Author name: Kris Guyer

the-2025-aston-martin-vantage:-achingly-beautiful-and-thrilling-to-drive

The 2025 Aston Martin Vantage: Achingly beautiful and thrilling to drive

The new infotainment human-machine interface was a little confusing at first; pairing my phone took about 10 minutes but worked out in the end, and wireless Apple CarPlay behaved itself throughout the week. When starting the car there was sometimes a lengthy wait for the infotainment to boot up, as if the hardware wasn’t quite powerful enough for the software stack on top.

Don’t get it wet?

Those are very minor complaints compared to what happened when it rained really hard, though. I had been planning to drive the Vantage to dinner, but upon getting in the car and turning it on, I realized it had other ideas. A number of yellow glyphs remained brightly illuminated on the digital main display—including traction control. A series of notifications informed me of what else wasn’t working, including the ability to switch the car into Wet mode.

Inclement weather. Jonathan Gitlin

With the numbers “$264,300” and “656 hp” at the forefront of my mind, the DC metro sufficed for that trip.

Later that evening, the air still damp but no longer raining, it was if it had all been a dream. A push of the start button and everything lit up and then went dim as normal. The infotainment even booted in an acceptable time. My guess is that there was an improperly sealed connector somewhere, and in torrential rain, water got where it shouldn’t. Regardless, the car let me down when it was supposed to take me somewhere.

As a former resident of the UK, it saddens me to no end that the stereotype about British cars and their electronics is as true today as ever, but the fact remains that every British car I drive, from Minis to McLarens, manages to have some kind of digital or electrical foible that should have been ironed out. Do better, Britain!

With a base price of $191,000, the Vantage is competing with a number of other sports cars, but its biggest rival has to be the Porsche 911 Turbo. It’s a much more dramatic car than the Porsche, in all the meanings of that word, both good and bad.

Aston Martin Vantage seen from behind

Credit: Jonathan Gitlin

Sure looks good though.

The 2025 Aston Martin Vantage: Achingly beautiful and thrilling to drive Read More »

raspberry-pi-cuts-product-returns-by-50%-by-changing-up-its-pin-soldering

Raspberry Pi cuts product returns by 50% by changing up its pin soldering

Getting the hang of through-hole soldering is tricky for those of us tinkering at home with our irons, spools, flux, and, sometimes, braids. It’s almost reassuring, then, to learn that through-hole soldering was also a pain for a firm that has made more than 60 million products with it.

Raspberry Pi boards have a combination of surface-mount devices (SMDs) and through-hole bits. SMDs allow for far more tiny chips, resistors, and other bits to be attached to boards by their tiny pins, flat contacts, solder balls, or other connections. For those things that are bigger, or subject to rough forces like clumsy human hands, through-hole soldering is still required, with leads poked through a connective hole and solder applied to connect and join them securely.

The Raspberry Pi board has a 40-pin GPIO header on it that needs through-hole soldering, along with bits like the Ethernet and USB ports. These require robust solder joints, which can’t be done the same way as with SMT (surface-mount technology) tools. “In the early days of Raspberry Pi, these parts were inserted by hand, and later by robotic placement,” writes Roger Thornton, director of applications for Raspberry Pi, in a blog post. The boards then had to go through a follow-up wave soldering step.

Now Pi boards have their tiny bits and bigger pieces soldered at the same time through an intrusive reflow soldering process undertaken with Raspberry Pi’s UK manufacturing partner, Sony. After adjusting component placement, the solder stencil, and the connectors, the board makers could then place and secure all their components in the same stage.

Raspberry Pi cuts product returns by 50% by changing up its pin soldering Read More »

rfk-jr.-rejects-cornerstone-of-health-science:-germ-theory

RFK Jr. rejects cornerstone of health science: Germ theory


In his 2021 book vilifying Anthony Fauci, RFK Jr. lays out support for an alternate theory.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks at a news conference on removing synthetic dyes from America’s food supply, at the Health and Human Services Headquarters in Washington, DC on April 22, 2025. Credit: Getty | Nathan Posner

With the rise of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., brain worms have gotten a bad rap.

A year ago, the long-time anti-vaccine advocate and current US health secretary famously told The New York Times that a parasitic worm “got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died.” The startling revelation is now frequently referenced whenever Kennedy says something outlandish, false, or offensive—which is often. For those who have followed his anti-vaccine advocacy, it’s frightfully clear that, worm-infested or not, Kennedy’s brain is marinated in wild conspiracy theories and dangerous misinformation.

While it’s certainly possible that worm remnants could impair brain function, it remains unknown if the worm is to blame for Kennedy’s cognitive oddities. For one thing, he was also diagnosed with mercury poisoning, which can cause brain damage, too. As prominent infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci said last June in a conversation with political analyst David Axelrod: “I don’t know what’s going on in [Kennedy’s] head, but it’s not good.”

The trouble is that now that Kennedy is the country’s top health official, his warped ideas are contributing to the rise of a dystopian reality. Federal health agencies are spiraling into chaos, and critical public health services for Americans have been brutally slashed, dismantled, or knee-capped—from infectious disease responses, the lead poisoning team, and Meals on Wheels to maternal health programs and anti-smoking initiatives, just to name a few. The health of the nation is at stake; the struggle to understand what goes on in Kennedy’s head is vital.

While we may never have definitive answers on his cognitive situation, one thing is plain: Kennedy’s thoughts and actions make a lot more sense when you realize he doesn’t believe in a foundational scientific principle: germ theory.

Dueling theories

Germ theory is, of course, the 19th-century proven idea that microscopic germs—pathogenic viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi—cause disease. It supplanted the leading explanation of disease at the time, the miasma theory, which suggests that diseases are caused by miasma, that is, noxious mists and vapors, or simply bad air arising from decaying matter, such as corpses, sewage, or rotting vegetables. While the miasma theory was abandoned, it is credited with spurring improvements in sanitation and hygiene—which, of course, improve health because they halt the spread of germs, the cause of diseases.

Germ theory also knocks back a lesser-known idea called the terrain theory, which we’ve covered before. This is a somewhat ill-defined theory that generally suggests diseases stem from imbalances in the internal “terrain” of the body, such as malnutrition or the presence of toxic substances. The theory is linked to ideas by French scientist Antoine Béchamp and French physiologist Claude Bernard.

Béchamp, considered a bitter crank and rival to famed French microbiologist Louis Pasteur, is perhaps best known for wrongly suggesting the basic unit of organisms is not the cell, but nonexistent microanatomical elements he called “microzyma.” While the idea was largely ignored by the scientific community, Béchamp suggested that disruptions to microzyma are a predisposition to disease, as is the state of the body’s “terrain.” French physiologist Claude Bernard, meanwhile, came up with an idea of balance or stability of the body’s internal environment (milieu intérieur), which was a precursor to the concept of homeostasis. Ideas from the two figures came together to create an ideology that has been enthusiastically adopted by modern-day germ theory denialists, including Kennedy.

It’s important to note here that our understanding of Kennedy’s disbelief in germ theory isn’t based on speculation or deduction; it’s based on Kennedy’s own words. He wrote an entire section on it in his 2021 book vilifying Fauci, titled The Real Anthony Fauci. The section is titled “Miasma vs. Germ Theory,” in the chapter “The White Man’s Burden.”

But, we did reach out to Health and Human Services to ask how Kennedy’s disbelief in germ theory influences his policy decisions. HHS did not respond.

Kennedy’s beliefs

In the chapter, Kennedy promotes the “miasma theory” but gets the definition completely wrong. Instead of actual miasma theory, he describes something more like terrain theory. He writes: “‘Miasma theory’ emphasizes preventing disease by fortifying the immune system through nutrition and by reducing exposures to environmental toxins and stresses.”

