Paul Patrick – Page 22

Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says

AI, Artificial Intelligence, australia, openai, Policy / Paul Patrick / August 21, 2025

As banks around the world prepare to replace many thousands of workers with AI, Australia’s biggest bank is scrambling to rehire 45 workers after allegedly lying about chatbots besting staff by handling higher call volumes.

In a statement Thursday flagged by Bloomberg, Australia’s main financial services union, the Finance Sector Union (FSU), claimed a “massive win” for 45 union members whom the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) had replaced with an AI-powered “voice bot.”

The FSU noted that some of these workers had been with CBA for decades. Those workers in particular were shocked when CBA announced last month that their jobs had become redundant. At that time, CBA claimed that launching the chatbot supposedly “led to a reduction in call volumes” by 2,000 a week, FSU said.

But “this was an outright lie,” fired workers told FSU. Instead, call volumes had been increasing at the time they were dismissed, with CBA supposedly “scrambling”—offering staff overtime and redirecting management to join workers answering phones to keep up.

To uncover the truth, FSU escalated the dispute to a fair work tribunal, where the union accused CBA of failing to explain how workers’ roles were ruled redundant. The union also alleged that CBA was hiring for similar roles in India, Bloomberg noted, which made it appear that CBA had perhaps used the chatbot to cover up a shady pivot to outsource jobs.

While the dispute was being weighed, CBA admitted that “they didn’t properly consider that an increase in calls” happening while staff was being fired “would continue over a number of months,” FSU said.

“This error meant the roles were not redundant,” CBA confirmed at the tribunal.

Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says Read More »

Humans intervened every 9 minutes in AAA test of driver assists

AAA, ADAS, Cars, road traffic / Paul Patrick / August 21, 2025

As most people who have used adaptive cruise control in traffic can no doubt appreciate, the most common event that required intervention was a car ahead cutting into the driver’s lane. These occurred about once every 8.6 miles, or 24.4 minutes, with 90 percent requiring intervention by the driver.

Inadequate lane centering was the next most common event, occurring once every 11.3 miles or 32.2 minutes. Seventy-two percent of those events also required intervention. Not resuming after coming to a halt happened 71 times, each of which required the driver to act. On 57 occasions, the lane keeping or adaptive cruise control deactivated, and there were 43 instances of a test car failing to adequately slow down, of which 70 percent required the driver to hit the brakes.

Hands-on versus hands-off

AAA found that the less-advanced systems that required a driver to keep their hands on the steering wheel experienced notable events at three times the frequency of hands-free systems. Hands-off systems only required intervention every 7.2 miles or 20.1 minutes, whereas the less advanced systems required intervention on average every 2.3 miles or 6.7 minutes. AAA also noted that the hands-off systems told the driver to put their hands back on the wheel every 5.5 miles (or 15.3 minutes) on average.

AAA has some recommendations based on its findings, which could also be categorized under common sense. When you’re behind the wheel of a vehicle, you should always remain alert, and AAA cautions that ADAS is “never a substitute for an engaged driver.” Don’t be distracted, especially by your smartphone. Read the car’s user manual and understand how, when, and where its systems can be expected to work. And set an appropriate following distance to the car ahead, even if it means more cut-ins.

The organization says it will encourage automakers to improve ADAS performance, especially cut-in response and lane-centering.

Humans intervened every 9 minutes in AAA test of driver assists Read More »

Microsoft and Asus’ answers to SteamOS and the Steam Deck launch on October 16

ASUS, asus rog ally, gaming, microsoft, steamos, Tech, Windows 11, xbox, xbox rog ally / Paul Patrick / August 20, 2025

Asus and Microsoft will be launching their ROG Xbox Ally series of handheld gaming PCs starting October 16, according to an Asus announcement that went out today.

An Xbox-branded extension of Asus’ existing ROG Ally handheld line, the basic ROG Xbox Ally and more powerful ROG Xbox Ally X, both run a version of Windows 11 Home that’s been redesigned with a controller-first Xbox-style user interface. The idea is to preserve the wide game compatibility of Windows—and the wide compatibility with multiple storefronts, including Microsoft’s own, Valve’s Steam, the Epic Games Store, and more—while turning off all of the extra Windows desktop stuff and saving system resources. (This also means that, despite the Xbox branding, these handhelds play Windows PC games and not the Xbox versions.)

Microsoft and Asus initially announced the handhelds in June. Microsoft still isn’t sharing pricing information for either console, so it’s hard to say how their specs and features will stack up against the Steam Deck (starting at $399 for the LCD version, $549 for OLED), Nintendo’s Switch 2 ($450), or past Asus handhelds like the ROG Ally X ($800).

Both consoles share a 7-inch, 1080p IPS display with a 120 Hz refresh rate, Wi-Fi 6E, and Bluetooth 5.4 support, but their internals are quite a bit different. The lower-end Xbox Ally uses an AMD Ryzen Z2 A chip with a 4-core Zen 2-based CPU, an eight-core RDNA2-based GPU, 512GB of storage, and 16GB of LPDDR5X-6400—specs nearly identical to Valve’s 3-year-old Steam Deck. The Xbox Ally X includes a more interesting Ryzen AI Z2 Extreme with an 8-core Zen 5 CPU, a 16-core RDNA3.5 GPU, 1TB of storage, 24GB of LPDDR5X-8000, and a built-in neural processing unit (NPU).

