone XR and XS will be able to install and run the iOS 18 update.
Apple has released multiple beta versions of each operating system since WWDC in June, and release candidate builds will likely go out to users and developers today. These will enable developers to get final versions of their apps ready for launch day. Users who want to move over to the new operating systems early can also do so—you can be relatively confident that most of the biggest bugs have been worked out over the summer betas. However, as always when installing major updates, you should ensure you have good backups of your data beforehand.
For the last couple years, Apple has reserved its most significant silicon updates for its iPhone Pro models, while the less expensive non-Pro iPhones have made do with year-old chips. This year, Apple is introducing new A18-series chips for both Pro and non-Pro iPhones, chips which it says are “designed for Apple Intelligence from the ground up.”
The Apple A18 (no Pro, no Bionic, just A18) will power the new iPhone 16 and 16 Plus—the iPhone 15 used an A16 Bionic, and jumping two chip generations in one year makes for more impressive-sounding performance numbers.
Like the last few generations of iPhone chip, the A18 includes a 6-core CPU with two high-performance processor cores and four high-efficiency cores. Apple says the CPU is 30 percent faster than the A16 chip in the iPhone 15. The A18 also includes a 5-core GPU that Apple says is 40 percent faster than the GPU in the iPhone 15—the A18 GPU also supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which was introduced in the A17 Pro.
Enlarge/ The A18 includes a six-core CPU with two high-performance cores and four high-efficiency cores.
Apple
A 16-core neural engine will accelerate Apple Intelligence’s AI and machine learning capabilities, and 17 percent higher memory bandwidth compared to the A16 rounds out its capabilities. The chip is built using a “second-generation 3 nm” manufacturing process, most likely from longtime Apple manufacturing partner TSMC.
Apple didn’t mention RAM specifically—it rarely does, for iPhones—but the A18 likely has at least 8GB of RAM to help it run Apple Intelligence models. The A16 in the iPhone 15 included 6GB of RAM.
Apple
The iPhone 16 Pro gets a new Pro chip; the A18 Pro’s upgrades over the A18 are mostly subtle, and it’s less of an upgrade over the iPhone 15 Pro and its A17 Pro chip.
Apple is still using a six-core CPU with two high-performance cores and four high-efficiency cores, but Apple says that “larger caches” and “next-generation ML accelerators” will boost its performance a bit beyond the cores in the regular A18. Apple says CPU performance should be around 15 percent faster than in the A17 Pro.
The GPU in the A18 Pro uses the same architecture as the A18, but it has six GPU cores instead of five, and it is 20 percent faster than the A17 Pro’s GPU. Apple said that hardware-accelerated ray tracing could be up to twice as fast as in the A17 Pro, but the regular A18 Pro should benefit from this improvement, too. The A18 Pro has the same 16-core Neural Engine as the A18, and also benefits from 17 percent more memory bandwidth.
Enlarge/ Better video and I/O capabilities help separate the A18 Pro from the regular A18.
Apple
Some things that make the A18 Pro “pro” are related to its I/O, and its media encoding and decoding hardware. The A18 Pro supports ProRes video encoding, has a new image signal processor that apparently isn’t in the A18, and also supports “faster USB 3 speeds” than the A17 Pro. For those using their iPhones to shoot professional-grade video, these are small but welcome improvements over the A18 that will help shoot better video, and make it easier to offload video to a computer when it’s time to edit.
The new AirPods case with USB-C and wireless charging.
Apple
The AirPods 3 with its longer stems.
Valentina Palladino
Apple announced the fourth-generation AirPods today during its It’s Glowtime event. As you can tell from the gallery above, the AirPods 4 look different from their predecessor. They also have Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) if you’re willing to pay extra.
Apple said that it mapped and analyzed “thousands” of ear shapes with 3D photogrammetry, laser topography, and other modeling tools to design the AirPods 4’s new form. Apple claims the new shape will make for a better fit. The new earbuds appear to have shorter stems. They look more similar to the AirPods Pro now but without the silicone tips. The stems also allow users to play/pause media and end or mute calls with a “quick press,” Apple claims, noting a new force sensor.