Kennedy contrasts his erroneous take on miasma theory with germ theory, which he derides as a tool of the pharmaceutical industry and pushy scientists to justify selling modern medicines. The abandonment of miasma theory, Kennedy bemoans, realigned health and medical institutions to “the pharmaceutical paradigm that emphasized targeting particular germs with specific drugs rather than fortifying the immune system through healthy living, clean water, and good nutrition.”

According to Kennedy, germ theory gained popularity, not because of the undisputed evidence supporting it, but by “mimicking the traditional explanation for disease—demon possession—giving it a leg up over miasma.”

To this day, Kennedy writes, a “$1 trillion pharmaceutical industry pushing patented pills, powders, pricks, potions, and poisons, and the powerful professions of virology and vaccinology led by ‘Little Napoleon’ himself, Anthony Fauci, fortify the century-old predominance of germ theory.”

In all, the chapter provides a clear explanation of why Kennedy relentlessly attacks evidence-based medicines; vilifies the pharmaceutical industry; suggests HIV doesn’t cause AIDS and antidepressants are behind mass shootings; believes that vaccines are harmful, not protective; claims 5G wireless networks cause cancer; suggests chemicals in water are changing children’s gender identities; and is quick to promote supplements to prevent and treat diseases, such as recently recommending vitamin A for measles and falsely claiming children who die from the viral infection are malnourished.

A religious conviction

For some experts, the chapter was like a light bulb going on. “I thought ‘it now all makes sense’… I mean, it all adds up,” Paul Offit, pediatrician and infectious disease expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told Ars Technica. It’s still astonishing, though, he added. “It’s so unbelievable, because you can’t imagine that someone who’s the head of Health and Human Services doesn’t believe that specific viruses or bacteria cause specific diseases, and that the prevention or treatment of them is lifesaving.”

Offit has a dark history with Kennedy. Around 20 years ago, Kennedy called Offit out of the blue to talk with him about vaccine safety. Offit knows a lot about it—he’s not only an expert on vaccines, he’s the co-inventor of one. The vaccine he co-developed, RotaTeq, protects against rotaviruses, which cause deadly diarrheal disease in young children and killed an estimated 500,000 people worldwide each year before vaccines were available. RotaTeq has been proven safe and effective and is credited with saving tens of thousands of lives around the world each year.

Kennedy and Offit spent about an hour talking, mostly about thimerosal, an ethylmercury-containing preservative that was once used in childhood vaccines but was mostly abandoned by 2001 as a precautionary measure. RotaTeq doesn’t and never did contain thimerosal—because it’s a live, attenuated viral vaccine, it doesn’t contain any preservatives. But Kennedy has frequently used thimerosal as a vaccine bogeyman over the years, claiming it causes harms (there is no evidence for this).

After their conversation, Kennedy published a story in Rolling Stone and Salon.com titled “Deadly Immunity,” which erroneously argued that thimerosal-containing vaccines cause autism. The article was riddled with falsehoods and misleading statements. It described Offit as “in the pocket” of the pharmaceutical industry and claimed RotaTeq was “laced” with thimerosal. Rolling Stone and Salon amended some of the article’s problems, but eventually Salon retracted it and Rolling Stone deleted it.

Looking back, Offit said he was sandbagged. “He’s a liar. He lied about who he was; he lied about what he was doing. He was just wanting to set me up,” Offit said.

Although that was the only time they had ever spoken, Kennedy has continued to disparage and malign Offit over the years. In his book dedicated to denigrating Fauci, Kennedy spends plenty of time spitting insults at Offit, calling him a “font of wild industry ballyhoo, prevarication, and outright fraud.” He also makes the wildly false claim that RotaTeq “almost certainly kills and injures more children in the United States than the rotavirus disease.”

Inconvincible

Understanding that Kennedy is a germ theory denialist and terrain theory embracer makes these attacks easier to understand—though no less abhorrent or dangerous.

“He holds these beliefs like a religious conviction,” Offit said. “There is no shaking him from that,” regardless of how much evidence there is to prove him wrong. “If you’re trying to talk him out of something that he holds with a religious conviction—that’s never going to happen. And so any time anybody disagrees with him, he goes, ‘Well, of course, they’re just in the pocket of industry; that’s why they say that.'”

There are some aspects of terrain theory that do have a basis in reality. Certainly, underlying medical conditions—which could be considered a disturbed bodily “terrain”—can make people more vulnerable to disease. And, with recent advances in understanding the microbiome, it has become clear that imbalances in the microbial communities in our gastrointestinal tracts can also predispose people to infections.

But, on the whole, the evidence against terrain theory is obvious and all around us. Terrain theorists consider disease a symptom of an unhealthy internal state, suggesting that anyone who gets sick is unhealthy and that all disease-causing germs are purely opportunistic. This is nonsense: Plenty of people fall ill while being otherwise healthy. And many germs are dedicated pathogens, with evolved, specialized virulence strategies such as toxins, and advanced defense mechanisms such as antibacterial resistance. They are not opportunists.

(There are some terrain theory devotees who do not believe in the existence of microbes at all—but Kennedy seems to accept that bacteria and viruses are real.)

Terrain theory applied

Terrain theory’s clash with reality has become painfully apparent amid Kennedy’s handling—or more accurately, mishandling—of the current measles situation in the US.

Most health experts would consider the current measles situation in the US akin to a five-alarm fire. An outbreak that began at the end of January in West Texas is now the largest and deadliest the country has seen in a quarter-century. Three people have died, including two unvaccinated young children who were otherwise healthy. The outbreak has spread to at least three other states, which also have undervaccinated communities where the virus can thrive. There’s no sign of the outbreak slowing, and the nation’s overall case count is on track to be the highest since the mid-1990s, before measles was declared eliminated in 2000. Modeling indicates the country will lose its elimination status and that measles will once again become endemic in the US.

Given the situation, one might expect a vigorous federal response—one dominated by strong and clear promotion of the highly effective, safe measles vaccine. But of course, that’s not the case.

“When those first two little girls died of measles in West Texas, he said immediately—RFK Jr.—that they were malnourished. It was the doctors that stood up and said ‘No, they had no risk factors. They were perfectly well-nourished,'” Offit points out.

Kennedy has also heavily pushed the use of vitamin A, a fat-soluble vitamin that accumulates in the body and can become toxic with large or prolonged doses. It does not prevent measles and is mainly used as supportive care for measles in low-income countries where vitamin A deficiency is common. Nevertheless, vaccine-hesitant communities in Texas have embraced it, leading to reports from doctors that they have had to treat children for vitamin A toxicity.

Poisons

Despite the raging outbreak, Kennedy spent part of last week drumming up fanfare for a rickety plan to rid American foods of artificial food dyes, which are accused of making sugary processed foods more appealing to kids, in addition to posing their own health risks. It’s part of his larger effort to improve Americans’ nutrition, a tenet of terrain theory. Though Kennedy has organized zero news briefings on the measles outbreak, he appeared at a jubilant press conference on removing the dyes.

The conference was complete with remarks from people who seem to share similar beliefs as Kennedy, including famed pseudoscience-peddler Vani Hari, aka “Food Babe,” and alternative-medicine guru and fad diet promoter Mark Hyman. Wellness mogul and special government employee Cally Meads also took to the podium to give a fury-filled speech in which he claimed that 90 percent of FDA’s spending is because we are “poisoning our children,” echoing a claim Kennedy has also made.