The beefier hardware comes with a bigger battery—80 WHr in the Ally X, compared to 60 WHr in the regular Ally—and that also makes the Ally X around a tenth of a pound (or 45 grams) heavier than the Ally.

Microsoft and Asus’ answers to SteamOS and the Steam Deck launch on October 16 Read More »

Top pediatricians buck RFK Jr.’s anti-vaccine meddling on COVID shot guidance

aap, american academy of pediatrics, anti-vaccine, CDC, childhood vaccines, COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, health, kennedy, robert f kennedy jr, vaccines / Paul Patrick / August 20, 2025

“It’s clear that we’re in a different place in the pandemic than we were four or five years ago in terms of risks to healthy older kids,” Sean O’Leary, chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases (COID), said in a statement. However, “the risk of hospitalization for young children and those with high-risk conditions remains pretty high.”

According to CDC data, the rate of COVID-19 hospitalization in children under 2 is the highest among any pediatric group. Further, the rate of hospitalization among children 6 months to 23 months is comparable to that of adults ages 50 to 64. Critically, more than half of children ages 6 months to 23 months who are hospitalized for COVID-19 have no underlying medical condition that puts them at high risk for severe infection.

For children 2 to 18, the AAP recommends COVID-19 shots for children who have a medical condition that puts them at high risk, are residents of care facilities, have never been vaccinated, or have household contacts who are at high risk of severe COVID-19. All other children and teens should also have access to updated seasonal shots if they desire them, the AAP says.

“The AAP will continue to provide recommendations for immunizations that are rooted in science and are in the best interest of the health of infants, children, and adolescents,” Kressly said. “Pediatricians know how important routine childhood immunizations are in keeping children, families, and their communities healthy and thriving.”

Coverage questions

With school starting, COVID-19 cases ticking up around the country, and cold-weather respiratory virus season looming, the question now is how the conflicting recommendations will be interpreted by insurance companies. Insurers are required to cover vaccines recommended by the CDC. But there is no such obligation for recommendations from medical groups.

AAP has been holding meetings with insurers to press for continued coverage of evidence-based vaccine recommendations.

O’Leary told The Washington Post that insurers are “signaling that they are committed to covering our recommendations.” The Post also noted that AHIP, the major insurance lobby, released a statement in June saying its members are committed to “ongoing coverage of vaccines to ensure access and affordability for this respiratory virus season.”

Top pediatricians buck RFK Jr.’s anti-vaccine meddling on COVID shot guidance Read More »

An extinct volcano in Arkansas hosts the only public diamond mine on Earth

arkansas, diamonds, gemstones, geology, mineral rights, mining, public lands, Science, state parks, Tourism, volcanic geology / Paul Patrick / August 19, 2025

The park provides two covered pavilions with water troughs and tables for wet sifting, plus open sluice boxes with hand-operated water pumps at both ends of the field. Four shaded structures are available in the search area; however, visitors are also welcome to bring their own canopies or tents, provided they are well-secured.

The diamonds formed under extreme pressure and heat deep in the Earth’s mantle. If you find one, it will most likely look like a metallic or glassy pebble rather than a sparkly cut gem that you might picture in your mind. The volcanic soil also contains amethyst, garnet, jasper, agate, and various types of quartz (and you can keep those, too).

The largest diamond found in the United States came from this field—the 40.23-carat Uncle Sam diamond, discovered in 1924 before the land became a state park. In September 2021, California visitor Noreen Wredberg found a 4.38-carat yellow diamond after searching for two hours, and in 2024, a visitor named Julien Navas found a 7.46-carat diamond at the park.

The park received over 180,000 visitors in 2017, who found 450 certified diamonds of various colors. Of the reported diamond finds, 299 were white, 72 were brown, and 74 were yellow.

Park staff told Mays that visitors find one or two diamonds daily, so “keep your expectations in check,” she writes. Most diamonds discovered are about the size of a paper match head, while a one-carat diamond is roughly the size of a green pea. But even tiny diamonds carry the thrill of discovery. Park staff provide free identification services, examining finds under loupes and confirming whether that glassy pebble is quartz or something more valuable.

A family experience

For those wanting to join the thousands who visit each year, the park makes it affordable. Admission costs $15 for adults, $7 for children ages 6–12. You can camp overnight at the park and return to the field at dawn. During summer months, the park operates a small water park—an acknowledgment that diamond hunting in Arkansas can be brutal, with a heat index exceeding 110° Fahrenheit.

Sometimes rain turns the field into mud, which experienced searchers prefer because it makes diamonds easier to spot—but it can make for a messy adventure. As Mays put it, “Most visitors leave with a handful of interesting rocks, some newfound knowledge, and an urgent need for a long shower.”

If you don’t find any diamonds at the park, don’t despair—you could still potentially buy a $200,000 diamond-making machine on Alibaba.

An extinct volcano in Arkansas hosts the only public diamond mine on Earth Read More »

T-Mobile claimed selling location data without consent is legal—judges disagree

Location Data, Policy, T-Mobile / Paul Patrick / August 19, 2025

T-Mobile can’t overturn $92 million fine; AT&T and Verizon verdicts still to come.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

A federal appeals court rejected T-Mobile’s attempt to overturn $92 million in fines for selling customer location information to third-party firms.