The new AirPods move from Apple’s H1 chip to the H2, which the current AirPods Pro use. Compared to the H1, Apple has said that the H2 is supposed to be up to twice as good at noise cancellation. Upgraded mics and computational audio are also supposed to aid in ANC.
The AirPods 4 inherit several AirPods Pro features. They claim personalized spatial audio, which uses head tracking, and machine learning-powered voice isolation as features. The AirPods are also supposed to be able to automatically lower the volume of whatever’s currently playing when you start talking to someone in real life. The Transparency mode lets you hear outside noises while media’s playing, and Adaptive Audio automatically blends Transparency mode with ANC.
The fourth-gen AirPods also have a new acoustic architecture that Apple claimed, without getting into much detail, delivers “richer” bass and “clearer” highs.
The new earbuds also have a redesigned case that’s 10 percent smaller by volume and is 2 inches (50 mm) long. It incorporates Apple’s slow, (European Union law-driven) shift from the proprietary Lightning charging port to USB-C. Apple said the case should last for up to 30 hours. It also supports wireless charging, including Qi.
The AirPods 4 will start at $129, which is cheaper than what the AirPods 3 have been going for ($179). But if you want ANC, they’ll cost $179. The AirPods 4 come out on September 20 but can be pre-ordered today.
Smaller updates to AirPods Pro and AirPods Max
Apple didn’t announce a new AirPods Pro or AirPods Max today but is adding some features to the current versions.
The AirPods Pro are getting a software update this fall that will allow the the earbuds to serve as a “clinical-grade hearing aid,” Apple CEO Tim Cook said. The feature is limited to people with “mild to moderate hearing loss,” Apple’s announcement said.
The fall update will also add a Hearing Protection feature to help quiet loud environmental sounds. “The ear tips help to provide passive noise reduction, while the H2 chip helps to actively reduce louder, more intermittent noise at 48,000 times per second,” per Apple’s announcement. Finally, the update will allow you to use the AirPods Pro as earplugs by use of an updated “multiband high dynamic range algorithm,” and add a hearing test.
Enlarge/ AirPods Pro updates are all about hearing health.
Apple
The AirPods Max, meanwhile, are joining the move to USB-C. They’re also getting personalized spatial audio and new colors: midnight, blue, purple, orange, and starlight.
This version of the AirPods Max will be available on September 20 and will cost $549. Pre-orders start today.
Instead, the physical version of Concord on PS5 has become a surprise collector’s item. An Ars analysis of nearly 300 eBay listings completed between September 3–8 shows new copies of the now-defunct game selling for a median price of $100 since the game’s shutdown. That going rate peaked at a median of $118 on September 5, up from $89.50 on September 3, before settling at $110 for eBay sales made on September 8.
Supply and demand
As usual with gaming collectibles, the price increase has less to do with playability and more to do with rarity. GameDiscoverCo analyst Simon Carless told IGN last month that he estimated an underwhelming 25,000 total sales for Concord across PS5 and PC. Even if we assume 80 percent of those sales were on the PS5, most of those console sales probably came as purely digital downloads, given long-running industry trends and the game’s focus on online play.
That means the total number of PS5 Concord discs in the wild could number in the single-digit thousands, easily making it one of the rarest physical first-party games Sony has ever released. And with Sony officially halting Concord sales as of September 3, that number isn’t going to go up anytime soon.
Sony encouraged players who purchased a physical copy of Concord to “please refer to the refund process of the retailer you purchased it from to obtain your refund.” Players who followed that advice missed out on the opportunity to make a pretty quick return on their investment through eBay reselling, though. A couple of lucky eBay sellers even pulled in nearly $500 for sealed copies of the game sold on September 5.
Enlarge/ One eBay seller seemed to have a lot of Concord discs ready to flip.
eBay
Even without those kinds of outliers, though, most eBay sellers have been able to get between $87 (20th percentile) and $120 (80th percentile) for new disc copies of the game since it was discontinued. That’s an easy 100 to 200 percent return on a $40 investment in well under a month. And the photos on some of those eBay listings suggest a few sellers were looking to cash in by reselling dozens of copies in individual lots.