Kennedy, for his part, declared that “sugar is poison,” though he acknowledged that the FDA can’t ban it. While the conference was intended to celebrate the removal of artificial food dyes, he also acknowledged that there is no ban, nor forthcoming regulations, or even an agreement with food companies to remove the dyes. Kennedy instead said he simply had “an understanding” with food companies. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary explained the plan by saying: “I believe in love, and let’s start in a friendly way and see if we can do this without any statutory or regulatory changes.” Bloomberg reported the next day that food industry lobbyists said there is no agreement to remove the dyes.

However feeble the move, a focus on banning colorful cereal during a grave infectious disease outbreak makes a lot of sense if you know that Kennedy is a germ theory denialist.

But then again, there’s also the brain worm.

Photo of Beth Mole

Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes.

RFK Jr. rejects cornerstone of health science: Germ theory Read More »

the-end-of-an-ai-that-shocked-the-world:-openai-retires-gpt-4

The end of an AI that shocked the world: OpenAI retires GPT-4

One of the most influential—and by some counts, notorious—AI models yet released will soon fade into history. OpenAI announced on April 10 that GPT-4 will be “fully replaced” by GPT-4o in ChatGPT at the end of April, bringing a public-facing end to the model that accelerated a global AI race when it launched in March 2023.

“Effective April 30, 2025, GPT-4 will be retired from ChatGPT and fully replaced by GPT-4o,” OpenAI wrote in its April 10 changelog for ChatGPT. While ChatGPT users will no longer be able to chat with the older AI model, the company added that “GPT-4 will still be available in the API,” providing some reassurance to developers who might still be using the older model for various tasks.

The retirement marks the end of an era that began on March 14, 2023, when GPT-4 demonstrated capabilities that shocked some observers: reportedly scoring at the 90th percentile on the Uniform Bar Exam, acing AP tests, and solving complex reasoning problems that stumped previous models. Its release created a wave of immense hype—and existential panic—about AI’s ability to imitate human communication and composition.

A screenshot of GPT-4's introduction to ChatGPT Plus customers from March 14, 2023.

A screenshot of GPT-4’s introduction to ChatGPT Plus customers from March 14, 2023. Credit: Benj Edwards / Ars Technica

While ChatGPT launched in November 2022 with GPT-3.5 under the hood, GPT-4 took AI language models to a new level of sophistication, and it was a massive undertaking to create. It combined data scraped from the vast corpus of human knowledge into a set of neural networks rumored to weigh in at a combined total of 1.76 trillion parameters, which are the numerical values that hold the data within the model.

Along the way, the model reportedly cost more than $100 million to train, according to comments by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and required vast computational resources to develop. Training the model may have involved over 20,000 high-end GPUs working in concert—an expense few organizations besides OpenAI and its primary backer, Microsoft, could afford.

Industry reactions, safety concerns, and regulatory responses

Curiously, GPT-4’s impact began before OpenAI’s official announcement. In February 2023, Microsoft integrated its own early version of the GPT-4 model into its Bing search engine, creating a chatbot that sparked controversy when it tried to convince Kevin Roose of The New York Times to leave his wife and when it “lost its mind” in response to an Ars Technica article.

The end of an AI that shocked the world: OpenAI retires GPT-4 Read More »

intel-says-it’s-rolling-out-laptop-gpu-drivers-with-10%-to-25%-better-performance

Intel says it’s rolling out laptop GPU drivers with 10% to 25% better performance

Intel’s oddball Core Ultra 200V laptop chips—codenamed Lunar Lake—will apparently be a one-off experiment, not to be replicated in future Intel laptop chips. They’re Intel’s only processors with memory integrated onto the CPU package; the only ones with a neural processing unit that meets Microsoft’s Copilot+ performance requirements; and the only ones with Intel’s best-performing integrated GPUs, the Intel Arc 130V and 140V.

Today, Intel announced some updates to its graphics driver that specifically benefit those integrated GPUs, welcome news for anyone who bought one and is trying to get by with it as an entry-level gaming system. Intel says that version 32.0.101.6734 of its graphics driver can speed up average frame rates in some games by around 10 percent, and can speed up “1 percent low FPS” (that is, for any given frames per second measurement, whatever your frame rate is the slowest 1 percent of the time) by as much as 25 percent. This should, in theory, make games run better in general and ease some of the stuttering you notice when your game’s performance dips down to that 1 percent level.

Intel’s performance numbers for its new GPU drivers on a laptop running at the “common default power level” of 17 W. Credit: Intel

Intel’s performance comparisons were made using an MSI Claw 7 AI+ using an Arc 140V GPU, and they compare the performance of driver version 32.0.101.6732 (released April 2) to version 32.0.101.6734 (released April 8). The two additional driver packages Intel has released since then will contain the improvements, too.

Intel says it’s rolling out laptop GPU drivers with 10% to 25% better performance Read More »

google-search’s-made-up-ai-explanations-for-sayings-no-one-ever-said,-explained

Google search’s made-up AI explanations for sayings no one ever said, explained


But what does “meaning” mean?

A partial defense of (some of) AI Overview’s fanciful idiomatic explanations.

Mind…. blown Credit: Getty Images

Last week, the phrase “You can’t lick a badger twice” unexpectedly went viral on social media. The nonsense sentence—which was likely never uttered by a human before last week—had become the poster child for the newly discovered way Google search’s AI Overviews makes up plausible-sounding explanations for made-up idioms (though the concept seems to predate that specific viral post by at least a few days).

Google users quickly discovered that typing any concocted phrase into the search bar with the word “meaning” attached at the end would generate an AI Overview with a purported explanation of its idiomatic meaning. Even the most nonsensical attempts at new proverbs resulted in a confident explanation from Google’s AI Overview, created right there on the spot.

In the wake of the “lick a badger” post, countless users flocked to social media to share Google’s AI interpretations of their own made-up idioms, often expressing horror or disbelief at Google’s take on their nonsense. Those posts often highlight the overconfident way the AI Overview frames its idiomatic explanations and occasional problems with the model confabulating sources that don’t exist.

But after reading through dozens of publicly shared examples of Google’s explanations for fake idioms—and generating a few of my own—I’ve come away somewhat impressed with the model’s almost poetic attempts to glean meaning from gibberish and make sense out of the senseless.

Talk to me like a child

Let’s try a thought experiment: Say a child asked you what the phrase “you can’t lick a badger twice” means. You’d probably say you’ve never heard that particular phrase or ask the child where they heard it. You might say that you’re not familiar with that phrase or that it doesn’t really make sense without more context.

Someone on Threads noticed you can type any random sentence into Google, then add “meaning” afterwards, and you’ll get an AI explanation of a famous idiom or phrase you just made up. Here is mine

[image or embed]

— Greg Jenner (@gregjenner.bsky.social) April 23, 2025 at 6: 15 AM

But let’s say the child persisted and really wanted an explanation for what the phrase means. So you’d do your best to generate a plausible-sounding answer. You’d search your memory for possible connotations for the word “lick” and/or symbolic meaning for the noble badger to force the idiom into some semblance of sense. You’d reach back to other similar idioms you know to try to fit this new, unfamiliar phrase into a wider pattern (anyone who has played the excellent board game Wise and Otherwise might be familiar with the process).

Google’s AI Overview doesn’t go through exactly that kind of human thought process when faced with a similar question about the same saying. But in its own way, the large language model also does its best to generate a plausible-sounding response to an unreasonable request.

As seen in Greg Jenner’s viral Bluesky post, Google’s AI Overview suggests that “you can’t lick a badger twice” means that “you can’t trick or deceive someone a second time after they’ve been tricked once. It’s a warning that if someone has already been deceived, they are unlikely to fall for the same trick again.” As an attempt to derive meaning from a meaningless phrase —which was, after all, the user’s request—that’s not half bad. Faced with a phrase that has no inherent meaning, the AI Overview still makes a good-faith effort to answer the user’s request and draw some plausible explanation out of troll-worthy nonsense.