The Federal Communications Commission last year fined T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon, saying the carriers illegally shared access to customers’ location information without consent and did not take reasonable measures to protect that sensitive data against unauthorized disclosure. The fines relate to sharing of real-time location data that was revealed in 2018, but it took years for the FCC to finalize the penalties.

The three carriers appealed the rulings in three different courts, and the first major decision was handed down Friday. A three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled unanimously against T-Mobile and its subsidiary Sprint.

“Every cell phone is a tracking device,” the ruling begins. “To receive service, a cell phone must periodically connect with the nearest tower in a wireless carrier’s network. Each time it does, it sends the carrier a record of the phone’s location and, by extension, the location of the customer who owns it. Over time, this information becomes an exhaustive history of a customer’s whereabouts and ‘provides an intimate window into [that] person’s life.'”

Until 2019, T-Mobile and Sprint sold customer location information (CLI) to location information aggregators LocationSmart and Zumigo. The carriers did not verify whether buyers obtained customer consent, the ruling said. “Several bad actors abused Sprint and T-Mobile’s programs to illicitly access CLI without the customers’ knowledge, let alone consent. And even after Sprint and T-Mobile became aware of those abuses, they continued to sell CLI for some time without adopting new safeguards,” judges wrote.

Carriers claimed selling data didn’t violate law

Instead of denying the allegations, the carriers argued that the FCC overstepped its authority. But the appeals court panel decided that the FCC acted properly:

Sprint and T-Mobile (collectively, “the Carriers”) now petition for our review. Neither denies what happened. Instead, they argue that the undisputed facts do not amount to a violation of the law. The Carriers also argue that the Commission misinterpreted the Communications Act, miscalculated the penalties, and violated the Seventh Amendment by not affording them a jury trial. Because the Carriers’ arguments lack merit, we deny the petitions for review.

The FCC fines included $80.1 million for T-Mobile and $12.2 million for Sprint. T-Mobile, which bought Sprint in 2020, reported service revenue of $17.4 billion and net income of $3.2 billion in the most recent quarter.

Although the FCC first proposed the fines in 2020, under Republican Chairman Ajit Pai, the 2024 vote to finalize the penalties was 3-2, with dissents from Republicans Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington. Carr is now chairman of the FCC.

T-Mobile told Ars today that it is “currently reviewing the court’s action” but did not provide further comment. The carrier could seek an en banc review in front of all the appeals court’s justices, or ask the Supreme Court to review the case. Meanwhile, AT&T is challenging its fine in the 5th Circuit appeals court while Verizon is challenging in the 2nd Circuit.

AT&T and Verizon were fined $57.3 million and $46.9 million, respectively. The FCC last year said the major carriers disclosed customer location information “without customer consent or other legal authorization to a Missouri Sheriff through a ‘location-finding service’ operated by Securus, a provider of communications services to correctional facilities, to track the location of numerous individuals.”

Carriers gave up right to jury trial, court rules

AT&T and Verizon made similar arguments about their right to a jury trial and cited the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. That ruling held that “when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.”

In the ruling against T-Mobile, the DC Circuit panel held that the carriers gave up any potential right to a jury trial when they “chose to pay their fines and to seek direct review in this court… The Carriers may not now complain that they were denied a right they voluntarily surrendered.”

The carriers could have obtained a jury trial if they simply failed to pay the fines and waited to be served with a complaint, the ruling said. “Even if the Seventh Amendment applies, it was not violated because the Carriers had the opportunity to put their case before a jury,” judges wrote.

The carriers argued that they didn’t really have a right to a jury trial because the FCC orders “are final agency actions with real-world effects; indeed, the FCC acknowledges that it may use its untested factual findings in license-renewal decisions and penalty calculations.”

The carriers argued that in some jurisdictions where the government could bring a collection action, “the Companies would not have the right to raise factual and legal challenges to the Orders. The possibility of a government-initiated collection action therefore does not satisfy the Seventh Amendment and Article III.”

The appeals court panel responded that “this court has not adopted the rule that troubles” the carriers. If “the government brought an enforcement action in a jurisdiction with the unfavorable rule, the Carriers could have raised as-applied challenges in those proceedings. But we cannot ‘invalidate legislation on the basis of… hypothetical… situations not before’ us,” judges wrote.

Carriers quibbled over definition of sensitive data

The carriers also argued that the device-location information, which is “passively generated when a mobile device pings cell towers to support both voice and data services,” does not qualify as Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) under the law. The carriers said the law “covers information relating to the ‘location… of use’ of a telecommunications service,” and claimed that only call location information fits that description.

Judges faulted T-Mobile and Sprint for relying on “strained interpretations” of the statute. “We begin with the text. The Communications Act refers to the ‘location… of a telecommunications service, not the location of a voice call… Recall that cell phones connect periodically to cell towers, and that is what enables the devices to send and receive calls at any moment,” the ruling said.

In the judges’ view, “a customer ‘uses’ a telecommunications service whenever his or her device connects to the carrier’s network for the purpose of being able to send and receive calls. And the Carriers’ reading therefore does not narrow ‘location… of use’ to times when the customer is actively on a voice call.”