The collector’s mania for Concord has seemingly extended to a limited edition-themed controller that Sony was selling for $85 as well. Completed eBay listings for that controller went for a median price of $252.50 on September 8, up from just $132 on September 3. Unlike the game they’re based on, though, those controllers have the benefit of still working with PS5 hardware well into the future.
the NES’ Stadium Events—a rare but forgettable game that collectors still value. But if speculators are driving the current mania—hoping to quickly resell it for more to the next person in line—the pricing bubble could burst just as quickly as it inflated.
All that speculation could also come crashing down if Sony decides to relaunch Concord sales in the future. In the game’s shutdown announcement, Sony said it was “explor[ing] options, including those that will better reach our players.” Already, there is a tongue-in-cheek petition effort to convince Sony to do just that, with nearly 2,000 signatories to its name. “We were all busy that week,” the petition’s title reads. “Please release Concord again.”
Enlarge/ At the US Army’s Camp Century on the Greenland ice sheet, an Army truck equipped with a railroad wheel conversion rides on 1,300 feet of track under the snow.
At the height of the Cold War in the 1950s, as the fear of nuclear Armageddon hung over American and Soviet citizens, idealistic scientists and engineers saw the vast Arctic region as a place of unlimited potential for creating a bold new future. Greenland emerged as the most tantalizing proving ground for their research.
Scientists and engineers working for and with the US military cooked up a rash of audacious cold-region projects—some innovative, many spit-balled, and most quickly abandoned. They were the stuff of science fiction: disposing of nuclear waste by letting it melt through the ice; moving people, supplies, and missiles below the ice using subways, some perhaps atomic powered; testing hovercraft to zip over impassable crevasses; making furniture from a frozen mix of ice and soil; and even building a nuclear-powered city under the ice sheet.
Today, many of their ideas, and the fever dreams that spawned them, survive only in the yellowed pages and covers of magazines like “REAL: the exciting magazine FOR MEN” and dozens of obscure Army technical reports.
Karl and Bernhard Philberth, both physicists and ordained priests, thought Greenland’s ice sheet the perfect repository for nuclear waste. Not all the waste—first they’d reprocess spent reactor fuel so that the long-lived nuclides would be recycled. The remaining, mostly short-lived radionuclides would be fused into glass or ceramic and surrounded by a few inches of lead for transport. They imagined several million radioactive medicine balls about 16 inches in diameter scattered over a small area of the ice sheet (about 300 square miles) far from the coast.
Because the balls were so radioactive, and thus warm, they would melt their way into the ice, each with the energy of a bit less than two dozen 100-watt incandescent light bulbs—a reasonable leap from Karl Philberth’s expertise designing heated ice drills that worked by melting their way through glaciers. The hope was that by the time the ice carrying the balls emerged at the coast thousands or tens of thousands of years later, the radioactivity would have decayed away. One of the physicists later reported that the idea was shown to him, by God, in a vision.
Enlarge/ US Army test of the Snowblast in Greenland in the 1950s, a machine designed to smooth snow runways.
Of course, the plan had plenty of unknowns and led to heated discussion at scientific meetings when it was presented—what, for example, would happen if the balls got crushed or caught up in flows of meltwater near the base of the ice sheet. And would the radioactive balls warm the ice so much that the ice flowed faster at the base, speeding the balls’ trip to the coast?
Logistical challenges, scientific doubt, and politics sunk the project. Producing millions of radioactive glass balls wasn’t yet practical, and the Danes, who at the time controlled Greenland, were never keen on allowing nuclear waste disposal on what they saw as their island. Some skeptics even worried about climate change melting the ice. Nonetheless, the Philberths made visits to the ice sheet and published peer-reviewed scientific papers about their waste dream.
Enlarge/ “Hmm, no signal here. I’m trying to figure it out, but nothing comes to mind …”
Getty Images
One issue in getting office buildings networked that you don’t typically face at home is concrete—and lots of it. Concrete walls are an average of 8 inches thick inside most commercial real estate.
Keeping a network running through them is not merely a matter of running cord. Not everybody has the knowledge or tools to punch through that kind of wall. Even if they do, you can’t just put a hole in something that might be load-bearing or part of a fire control system without imaging, permits, and contractors. The bandwidths that can work through these walls, like 3G, are being phased out, and the bandwidths that provide enough throughput for modern systems, like 5G, can’t make it through.