Contrary to the computer science truism of “garbage in, garbage out, Google here is taking in some garbage and spitting out… well, a workable interpretation of garbage, at the very least.

Google’s AI Overview even goes into more detail explaining its thought process. “Lick” here means to “trick or deceive” someone, it says, a bit of a stretch from the dictionary definition of lick as “comprehensively defeat,” but probably close enough for an idiom (and a plausible iteration of the idiom, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me…”). Google also explains that the badger part of the phrase “likely originates from the historical sport of badger baiting,” a practice I was sure Google was hallucinating until I looked it up and found it was real.

It took me 15 seconds to make up this saying but now I think it kind of works!

Credit: Kyle Orland / Google

It took me 15 seconds to make up this saying but now I think it kind of works! Credit: Kyle Orland / Google

I found plenty of other examples where Google’s AI derived more meaning than the original requester’s gibberish probably deserved. Google interprets the phrase “dream makes the steam” as an almost poetic statement about imagination powering innovation. The line “you can’t humble a tortoise” similarly gets interpreted as a statement about the difficulty of intimidating “someone with a strong, steady, unwavering character (like a tortoise).”

Google also often finds connections that the original nonsense idiom creators likely didn’t intend. For instance, Google could link the made-up idiom “A deft cat always rings the bell” to the real concept of belling the cat. And in attempting to interpret the nonsense phrase “two cats are better than grapes,” the AI Overview correctly notes that grapes can be potentially toxic to cats.

Brimming with confidence

Even when Google’s AI Overview works hard to make the best of a bad prompt, I can still understand why the responses rub a lot of users the wrong way. A lot of the problem, I think, has to do with the LLM’s unearned confident tone, which pretends that any made-up idiom is a common saying with a well-established and authoritative meaning.

Rather than framing its responses as a “best guess” at an unknown phrase (as a human might when responding to a child in the example above), Google generally provides the user with a single, authoritative explanation for what an idiom means, full stop. Even with the occasional use of couching words such as “likely,” “probably,” or “suggests,” the AI Overview comes off as unnervingly sure of the accepted meaning for some nonsense the user made up five seconds ago.

If Google’s AI Overviews always showed this much self-doubt, we’d be getting somewhere.

Credit: Google / Kyle Orland

If Google’s AI Overviews always showed this much self-doubt, we’d be getting somewhere. Credit: Google / Kyle Orland

I was able to find one exception to this in my testing. When I asked Google the meaning of “when you see a tortoise, spin in a circle,” Google reasonably told me that the phrase “doesn’t have a widely recognized, specific meaning” and that it’s “not a standard expression with a clear, universal meaning.” With that context, Google then offered suggestions for what the phrase “seems to” mean and mentioned Japanese nursery rhymes that it “may be connected” to, before concluding that it is “open to interpretation.”

Those qualifiers go a long way toward properly contextualizing the guesswork Google’s AI Overview is actually conducting here. And if Google provided that kind of context in every AI summary explanation of a made-up phrase, I don’t think users would be quite as upset.

Unfortunately, LLMs like this have trouble knowing what they don’t know, meaning moments of self-doubt like the turtle interpretation here tend to be few and far between. It’s not like Google’s language model has some master list of idioms in its neural network that it can consult to determine what is and isn’t a “standard expression” that it can be confident about. Usually, it’s just projecting a self-assured tone while struggling to force the user’s gibberish into meaning.

Zeus disguised himself as what?

The worst examples of Google’s idiomatic AI guesswork are ones where the LLM slips past plausible interpretations and into sheer hallucination of completely fictional sources. The phrase “a dog never dances before sunset,” for instance, did not appear in the film Before Sunrise, no matter what Google says. Similarly, “There are always two suns on Tuesday” does not appear in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy film despite Google’s insistence.

Literally in the one I tried.

[image or embed]

— Sarah Vaughan (@madamefelicie.bsky.social) April 23, 2025 at 7: 52 AM

There’s also no indication that the made-up phrase “Welsh men jump the rabbit” originated on the Welsh island of Portland, or that “peanut butter platform heels” refers to a scientific experiment creating diamonds from the sticky snack. We’re also unaware of any Greek myth where Zeus disguises himself as a golden shower to explain the phrase “beware what glitters in a golden shower.” (Update: As many commenters have pointed out, this last one is actually a reference to the greek myth of Danaë and the shower of gold, showing Google’s AI knows more about this potential symbolism than I do)

The fact that Google’s AI Overview presents these completely made-up sources with the same self-assurance as its abstract interpretations is a big part of the problem here. It’s also a persistent problem for LLMs that tend to make up news sources and cite fake legal cases regularly. As usual, one should be very wary when trusting anything an LLM presents as an objective fact.

When it comes to the more artistic and symbolic interpretation of nonsense phrases, though, I think Google’s AI Overviews have gotten something of a bad rap recently. Presented with the difficult task of explaining nigh-unexplainable phrases, the model does its best, generating interpretations that can border on the profound at times. While the authoritative tone of those responses can sometimes be annoying or actively misleading, it’s at least amusing to see the model’s best attempts to deal with our meaningless phrases.

Photo of Kyle Orland

Kyle Orland has been the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica since 2012, writing primarily about the business, tech, and culture behind video games. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He once wrote a whole book about Minesweeper.

Google search’s made-up AI explanations for sayings no one ever said, explained Read More »

fcc-urges-courts-to-ignore-5th-circuit-ruling-that-agency-can’t-issue-fines

FCC urges courts to ignore 5th Circuit ruling that agency can’t issue fines


FCC fights the 5th Circuit

One court said FCC violated right to trial, but other courts haven’t ruled yet.

Credit: Getty Images | AaronP/Bauer-Griffin

The Federal Communications Commission is urging two federal appeals courts to disregard a 5th Circuit ruling that guts the agency’s ability to issue financial penalties.

On April 17, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit granted an AT&T request to wipe out a $57 million fine for selling customer location data without consent. The conservative 5th Circuit court said the FCC “acted as prosecutor, jury, and judge,” violating AT&T’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

The ruling wasn’t a major surprise. The 5th Circuit said it was guided by the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that “when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.” After the Supreme Court’s Jarkesy ruling, FCC Republican Nathan Simington vowed to vote against any fine imposed by the commission until its legal powers are clear.

Before becoming the FCC chairman, Brendan Carr voted against the fine issued to AT&T and fines for similar privacy violations simultaneously levied against T-Mobile and Verizon. Carr repeatedly opposed Biden-era efforts to regulate telecom providers and is aiming to eliminate many of the FCC’s rules now that he is in charge. But Carr has also been aggressive in regulation of media, and he doesn’t want the FCC’s ability to issue penalties completely wiped out. The Carr FCC stated its position in new briefs submitted in separate lawsuits filed by T-Mobile and Verizon.

Verizon sued the FCC in the 2nd Circuit in an attempt to overturn its privacy fine, while T-Mobile and subsidiary Sprint sued in the District of Columbia Circuit. Verizon and T-Mobile reacted to the 5th Circuit ruling by urging the other courts to rule the same way, prompting responses from the FCC last week.

“The Fifth Circuit concluded that the FCC’s enforcement proceeding leading to a monetary forfeiture order violated AT&T’s Seventh Amendment rights. This Court shouldn’t follow that decision,” the FCC told the 2nd Circuit last week.