Judges also weren’t persuaded by the argument that the fines were too large. “The Carriers note that the Commission previously had imposed such large fines only in cases involving fraud or intentional efforts to mislead consumers, and they are guilty of neither form of misconduct,” the ruling said. “The Commission reasonably explained, however, that the Carriers’ conduct was ‘egregious’: Even after the Securus breach exposed Sprint and T-Mobile’s safeguards as inadequate, both carriers continued to sell access to CLI under a broken system.”

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.

T-Mobile claimed selling location data without consent is legal—judges disagree Read More »

Elon Musk’s “thermonuclear” Media Matters lawsuit may be fizzling out

ad boycott, censorship, Donald Trump, elon musk, federal trade commission, ftc, Policy, trump administration, Twitter, twitter ad boycott, X / Paul Patrick / August 19, 2025

Judge blocks FTC’s Media Matters probe as a likely First Amendment violation.

Media Matters for America (MMFA)—a nonprofit that Elon Musk accused of sparking a supposedly illegal ad boycott on X—won its bid to block a sweeping Federal Trade Commission (FTC) probe that appeared to have rushed to silence Musk’s foe without ever adequately explaining why the government needed to get involved.

In her opinion granting MMFA’s preliminary injunction, US District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan—a Joe Biden appointee—agreed that the FTC’s probe was likely to be ruled as a retaliatory violation of the First Amendment.

Warning that the FTC’s targeting of reporters was particularly concerning, Sooknanan wrote that the “case presents a straightforward First Amendment violation,” where it’s reasonable to conclude that conservative FTC staffers were perhaps motivated to eliminate a media organization dedicated to correcting conservative misinformation online.

“It should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate,” Sooknanan wrote. “And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting.”

FTC staff social posts may be evidence of retaliation

In 2023, Musk vowed to file a “thermonuclear” lawsuit because advertisers abandoned X after MMFA published a report showing that major brands’ ads had appeared next to pro-Nazi posts on X. Musk then tried to sue MMFA “all over the world,” Sooknanan wrote, while “seemingly at the behest of Steven Miller, the current White House Deputy Chief of Staff, the Missouri and Texas Attorneys General” joined Musk’s fight, starting their own probes.

But Musk’s “thermonuclear” attack—attempting to fight MMFA on as many fronts as possible—has appeared to be fizzling out. A federal district court preliminarily enjoined the “aggressive” global litigation strategy, and the same court issued the recent FTC ruling that also preliminarily enjoined the AG probes “as likely being retaliatory in violation of the First Amendment.”

The FTC under the Trump administration appeared to be the next line of offense, supporting Musk’s attack on MMFA. And Sooknanan said that FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson’s own comments in interviews, which characterized Media Matters and the FTC’s probe “in ideological terms,” seem to indicate “at a minimum that Chairman Ferguson saw the FTC’s investigation as having a partisan bent.”

A huge part of the problem for the FTC was social media comments posted before some senior FTC staffers were appointed by Ferguson. Those posts appeared to show the FTC growing increasingly partisan, perhaps pointedly hiring staffers who they knew would help take down groups like MMFA.

As examples, Sooknanan pointed to Joe Simonson, the FTC’s director of public affairs, who had posted that MMFA “employed a number of stupid and resentful Democrats who went to like American University and didn’t have the emotional stability to work as an assistant press aide for a House member.” And Jon Schwepp, Ferguson’s senior policy advisor, had claimed that Media Matters—which he branded as the “scum of the earth”—”wants to weaponize powerful institutions to censor conservatives.” And finally, Jake Denton, the FTC’s chief technology officer, had alleged that MMFA is “an organization devoted to pressuring companies into silencing conservative voices.”

Further, the timing of the FTC investigation—arriving “on the heels of other failed attempts to seek retribution”—seemed to suggest it was “motivated by retaliatory animus,” the judge said. The FTC’s “fast-moving” investigation suggests that Ferguson “was chomping at the bit to ‘take investigative steps in the new administration under President Trump’ to make ‘progressives’ like Media Matters ‘give up,'” Sooknanan wrote.

Musk’s fight continues in Texas, for now

Possibly most damning to the FTC case, Sooknanan suggested the FTC has never adequately explained the reason why it’s probing Media Matters. In the “Subject of Investigation” field, the FTC wrote only “see attached,” but the attachment was just a list of specific demands and directions to comply with those demands.

Eventually, the FTC offered “something resembling an explanation,” Sooknanan said. But their “ultimate explanation”—that Media Matters may have information related to a supposedly illegal coordinated campaign to game ad pricing, starve revenue, and censor conservative platforms—”does not inspire confidence that they acted in good faith,” Sooknanan said. The judge considered it problematic that the FTC never explained why it has reason to believe MMFA has the information it’s seeking. Or why its demand list went “well beyond the investigation’s purported scope,” including “a reporter’s resource materials,” financial records, and all documents submitted so far in Musk’s X lawsuit.

“It stands to reason,” Sooknanan wrote, that the FTC launched its probe “because it wanted to continue the years’ long pressure campaign against Media Matters by Mr. Musk and his political allies.”

In its defense, the FTC argued that all civil investigative demands are initially broad, insisting that MMFA would have had the opportunity to narrow the demands if things had proceeded without the lawsuit. But Sooknanan declined to “consider a hypothetical narrowed” demand list instead of “the actual demand issued to Media Matters,” while noting that the court was “troubled” by the FTC’s suggestion that “the federal Government routinely issues civil investigative demands it knows to be overbroad with the goal of later narrowing those demands presumably in exchange for compliance.”