That’s what WaveCore, from Airvine Scientific, aims to fix, and I can’t help but find it fascinating after originally seeing it on The Register. The company had previously taken on lesser solid obstructions, like plaster and thick glass, with its WaveTunnel. Two WaveCore units on either side of a wall (or on different floors) can push through a stated 12 inches of concrete. In their in-house testing, Airvine reports pushing just under 4Gbps through 12 inches of garage concrete, and it can bend around corners, even 90 degrees. Your particular cement and aggregate combinations may vary, of course.
The WaveCore device, installed in a garage space during Airvine Scientific’s testing.
Concept drawing of how WaveCore punches through concrete walls (kind of).
Airvine Scientific
The spec sheet shows that a 6 GHz radio is the part that, through “beam steering,” blasts through concrete, with a 2.4 GHz radio for control functions. There’s PoE or barrel connector power, and RJ45 ethernet in the 1, 2.5, 5, and 10Gbps sizes.
6 GHz concrete fidelity (Con-Fi? Crete-Fi?) is just one of the slightly uncommon connections that may or may not be making their way into office spaces soon. LiFi, standardized as 802.11bb, is seeking to provide an intentionally limited scope to connectivity, whether for security restrictions or radio frequency safety. And Wi-Fi 7, certified earlier this year, aims to multiply data rates by bonding connections over the various bands already in place.
Telegram CEO Pavel Durov, in his first public comments since being arrested by French authorities, said that Telegram is not an “anarchic paradise” but promised that the platform will enhance its moderation of harmful content.
While Telegram has room for improvement, “the claims in some media that Telegram is some sort of anarchic paradise are absolutely untrue,” Durov wrote on Telegram yesterday. “We take down millions of harmful posts and channels every day. We publish daily transparency reports (like this or this). We have direct hotlines with NGOs to process urgent moderation requests faster.”
The links Durov provided go to Telegram channels that report the number of groups and channels banned for terrorist content and child-abuse content. Telegram has been criticized by groups such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) for allegedly not cooperating on removal of child sexual abuse material.
Durov said Telegram has heard criticism that its moderation efforts are “not enough,” adding that “Telegram’s abrupt increase in user count to 950M caused growing pains that made it easier for criminals to abuse our platform. That’s why I made it my personal goal to ensure we significantly improve things in this regard. We’ve already started that process internally, and I will share more details on our progress with you very soon.”
Durov is forbidden from leaving France after his indictment last week. Prosecutor Laure Beccuau alleged that law enforcement authorities received a near-total lack of response from Telegram to requests for cooperation in cases related to crimes against minors, drug crimes, and online hate.
FAQ signals new approach to “private” messages
Telegram already made a change to its FAQ in a section on how the company handles illegal content. The change suggests Telegram may do more moderation of private messages.
Q: There’s illegal content on Telegram. How do I take it down? All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants. We do not process any requests related to them.
But sticker sets, channels, and bots on Telegram are publicly available. If you find sticker sets or bots on Telegram that you think are illegal, please ping us at [email protected].
You can also use the ‘report’ buttons right inside our apps, see this post on our official @ISISwatch channel for details.
That section in the current version of the FAQ page was heavily rewritten. The statement that all chats are private and that Telegram does not “process any requests related to them” has been removed. It now says, “All Telegram apps have ‘Report’ buttons that let you flag illegal content for our moderators—in just a few taps,” and goes on to provide more specific instructions on how to report illegal content in messages.
Some of the key language removed from the section on illegal content remains in the FAQ section on how to report copyright infringement. The copyright section still contains the statement that all chats are private and that Telegram does not “process any requests related to them.” Despite that, testing the app today showed that clicking “Report” on a Telegram message provides an option to report copyright infringement. Users can also report messages for spam, violence, pornography, child abuse, illegal drugs, or personal details.
Telegram messages do not have end-to-end encryption by default, but the security feature can be enabled for one-on-one conversations. The app has social-network features letting users create groups of up to 200,000 people and channels for posting of public messages to audiences of any size. Telegram users cannot enable end-to-end encryption on group messages.