FCC loss has wide implications

Carr’s FCC argued that the agency’s “monetary forfeiture order proceedings pose no Seventh Amendment problem because Section 504(a) [of the Communications Act] affords carriers the opportunity to demand a de novo jury trial in federal district court before the government can recover any penalty. Verizon elected to forgo that opportunity and instead sought direct appellate review.” The FCC put forth the same argument in the T-Mobile case with a filing in the District of Columbia Circuit.

There would be a circuit split if either the 2nd Circuit or DC Circuit appeals court rules in the FCC’s favor, increasing the chances that the Supreme Court will take up the case and rule directly on the FCC’s enforcement authority.

Beyond punishing telecom carriers for privacy violations, an FCC loss could prevent the commission from fining robocallers. When Carr’s FCC proposed a $4.5 million fine for an allegedly illegal robocall scheme in February, Simington repeated his objection to the FCC issuing fines of any type.

“While the conduct described in this NAL [Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture] is particularly egregious and certainly worth enforcement action, I continue to believe that the Supreme Court’s decision in Jarkesy prevents me from voting, at this time, to approve this or any item purporting to impose a fine,” Simington said at the time.

5th Circuit reasoning

The 5th Circuit ruling against the FCC was issued by a panel of three judges appointed by Republican presidents. “Our analysis is governed by SEC v. Jarkesy. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Seventh Amendment prohibited the SEC from requiring respondents to defend themselves before an agency, rather than a jury, against civil penalties for alleged securities fraud,” the appeals court said.

The penalty issued by the FCC is not “remedial,” the court said. The fine was punitive and not simply “meant to compensate victims whose location data was compromised. So, like the penalties in Jarkesy, the civil penalties here are ‘a type of remedy at common law that could only be enforced in courts of law.'”

The FCC argued that its enforcement proceeding fell under the “public rights” exception, unlike the private rights that must be adjudicated in court. “The Commission argues its enforcement action falls within the public rights exception because it involves common carriers,” the 5th Circuit panel said. “Given that common carriers like AT&T are ‘affected with a public interest,’ the Commission contends Congress could assign adjudication of civil penalties against them to agencies instead of courts.”

The panel disagreed, saying that “the Commission’s proposal would blow a hole in what is meant to be a narrow exception to Article III” and “empower Congress to bypass Article III adjudication in countless matters.” The panel acknowledged that “federal agencies like the Commission have long had regulatory authority over common carriers, such as when setting rates or granting licenses,” but said this doesn’t mean that “any regulatory action concerning common carriers implicates the public rights exception.”

FCC hopes lie with other courts

The 5th Circuit panel also rejected the FCC’s contention that carriers are afforded the right to a trial after the FCC enforcement proceeding. The 5th Circuit said this applies only when a carrier fails to pay a penalty and is sued by the Department of Justice. “To begin with, by the time DOJ sues (if it does), the Commission would have already adjudged a carrier guilty of violating section 222 and levied fines… in this process, which was completely in-house, the Commission acted as prosecutor, jury, and judge,” the panel said.

An entity penalized by the FCC can also ask a court of appeals to overturn the fine, as AT&T did here. But in choosing this path, the company “forgoes a jury trial,” the 5th Circuit panel said.

While Verizon and T-Mobile hope the other appeals courts will rule the same way, the FCC maintains that the 5th Circuit got it wrong. In its filing to the 2nd Circuit, the FCC challenged the 5th Circuit’s view on whether a trial after the FCC issues a fine satisfies the right to a jury trial. Pointing to an 1899 Supreme Court ruling, the FCC said that “an initial tribunal can lawfully enter judgment without a full jury trial if the law permits a subsequent ‘trial [anew] by jury, at the request of either party, in the appellate court.'”

The FCC further said the 5th Circuit relied on a precedent that doesn’t exist in either the 2nd Circuit or District of Columbia Circuit.

“The Fifth Circuit also relied on circuit precedent holding that ‘[i]n a section 504 trial, a defendant cannot challenge a forfeiture order’s legal conclusions,'” the FCC also said. “This Court, however, has never adopted such a limitation, and the Fifth Circuit’s premise is in doubt. Regardless, the proper approach would be to challenge any such limitation in the trial court and seek to strike the limitation—not to vacate the forfeiture order.”

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

FCC urges courts to ignore 5th Circuit ruling that agency can’t issue fines Read More »

trump-admin-lashes-out-as-amazon-considers-displaying-tariff-costs-on-its-sites

Trump admin lashes out as Amazon considers displaying tariff costs on its sites

This morning, Punchbowl News reported that Amazon was considering listing the cost of tariffs as a separate line item on its site, citing “a person familiar with the plan.” Amazon later acknowledged that there had been internal discussions to that effect but only for its import-focused Amazon Haul sub-store and that the company didn’t plan to actually list tariff prices for any items.

“This was never approved and is not going to happen,” reads Amazon’s two-sentence statement.

Amazon issued such a specific and forceful on-the-record denial in part because it had drawn the ire of the Trump administration. In a press briefing early this morning, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked a question about the report, which the administration responded to as though Amazon had made a formal announcement about the policy.

“This is a hostile and political act by Amazon,” Leavitt said, before blaming the Biden administration for high inflation and claiming that Amazon had “partnered with a Chinese propaganda arm.”

The Washington Post also reported that Trump had called Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to complain about the report.

Amazon’s internal discussions reflect the current confusion around the severe and rapidly changing import tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, particularly tariffs of 145 percent on goods imported from China. Other retailers, particularly sites like Temu, AliExpress, and Shein, have all taken their own steps, either adding labels to listings when import taxes have already been included in the price, or adding import taxes as a separate line item in users’ carts at checkout as Amazon had discussed doing.

A Temu cart showing the price of an item’s import tax as a separate line item. Amazon reportedly considered and discarded a similar idea for its Amazon Haul sub-site.

Small purchases are seeing big hits

Most of these items are currently excluded from tariffs because of something called the de minimis exemption, which applies to any shipment valued under $800. The administration currently plans to end the de minimis exemption for packages coming from China or Hong Kong beginning on May 2, though the administration’s plans could change (as they frequently have before).

Trump admin lashes out as Amazon considers displaying tariff costs on its sites Read More »

ai-generated-code-could-be-a-disaster-for-the-software-supply-chain-here’s-why.

AI-generated code could be a disaster for the software supply chain. Here’s why.

AI-generated computer code is rife with references to non-existent third-party libraries, creating a golden opportunity for supply-chain attacks that poison legitimate programs with malicious packages that can steal data, plant backdoors, and carry out other nefarious actions, newly published research shows.

The study, which used 16 of the most widely used large language models to generate 576,000 code samples, found that 440,000 of the package dependencies they contained were “hallucinated,” meaning they were non-existent. Open source models hallucinated the most, with 21 percent of the dependencies linking to non-existent libraries. A dependency is an essential code component that a separate piece of code requires to work properly. Dependencies save developers the hassle of rewriting code and are an essential part of the modern software supply chain.

Package hallucination flashbacks

These non-existent dependencies represent a threat to the software supply chain by exacerbating so-called dependency confusion attacks. These attacks work by causing a software package to access the wrong component dependency, for instance by publishing a malicious package and giving it the same name as the legitimate one but with a later version stamp. Software that depends on the package will, in some cases, choose the malicious version rather than the legitimate one because the former appears to be more recent.

Also known as package confusion, this form of attack was first demonstrated in 2021 in a proof-of-concept exploit that executed counterfeit code on networks belonging to some of the biggest companies on the planet, Apple, Microsoft, and Tesla included. It’s one type of technique used in software supply-chain attacks, which aim to poison software at its very source, in an attempt to infect all users downstream.