“Perhaps the Defendants will establish otherwise later in these proceedings,” Sooknanan wrote. “But at this stage, the record certainly supports that inference,” that the FTC was politically motivated to back Musk’s fight.

As the FTC mulls a potential appeal, the only other major front of Musk’s fight with MMFA is the lawsuit that X Corp. filed in Texas. Musk allegedly expects more favorable treatment in the Texas court, and MMFA is currently pushing to transfer the case to California after previously arguing that Musk was venue shopping by filing the lawsuit in Texas, claiming that it should be “fatal” to his case.

Musk has so far kept the case in Texas, but risking a venue change could be enough to ultimately doom his “thermonuclear” attack on MMFA. To prevent that, X is arguing that it’s “hard to imagine” how changing the venue and starting over with a new judge two years into such complex litigation would best serve the “interests of justice.”

Media Matters, however, has “easily met” requirements to show that substantial damage has already been done—not just because MMFA has struggled financially and stopped reporting on X and the FTC—but because any loss of First Amendment freedoms “unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

The FTC tried to claim that any reputational harm, financial harm, and self-censorship are “self-inflicted” wounds for MMFA. But the FTC did “not respond to the argument that the First Amendment injury itself is irreparable, thereby conceding it,” Sooknanan wrote. That likely weakens the FTC’s case in an appeal.

MMFA declined Ars’ request to comment. But despite the lawsuits reportedly plunging MMFA into a financial crisis, its president, Angelo Carusone, told The New York Times that “the court’s ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration.”

“We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American,” Carusone said.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Elon Musk’s “thermonuclear” Media Matters lawsuit may be fizzling out Read More »

After recent tests, China appears likely to beat the United States back to the Moon

artemis, china, NASA, Space, space race / Paul Patrick / August 19, 2025

An expert explains why this will be enormously bad for the United States.

China’s Long March-10 rocket conducts its first static fire test at the Wenchang Spacecraft Launch Site on August 15, 2025. Credit: VCG via Getty Images

In recent weeks, the secretive Chinese space program has reported some significant milestones in developing its program to land astronauts on the lunar surface by the year 2030.

On August 6, the China Manned Space Agency successfully tested a high-fidelity mockup of its 26-ton “Lanyue” lunar lander. The test, conducted outside of Beijing, used giant tethers to simulate lunar gravity as the vehicle fired main engines and fine control thrusters to land on a cratered surface and take off from there.

“The test,” said the agency in an official statement, “represents a key step in the development of China’s manned lunar exploration program, and also marks the first time that China has carried out a test of extraterrestrial landing and takeoff capabilities of a manned spacecraft.”

As part of the statement, the space agency reconfirmed that it plans to land its astronauts on the Moon “before” 2030.

Then, last Friday, the space agency and its state-operated rocket developer, the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, successfully conducted a 30-second test firing of the Long March 10 rocket’s center core with its seven YF-100K engines that burn kerosene and liquid oxygen. The primary variant of the rocket will combine three of these cores to lift about 70 metric tons to low-Earth orbit.

These successful efforts followed a launch escape system test of the new Mengzhou spacecraft in June. A version of this spacecraft is planned for lunar missions.

On track for 2030

Thus, China’s space program is making demonstrable progress in all three of the major elements of its lunar program: the large rocket to launch a crew spacecraft, which will carry humans to lunar orbit, plus the lander that will take astronauts down to the surface and back. This work suggests that China is on course to land on the Moon before the end of this decade.

For the United States and its allies in space, there are reasons to be dismissive of this. For one, NASA landed humans on the Moon nearly six decades ago with the Apollo Program. Been there, done that.

Moreover, the initial phases of the Chinese program look derivative of Apollo, particularly a lander that strikingly resembles the Lunar Module. NASA can justifiably point to its Artemis Program and say it is attempting to learn the lessons of Apollo—that the program was canceled because it was not sustainable. With its lunar landers, NASA seeks to develop in-space propellant storage and refueling technology, allowing for lower cost, reusable lunar missions with the capability to bring much more mass to the Moon and back. This should eventually allow for the development of a lunar economy and enable a robust government-commercial enterprise.

China’s Lanyue lander undergoes tests in early August. Credit: CCTV

But recent setbacks with SpaceX’s Starship vehicle–one of two lunar landers under contract with NASA, alongside Blue Origin’s Mark 2 lander—indicate that it will still be several years until these newer technologies are ready to go. So it’s now probable that China will “beat” NASA back to the Moon this decade and win at least the initial heat of this new space race.

To put this into perspective, Ars connected with Dean Cheng, one of the most respected analysts on China, space policy, and the geopolitical implications of the new space competition. He was also a researcher at the Heritage Foundation for 13 years, where he focused on China. (He was not involved with Project 2025.) Now “sort of” retired, in his own words, Cheng is presently a non-resident fellow at the George Washington University Space Policy Institute.

The implications of this for the West

Ars: How significant was the Lanyue lander demonstration? Does this indicate the Chinese space program remains on track to land humans on the Moon by or before 2030?

Dean Cheng: The Lanyue lander is significant because it’s part of the usual Chinese “crawl-walk-run” approach to major space (and other scientific) projects. The [People’s Republic of China] can benefit from other people’s experiences (much of NASA’s information is open), but they still have to build and operate the spacecraft themselves. So the test of the Lanyue lander, successful or not, is an important part of that process.