“Once the attacker publishes a package under the hallucinated name, containing some malicious code, they rely on the model suggesting that name to unsuspecting users,” Joseph Spracklen, a University of Texas at San Antonio Ph.D. student and lead researcher, told Ars via email. “If a user trusts the LLM’s output and installs the package without carefully verifying it, the attacker’s payload, hidden in the malicious package, would be executed on the user’s system.”

AI-generated code could be a disaster for the software supply chain. Here’s why. Read More »

ios-and-android-juice-jacking-defenses-have-been-trivial-to-bypass-for-years

iOS and Android juice jacking defenses have been trivial to bypass for years


SON OF JUICE JACKING ARISES

New ChoiceJacking attack allows malicious chargers to steal data from phones.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

About a decade ago, Apple and Google started updating iOS and Android, respectively, to make them less susceptible to “juice jacking,” a form of attack that could surreptitiously steal data or execute malicious code when users plug their phones into special-purpose charging hardware. Now, researchers are revealing that, for years, the mitigations have suffered from a fundamental defect that has made them trivial to bypass.

“Juice jacking” was coined in a 2011 article on KrebsOnSecurity detailing an attack demonstrated at a Defcon security conference at the time. Juice jacking works by equipping a charger with hidden hardware that can access files and other internal resources of phones, in much the same way that a computer can when a user connects it to the phone.

An attacker would then make the chargers available in airports, shopping malls, or other public venues for use by people looking to recharge depleted batteries. While the charger was ostensibly only providing electricity to the phone, it was also secretly downloading files or running malicious code on the device behind the scenes. Starting in 2012, both Apple and Google tried to mitigate the threat by requiring users to click a confirmation button on their phones before a computer—or a computer masquerading as a charger—could access files or execute code on the phone.

The logic behind the mitigation was rooted in a key portion of the USB protocol that, in the parlance of the specification, dictates that a USB port can facilitate a “host” device or a “peripheral” device at any given time, but not both. In the context of phones, this meant they could either:

  • Host the device on the other end of the USB cord—for instance, if a user connects a thumb drive or keyboard. In this scenario, the phone is the host that has access to the internals of the drive, keyboard or other peripheral device.
  • Act as a peripheral device that’s hosted by a computer or malicious charger, which under the USB paradigm is a host that has system access to the phone.

An alarming state of USB security

Researchers at the Graz University of Technology in Austria recently made a discovery that completely undermines the premise behind the countermeasure: They’re rooted under the assumption that USB hosts can’t inject input that autonomously approves the confirmation prompt. Given the restriction against a USB device simultaneously acting as a host and peripheral, the premise seemed sound. The trust models built into both iOS and Android, however, present loopholes that can be exploited to defeat the protections. The researchers went on to devise ChoiceJacking, the first known attack to defeat juice-jacking mitigations.

“We observe that these mitigations assume that an attacker cannot inject input events while establishing a data connection,” the researchers wrote in a paper scheduled to be presented in August at the Usenix Security Symposium in Seattle. “However, we show that this assumption does not hold in practice.”

The researchers continued:

We present a platform-agnostic attack principle and three concrete attack techniques for Android and iOS that allow a malicious charger to autonomously spoof user input to enable its own data connection. Our evaluation using a custom cheap malicious charger design reveals an alarming state of USB security on mobile platforms. Despite vendor customizations in USB stacks, ChoiceJacking attacks gain access to sensitive user files (pictures, documents, app data) on all tested devices from 8 vendors including the top 6 by market share.

In response to the findings, Apple updated the confirmation dialogs in last month’s release of iOS/iPadOS 18.4 to require a user authentication in the form of a PIN or password. While the researchers were investigating their ChoiceJacking attacks last year, Google independently updated its confirmation with the release of version 15 in November. The researchers say the new mitigation works as expected on fully updated Apple and Android devices. Given the fragmentation of the Android ecosystem, however, many Android devices remain vulnerable.

All three of the ChoiceJacking techniques defeat Android juice-jacking mitigations. One of them also works against those defenses in Apple devices. In all three, the charger acts as a USB host to trigger the confirmation prompt on the targeted phone.

The attacks then exploit various weaknesses in the OS that allow the charger to autonomously inject “input events” that can enter text or click buttons presented in screen prompts as if the user had done so directly into the phone. In all three, the charger eventually gains two conceptual channels to the phone: (1) an input one allowing it to spoof user consent and (2) a file access connection that can steal files.

An illustration of ChoiceJacking attacks. (1) The victim device is attached to the malicious charger. (2) The charger establishes an extra input channel. (3) The charger initiates a data connection. User consent is needed to confirm it. (4) The charger uses the input channel to spoof user consent. Credit: Draschbacher et al.

It’s a keyboard, it’s a host, it’s both

In the ChoiceJacking variant that defeats both Apple- and Google-devised juice-jacking mitigations, the charger starts as a USB keyboard or a similar peripheral device. It sends keyboard input over USB that invokes simple key presses, such as arrow up or down, but also more complex key combinations that trigger settings or open a status bar.

The input establishes a Bluetooth connection to a second miniaturized keyboard hidden inside the malicious charger. The charger then uses the USB Power Delivery, a standard available in USB-C connectors that allows devices to either provide or receive power to or from the other device, depending on messages they exchange, a process known as the USB PD Data Role Swap.

A simulated ChoiceJacking charger. Bidirectional USB lines allow for data role swaps. Credit: Draschbacher et al.

With the charger now acting as a host, it triggers the file access consent dialog. At the same time, the charger still maintains its role as a peripheral device that acts as a Bluetooth keyboard that approves the file access consent dialog.

The full steps for the attack, provided in the Usenix paper, are:

1. The victim device is connected to the malicious charger. The device has its screen unlocked.

2. At a suitable moment, the charger performs a USB PD Data Role (DR) Swap. The mobile device now acts as a USB host, the charger acts as a USB input device.

3. The charger generates input to ensure that BT is enabled.

4. The charger navigates to the BT pairing screen in the system settings to make the mobile device discoverable.

5. The charger starts advertising as a BT input device.

6. By constantly scanning for newly discoverable Bluetooth devices, the charger identifies the BT device address of the mobile device and initiates pairing.

7. Through the USB input device, the charger accepts the Yes/No pairing dialog appearing on the mobile device. The Bluetooth input device is now connected.

8. The charger sends another USB PD DR Swap. It is now the USB host, and the mobile device is the USB device.

9. As the USB host, the charger initiates a data connection.

10. Through the Bluetooth input device, the charger confirms its own data connection on the mobile device.

This technique works against all but one of the 11 phone models tested, with the holdout being an Android device running the Vivo Funtouch OS, which doesn’t fully support the USB PD protocol. The attacks against the 10 remaining models take about 25 to 30 seconds to establish the Bluetooth pairing, depending on the phone model being hacked. The attacker then has read and write access to files stored on the device for as long as it remains connected to the charger.

Two more ways to hack Android

The two other members of the ChoiceJacking family work only against the juice-jacking mitigations that Google put into Android. In the first, the malicious charger invokes the Android Open Access Protocol, which allows a USB host to act as an input device when the host sends a special message that puts it into accessory mode.

The protocol specifically dictates that while in accessory mode, a USB host can no longer respond to other USB interfaces, such as the Picture Transfer Protocol for transferring photos and videos and the Media Transfer Protocol that enables transferring files in other formats. Despite the restriction, all of the Android devices tested violated the specification by accepting AOAP messages sent, even when the USB host hadn’t been put into accessory mode. The charger can exploit this implementation flaw to autonomously complete the required user confirmations.

The remaining ChoiceJacking technique exploits a race condition in the Android input dispatcher by flooding it with a specially crafted sequence of input events. The dispatcher puts each event into a queue and processes them one by one. The dispatcher waits for all previous input events to be fully processed before acting on a new one.

“This means that a single process that performs overly complex logic in its key event handler will delay event dispatching for all other processes or global event handlers,” the researchers explained.

They went on to note, “A malicious charger can exploit this by starting as a USB peripheral and flooding the event queue with a specially crafted sequence of key events. It then switches its USB interface to act as a USB host while the victim device is still busy dispatching the attacker’s events. These events therefore accept user prompts for confirming the data connection to the malicious charger.”

The Usenix paper provides the following matrix showing which devices tested in the research are vulnerable to which attacks.

The susceptibility of tested devices to all three ChoiceJacking attack techniques. Credit: Draschbacher et al.

User convenience over security

In an email, the researchers said that the fixes provided by Apple and Google successfully blunt ChoiceJacking attacks in iPhones, iPads, and Pixel devices. Many Android devices made by other manufacturers, however, remain vulnerable because they have yet to update their devices to Android 15. Other Android devices—most notably those from Samsung running the One UI 7 software interface—don’t implement the new authentication requirement, even when running on Android 15. The omission leaves these models vulnerable to ChoiceJacking. In an email, principal paper author Florian Draschbacher wrote:

The attack can therefore still be exploited on many devices, even though we informed the manufacturers about a year ago and they acknowledged the problem. The reason for this slow reaction is probably that ChoiceJacking does not simply exploit a programming error. Rather, the problem is more deeply rooted in the USB trust model of mobile operating systems. Changes here have a negative impact on the user experience, which is why manufacturers are hesitant. [It] means for enabling USB-based file access, the user doesn’t need to simply tap YES on a dialog but additionally needs to present their unlock PIN/fingerprint/face. This inevitably slows down the process.

The biggest threat posed by ChoiceJacking is to Android devices that have been configured to enable USB debugging. Developers often turn on this option so they can troubleshoot problems with their apps, but many non-developers enable it so they can install apps from their computer, root their devices so they can install a different OS, transfer data between devices, and recover bricked phones. Turning it on requires a user to flip a switch in Settings > System > Developer options.

If a phone has USB Debugging turned on, ChoiceJacking can gain shell access through the Android Debug Bridge. From there, an attacker can install apps, access the file system, and execute malicious binary files. The level of access through the Android Debug Mode is much higher than that through Picture Transfer Protocol and Media Transfer Protocol, which only allow read and write access to system files.

The vulnerabilities are tracked as:

    • CVE-2025-24193 (Apple)
    • CVE-2024-43085 (Google)
    • CVE-2024-20900 (Samsung)
    • CVE-2024-54096 (Huawei)

A Google spokesperson confirmed that the weaknesses were patched in Android 15 but didn’t speak to the base of Android devices from other manufacturers, who either don’t support the new OS or the new authentication requirement it makes possible. Apple declined to comment for this post.

Word that juice-jacking-style attacks are once again possible on some Android devices and out-of-date iPhones is likely to breathe new life into the constant warnings from federal authorities, tech pundits, news outlets, and local and state government agencies that phone users should steer clear of public charging stations.

As I reported in 2023, these warnings are mostly scaremongering, and the advent of ChoiceJacking does little to change that, given that there are no documented cases of such attacks in the wild. That said, people using Android devices that don’t support Google’s new authentication requirement may want to refrain from public charging.

Photo of Dan Goodin

Dan Goodin is Senior Security Editor at Ars Technica, where he oversees coverage of malware, computer espionage, botnets, hardware hacking, encryption, and passwords. In his spare time, he enjoys gardening, cooking, and following the independent music scene. Dan is based in San Francisco. Follow him at here on Mastodon and here on Bluesky. Contact him on Signal at DanArs.82.

iOS and Android juice jacking defenses have been trivial to bypass for years Read More »

revisiting-izombie,-10-years-later

Revisiting iZombie, 10 years later


We loved the show’s wicked humor, great characters, and mix of cases-of-the-week with longer narrative arcs.

Zombies never really go out of style, but they were an especially hot commodity on television in the 2010s, spawning the blockbuster series The Walking Dead (2010-2022) as well as quirkier fare like Netflix’s comedy horror, The Santa Clarita Diet (2017-2018).  iZombie, a supernatural procedural dramedy that ran for five seasons on the CW, falls into the latter category. It never achieved mega-hit status but nonetheless earned a hugely loyal following drawn to the show’s wicked humor, well-drawn characters, and winning mix of cases-of-the-week and longer narrative arcs.

(Spoilers for all five seasons below.)

The original Vertigo comic series was created by writer Chris Roberson and artist Michael Allred. It featured a zombie in Eugene, Oregon, named Gwen Dylan, who worked as a gravedigger because she needed to consume brains every 30 days to keep her memories and cognitive faculties in working order. Her best friends were a ghost who died in the 1960s and a were-terrier named Scott, nicknamed “Spot,” and together they took on challenges both personal and supernatural (vampires, mummies, etc.).

Created by Rob Thomas and Diane Ruggiero-Wright, the TV series borrowed the rough outlines of the premise but otherwise had very little in common with the comics, although Allred drew the nifty opening credits (set to a cover version of “Stop, I’m Already Dead” by Deadboy & The Elephant Men). The location shifted to Seattle.

An over-achieving young medical student, Liv Moore (get it?)—played to perfection by Rose McIver—decides to attend a boat party on a whim one night. It ends in disaster thanks to a sudden zombie outbreak, resulting from a combination of an energy sports drink (Max Rager) and a tainted batch of a new designer drug called Utopium. Liv jumps into the water to flee the zombies, but suffers a scratch and wakes up on a beach in a body bag, craving brains.

Liv is forced to break up with her human fiancé, Major (Robert Buckley) to avoid infecting him, and becomes estranged from her best friend and roommate Peyton (Aly Michalka), hiding her new zombie nature from both. And she ends up working in the medical examiner’s office to ensure she has a steady supply of brains. Soon her boss, Ravi (Rahul Kohli), discovers her secret. Rather than being terrified or trying to kill her, Ravi is fascinated by her unusual condition. He tells Liv he was fired by the CDC for his incessant warnings about the threat of such a virus and vows to find a cure.

The brainy bunch

Med student Liv Moore (Rose McIver) wound up a zombie after attending an ill-fated boat party. The CW

The show’s premise stems from an unusual side effect of eating brains: Liv gets some of the dead person’s memories in flashes (visions) as well as certain personal traits—speaking Romanian, painting, agoraphobia, alcoholism, etc. This gives her critical insights that help Det. Clive Babineaux (Malcolm Goodwin) solve various murders, although for several seasons Clive thinks Liv is psychic rather than a zombie. It’s Ravi who first encourages her to get involved when a kleptomaniac Romanian call girl is killed: “You ate the girl’s temporal lobe; the least you can do is help solve her murder.”

Every show needs a good villain and iZombie found it in Liv’s fellow zombie, Blaine (David Anders)—in fact, Blaine is the one who scratched Liv at the boat party and turned her into a zombie. He was there dealing the tainted Utopium.  Zombie Blaine switches to dealing brains, which he naturally acquires through murderous means, creating a loyal (i.e., desperate) customer base by infecting wealthy sorts and turning them into zombies. What makes Blaine so compelling as a villain is that he’s as devilishly charming as he is evil, with some unresolved daddy issues for good measure.

Over the course of five seasons, we fell in love with iZombie‘s colorful collection of characters; relished the way the writers leaned into the rather silly premise and (mostly) made it work;  and groaned at the occasional bad pun. (Major’s last name is “Lillywhite”; Blaine’s S1 butcher shop is called Meat Cute; when Ravi and Major take in a stray dog, Ravi names the dog “Minor”; and at one point there is a zombie bar called The Scratching Post.) Admittedly, the show started to lose some momentum in later seasons as subplots and shifting relationships became more complicated. And without question the series finale was disappointing: it felt rushed and unsatisfying, with few of the quieter character moments that made its strongest episodes so appealing.