Note that the Chinese also this week had a successful static test of the LM-10, which is their lunar SLV (satellite launch vehicle). This, along with the Lanyue, indicates that the Chinese lunar program is pushing ahead. The LM-10, even more than the Lanyue, is significant because it’s a new launch vehicle, in the wake of problems with the LM-5 and the cancellation of the LM-9 (which was probably their Saturn-V equivalent).

Ars: How likely is it that China lands humans on the Moon before NASA can return there with the Artemis Program?

Cheng: At the rate things are going, sadly, it seems quite likely that the Chinese will land on the Moon before NASA can return to the Moon.

Ars: What would the geopolitical impact be if China beats the United States back to the Moon?

Cheng: The geopolitical impact of the Chinese beating the US to the Moon (where we are returning) would be enormous.

Ars: How so?

Cheng: It means the end of American exceptionalism. One of the hallmarks of the post-1969 era was that only the United States had been able to land someone on the Moon (or any other celestial body). This was bound to end, but the constant American refrain of “We’ve put a man on the Moon, we can do anything” will certainly no longer resonate.

It means China can do “big” things, and the United States cannot. The US cannot even replicate projects it undertook 50 (or more) years ago. The optics of “the passing of the American age” would be evident—and that in turn would absolutely affect other nations’ perceptions of who is winning/losing the broader technological and ideological competition between the US and the PRC.

A few years back, there was talk of “The Beijing Consensus” as an alternative to the “Washington Consensus.” The Washington Consensus posited that the path forward was democracy, pluralism, and capitalism. The Beijing consensus argued that one only needed economic modernization. That, in fact, political authoritarianism was more likely to lead to modernization and advancement. This ideological element would be reinforced if Beijing can do the “big” things but the US cannot.

And what will be the language of cis-lunar space? The Chinese are not aiming to simply go to the Moon. Their choice of landing sites (most likely the South Pole) suggests an intent to establish longer-term facilities and presence. If China regularly dispatches lunar missions (not just this first one), then it will rightfully be able to argue that Chinese should be a language, if not the language, of lunar/cis-lunar space traffic management. As important, China will have an enormous say over technical standards, data standards, etc., for cis-lunar activities. The PRC has already said it will be deploying a lunar PNT (positioning, navigation, and timing) network and likely a communications system, (given the BeiDou’s dual capabilities in this regard).

Ars: Taking the longer view, is the United States or China better positioned (i.e., US spending on defense, reusable in-space architecture vs Chinese plans) to dominate cislunar space between now and the middle of this century?

Cheng: On paper, the US has most of the advantages. We have a larger economy, more experience in space, extant space industrial capacity for reusable space launch, etc. But we have not had programmatic stability so that we are consistently pursuing the same goal over time. During Trump-1, the US said it would go to the Moon with people by 2024. Here we are, halfway through 2025. Trump-2 seems to once again be swinging wildly from going (back) to the Moon to going to Mars. Scientific and engineering advances don’t do well in the face of such wild swings and inconstancy.

By contrast, the Chinese are stable, systematic. They pursue a given goal (e.g., human spaceflight, a space station) over decades, with persistence and programmatic (both budgetarily and in terms of goals) stability. So I expect that the Chinese will put a Chinese person on the Moon by 2030 and follow that with additional crewed and unmanned facilities. This will be supported by a built-out infrastructure of lunar PNT/comms. The US will almost certainly put people on the Moon in a landing in the next several years, but then what? Is Lunar Gateway going to be real? How often will the US go to the Moon, as the Chinese go over and over?

Ars: Do you have any advice for the Trump administration in order to better compete with China in this effort to not only land on the Moon but have a dominant presence there?

Cheng: The Trump administration needs to make a programmatic commitment to some goal, whether the Moon or Mars. It needs to mobilize Congress and the public to support that goal. It needs to fund that goal, but as important, it also needs to have a high-level commitment and oversight, such as the VP and the National Space Council in the first Trump administration. There is little/no obvious direction at the moment for where space is going in this administration, and what its priorities are.

This lack of direction then affects the likelihood that industry, whether big business or entrepreneurs, can support whatever efforts do emerge. If POTUS wants to rely more on entrepreneurial business (a reasonable approach), he nonetheless needs to provide indications of this. It would help to also provide incentives, e.g., a follow-on to the Ansari and X-prizes, which did lead to a blossoming of innovation.

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

After recent tests, China appears likely to beat the United States back to the Moon Read More »

Ars Technica System Guide: Five sample PC builds, from $500 to $5,000

AMD, Ars System Guide, Features, gaming, intel, NVIDIA, Tech / Paul Patrick / August 18, 2025

Despite everything, it’s still possible to build decent PCs for decent prices.

You can buy a great 4K gaming PC for less than it costs to buy a GeForce RTX 5090. Let us show you some examples. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Sometimes I go longer than I intend without writing an updated version of our PC building guide. And while I could just claim to be too busy to spend hours on Newegg or Amazon or other sites digging through dozens of near-identical parts, the lack of updates usually correlates with “times when building a desktop PC is actually a pain in the ass.”

Through most of 2025, fluctuating and inflated graphics card pricing and limited availability have once again conspired to make a normally fun hobby an annoying slog—and honestly kind of a bad way to spend your money, relative to just buying a Steam Deck or something and ignoring your desktop for a while.

But three things have brought me back for another round. First, GPU pricing and availability have improved a little since early 2025. Second, as unreasonable as pricing is for PC parts, pre-built PCs with worse specs and other design compromises are unreasonably priced, too, and people should have some sense of what their options are. And third, I just have the itch—it’s been a while since I built (or helped someone else build) a PC, and I need to get it out of my system.

So here we are! Five different suggestions for builds for a few different budgets and needs, from basic browsing to 4K gaming. And yes, there is a ridiculous “God Box,” despite the fact that the baseline ridiculousness of PC building is higher than it was a few years ago.

Notes on component selection

Part of the fun of building a PC is making it look the way you want. We’ve selected cases that will physically fit the motherboards and other parts we’re recommending and which we think will be good stylistic fits for each system. But there are many cases out there, and our picks aren’t the only options available.

It’s also worth trying to build something that’s a little future-proof—one of the advantages of the PC as a platform is the ability to swap out individual components without needing to throw out the entire system. It’s worth spending a little extra money on something you know will be supported for a while. Right this minute, that gives an advantage to AMD’s socket AM5 ecosystem over slightly cheaper but fading or dead-end platforms like AMD’s socket AM4 and Intel’s LGA 1700 or (according to rumors) LGA 1851.

As for power supplies, we’re looking for 80 Plus certified power supplies from established brands with positive user reviews on retail sites (or positive professional reviews, though these can be somewhat hard to come by for any given PSU these days). If you have a preferred brand, by all means, go with what works for you. The same goes for RAM—we’ll recommend capacities and speeds, and we’ll link to kits from brands that have worked well for us in the past, but that doesn’t mean they’re better than the many other RAM kits with equivalent specs.

For SSDs, we mostly stick to drives from known brands like Samsung, Crucial, Western Digital, and SK hynix. Our builds also include built-in Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, so you don’t need to worry about running Ethernet wires and can easily connect to Bluetooth gamepads, keyboards, mice, headsets, and other accessories.

We also haven’t priced in peripherals like webcams, monitors, keyboards, or mice, as we’re assuming most people will reuse what they already have or buy those components separately. If you’re feeling adventurous, you could even make your own DIY keyboard! If you need more guidance, Kimber Streams’ Wirecutter keyboard guides are exhaustive and educational, and Wirecutter has some monitor-buying advice, too.

Finally, we won’t be including the cost of a Windows license in our cost estimates. You can pay many different prices for Windows—$139 for an official retail license from Microsoft, $120 for an “OEM” license for system builders, or anywhere between $15 and $40 for a product key from shady gray market product key resale sites. Windows 10 keys will also work to activate Windows 11, though Microsoft stopped letting old Windows 7 and Windows 8 keys activate new Windows 10 and 11 installs a couple of years ago. You could even install Linux, given recent advancements in game compatibility layers! But if you plan to go that route, know that AMD’s graphics cards tend to be better-supported than Nvidia’s.

The budget all-rounder

What it’s good for: Browsing, schoolwork or regular work, amateur photo or video editing, and very light casual gaming. A low-cost, low-complexity introduction to PC building.

What it sucks at: You’ll need to use low settings at best for modern games, and it’s hard to keep costs down without making big sacrifices.

Cost as of this writing: $479 to $504, depending on your case

The entry point for a basic desktop PC from Dell, HP, and Lenovo is somewhere between $400 and $500 as of this writing. You can beat that pricing with a self-built one if you cut your build to the bone, and you can find tons of cheap used and refurbished stuff and serviceable mini PCs for well under that price, too. But if you’re chasing the thrill of the build, we can definitely match the big OEMs’ pricing while doing better on specs and future-proofing.

The AMD Ryzen 5 8500G should give you all the processing power you need for everyday computing and less-demanding games, despite most of its CPU cores using the lower-performing Zen 4c variant of AMD’s last-gen CPU architecture. The Radeon 740M GPU should do a decent job with many games at lower settings; it’s not a gaming GPU, but it will handle kid-friendly games like Roblox or Minecraft or undemanding battle royale or MOBA games like Fortnite and DOTA 2.

The Gigabyte B650M Gaming Plus WiFi board includes Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and extra RAM and storage slots for future expandability. Most companies that make AM5 motherboards are pretty good about releasing new BIOS updates that patch vulnerabilities and add support for new CPUs, so you shouldn’t have a problem popping in a new processor a few years down the road if this one is no longer meeting your needs.

An AMD Ryzen 7 8700G. The 8500G is a lower-end relative of this chip, with good-enough CPU and GPU performance for light work. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

This system is spec’d for general usage and exceptionally light gaming, and 16GB of RAM and a 500 GB SSD should be plenty for that kind of thing. You can get the 1TB version of the same SSD for just $20 more, though—not a bad deal if you think light gaming is in the cards. The 600 W power supply is overkill, but it’s just $5 more than the 500 W version of the same PSU, and 600 W is enough headroom to add a GeForce RTX 4060 or 5060-series card or a Radeon RX 9600 XT to the build later on without having to worry.