Yet there is still so much to love about iZombie, starting with the brain recipes. Brains are disgusting; Blaine and Liv briefly bond over the metallic taste, gross texture, and how much they miss real food. It doesn’t help that zombies can’t really taste much flavor and thus douse their repasts in eye-watering hot sauces. No wonder Liv is constantly trying to find new ways to make the brains more palatable: stir fry, instant Ramen noodles, mixing the brains in with microwaved pizza rolls, deep friend hush puppy brains, sloppy joes, protein shakes—you name it. Blaine, however, takes things to a gourmet level for his rich zombie customers, creating tantalizing dishes like gnocchi stuffed with medulla oblongata swimming in a fra diavolo sauce.

Good guys, bad guys

“Full-on zombie mode” came in handy sometimes. The CW

The writers didn’t neglect Liv’s love life, which she mistakenly thought was over once she became a zombie. Sure, Liv was always going to end up in a happily-ever-after situation with Major. But count me among those who never thought they really worked as soul mates. (Maybe pre-zombie they did.)

The clear fan favorite love interest was S1’s Lowell Tracey (Bradley James), a British musician who found he could no longer perform live after becoming a zombie—since pre-show adrenalin tended to trigger Full On Zombie Mode. He was Liv’s “first” as a zombie, and while they were superficially very different, they bonded over their shared secret and the resulting emotional isolation.  And he bonded with Ravi over their shared hatred of a rival soccer team.

James’ smartly soulful performance won fans’ hearts. We were all rooting for those crazy kids. Alas, Liv soon discovered that his brain supply came from Blaine after she accidentally had a bite of Lowell’s breakfast one morning. In a desperate bid to win back her trust, Lowell agreed to help her take out Blaine; it helped that Liv was currently on Sniper Brain. But when the critical moment came, Liv couldn’t take the shot. She watched through the gun sight as Lowell put his hand over his heart and took on Blaine alone—with fatal consequences, because sensitive artist types really aren’t cut out for fights to the death. Howls of protest echoed in living rooms around the world. RIP Lowell, we barely knew ye.

Lowell never got the chance to become a recurring character but others were more fortunate. Jessica Harmon’s FBI agent, Dale Brazzio, started out as an antagonist investigating the Meat Cute murders—Major and a zombie police captain blew it up to take out Blaine’s criminal enterprise—and ended up as Clive’s romantic partner. Bryce Hodgson’s comedic S1 turn as Major’s roommate in the mental institution, Scott E., was so memorable that the writers brought the actor back to play twin brother Don E., part of Blaine’s drug (and brain) dealing enterprise. Others never graduated to recurring roles but still made the odd guest appearance: Daran Norris as the charmingly louche weatherman Johnny Frost, for instance, and Ryan Beil as nebbishy police sketch artist Jimmy Hahn.

You are what you eat

Liv on frat-boy brain crushed it at beer pong The CW

And let’s not forget the various Big Bads, most notably S2’s Vaughan du Clark (Steven Weber), amoral playboy CEO of Max Rager, and his conniving temptress daughter, Rita (Leanne Lapp). They provided all manner of delicious devilry before meeting a fitting end: Rita, now a zombie due to Vaughan’s negligence, goes “full Romero” during the S2 finale and eats daddy’s brains in an elevator before being shot in the head.

Perhaps the best thing about iZombie was how much fun the writers had giving Liv so many different kinds of brains to eat—and how much fun McIver had weaving those very different personalties into her performance. There was the rich shopaholic Desperate Housewife; an amorous painter; a sociopathic hitman who was a whiz at pub trivia; a grumpy old man; a schizophrenic; a kids basketball coach; a magician; a dominatrix; a medieval history professor fond of LARP-ing; and a ballroom dancer, to name a few.

Liv on agoraphobic hacker brain dominates an online gaming campaign, while she becomes an ace dungeon master on Dungeons & Dragons brain, much to nerdcore Ravi’s delight—although perhaps not as much as he enjoys Liv on vigilante superhero brain. (He found Liv on PhD scientist brain more annoying.) And sometimes the brains are used for throwaway humor: Lowell accidentally eating a gay man’s brain just before his first date with Liv, for instance, or Liv, Blaine, and Don E. hopped up on conspiracy theory brain and bonding over their shared paranoid delusions.

If I were forced to pick my favorite brain, however, I’d probably go back to the S1 episode, “Flight of the Living Dead,” in which Liv’s adventurous former sorority sister, Holly (Tasya Teles) dies in a skydiving “accident” that turns out to be murder. Back in the day, Liv was among those who voted to kick Holly out of the sorority for her constant rule-breaking and reckless behavior. But after eating Holly’s brain in hopes of finding out who killed her, Liv learns more about where Holly was coming from and how to bring something of Holly’s insatiable lust for life into her own existence. “Live each day as if it were your last” can’t help but strike a chord with Liv, who took her former ambitious over-achieving life for granted before that fateful boat party.

Photo of Jennifer Ouellette

Jennifer is a senior writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban.

Revisiting iZombie, 10 years later Read More »

comcast-president-bemoans-broadband-customer-losses:-“we-are-not-winning”

Comcast president bemoans broadband customer losses: “We are not winning”

Comcast executives apparently realized something that customers have known and complained about for years: The Internet provider’s prices aren’t transparent enough and rise too frequently.

This might not have mattered much to cable executives as long as the total number of subscribers met their targets. But after reporting a net loss of 183,000 residential broadband customers in Q1 2025, Comcast President Mike Cavanagh said the company isn’t “winning in the marketplace” during an earnings call today. The Q1 2025 customer loss was over three times larger than the net loss in Q1 2024.

While customers often have few viable options for broadband and the availability of alternatives varies widely by location, Comcast faces competition from fiber and fixed wireless ISPs.

“In this intensely competitive environment, we are not winning in the marketplace in a way that is commensurate with the strength of the network and connectivity products that I just described,” Cavanagh said. “[Cable division CEO] Dave [Watson] and his team have worked hard to understand the reasons for this disconnect and have identified two primary causes. One is price transparency and predictability and the other is the level of ease of doing business with us. The good news is that both are fixable and we are already underway with execution plans to address these challenges.”

The 183,000-subscriber loss lowered Comcast’s residential Internet subscribers to 29.19 million. Comcast also reported a first-quarter drop of 17,000 business broadband subscribers, lowering that category’s total to 2.45 million.

Comcast’s stock price fell 3.7 percent today even though its overall profit beat analyst expectations and domestic broadband revenue rose 1.7 percent year over year to $6.56 billion—a sign that Comcast is extracting more money from customers on average. “Analysts peppered Comcast executives with questions on Thursday regarding its Xfinity-branded broadband and mobile, and how the company will pivot the business,” CNBC wrote.

“We are simplifying our pricing”

Cavanagh said that Comcast plans to make changes in marketing and operations “with the highest urgency.” This means that “we are simplifying our pricing construct to make our price-to-value proposition clearer to consumers across all broadband segments,” he said.

Comcast last week announced a five-year price guarantee for broadband customers who sign up for a new package. Comcast said customers will get a “simple monthly price starting as low as $55 per month,” without having to enter a contract, giving them “freedom and flexibility to cancel at any time without penalty.” The five-year guarantee also comes with one year of Xfinity Mobile at no charge, Comcast said.

Comcast president bemoans broadband customer losses: “We are not winning” Read More »