The biggest challenge when looking for a decent, cheap PC case is finding one without a big, tacky acrylic window. Our standby choice for the last couple of years has been the Thermaltake Versa H17, an understated and reasonably well-reviewed option that doesn’t waste internal space on legacy features like external 3.5 and 5.25-inch drive bays or internal cages for spinning hard drives. But stock seems to be low as of this writing, suggesting it could be unavailable soon.

We looked for some alternatives that wouldn’t be a step down in quality or utility and which wouldn’t drive the system’s total price above $500. YouTubers and users generally seem to like the $70 Phanteks XT Pro, which is a lot bigger than this motherboard needs but is praised for its airflow and flexibility (it has a tempered glass side window in its cheapest configuration, and a solid “silent” variant will run you $88). The Fractal Design Focus 2 is available with both glass and solid side panels for $75.

The budget gaming PC

What it’s good for: Solid all-round performance, plus good 1080p (and sometimes 1440p) gaming performance.

What it sucks at: Future proofing, top-tier CPU performance.

Cost as of this writing: $793 to $828, depending on components

Budget gaming PCs are tough right now, but my broad advice would be the same as it’s always been: Go with the bare minimum everywhere you can so you have more money to spend on the GPU. I went into this totally unsure if I could recommend a PC I’d be happy with for the $700 to $800 we normally hit, and getting close to that number meant making some hard decisions.

I talked myself into a socket AM5 build for our non-gaming budget PC because of its future proof-ness and its decent integrated GPU, but I went with an Intel-based build for this one because we didn’t need the integrated GPU for it and because AMD still mostly uses old socket AM4 chips to cover the $150-and-below part of the market.

Given the choice between aging AMD CPUs and aging Intel CPUs, I have to give Intel the edge, thanks to the Core i5-13400F’s four E-cores. And if a 13th-gen Core chip lacks cutting-edge performance, it’s plenty fast for a midrange GPU. The $109 Core i5-12400F would also be OK and save a little more money, but we think the extra cores and small clock speed boost are worth the $20-ish premium.

For a budget build, we think your best strategy is to save money everywhere you can so you can squeeze a 16GB AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT into the budget. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Going with a DDR4 motherboard and RAM saves us a tiny bit, and we’ve also stayed at 16GB of RAM instead of stepping up (some games, sometimes can benefit from 32GB, especially if you want to keep a bunch of other stuff running in the background, but it still usually won’t be a huge bottleneck). We upgraded to a 1TB SSD; huge AAA games will eat that up relatively quickly, but there is another M.2 slot you can use to put in another drive later. The power supply and case selections are the same as in our budget pick.

All of that cost-cutting was done in service of stretching the budget to include the 16GB version of AMD’s Radeon RX 9060 XT graphics card.

You could go with the 8GB version of the 9060 XT or Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 5060 and get solid 1080p gaming performance for almost $100 less. But we’re at a point where having 8GB of RAM in your graphics card can be a bottleneck, and that’s a problem that will only get worse over time. The 9060 XT has a consistent edge over the RTX 5060 in our testing, even in games with ray-tracing effects enabled, and at 1440p, the extra memory can easily be the difference between a game that runs and a game that doesn’t.

A more future-proofed budget gaming PC

What it’s good for: Good all-round performance with plenty of memory and storage, plus room for future upgrades.

What it sucks at: Getting you higher frame rates than our budget-budget build.

Cost as of this writing: $1,070 to $1,110, depending on components

As I found myself making cut after cut to maximize the fps-per-dollar we could get from our budget gaming PC, I decided I wanted to spec out a system with the same GPU but with other components that would make it better for non-gaming use and easier to upgrade in the future, with more generous allotments of memory and storage.

This build shifts back to many of the AMD AM5 components we used in our basic budget build, but with an 8-core Ryzen 7 7700X CPU at its heart. Its Zen 4 architecture isn’t the latest and greatest, but Zen 5 is a modest upgrade, and you’ll still get better single- and multi-core processor performance than you do with the Core i5 in our other build. It’s not worth spending more than $50 to step up to a Ryzen 7 9700X, and it’s overkill to spend $330 on a 12-core Ryzen 9 7900X or $380 on a Ryzen 7 7800X3D.

This chip doesn’t come with its own fan, so we’ve included an inexpensive air cooler we like that will give you plenty of thermal headroom.

A 32GB kit of RAM and 2TB of storage will give you ample room for games and enough RAM that you won’t have to worry about the small handful of outliers that benefit from more than 16GB of system RAM, while a marginally beefier power supply gives you a bit more headroom for future upgrades while still keeping costs relatively low.

This build won’t benefit your frame rates much since we’re sticking with the same 16GB RX 9060 XT. But the rest of it is specced generously enough that you could add a GeForce RTX 5070 (currently around $550) or a non-XT Radeon RX 9070 card (around $600) without needing to change any of the other components.

A comfortable 4K gaming rig

What it’s good for: Just about anything! But it’s built to play games at higher resolutions than our budget builds.

What it sucks at: Getting you top-of-the-line bragging rights.

Cost as of this writing: $1,829 to $1,934, depending on components.

Our budget builds cover 1080p-to-1440p gaming, and with an RTX 5070 or an RX 9070, they could realistically stretch to 4K in some games. But for more comfortable 4K gaming or super-high-frame-rate 1440p performance, you’ll thank yourself for spending a bit more.

You’ll note that the quality of the component selections here has been bumped up a bit all around. X670 or X870-series boards don’t just get you better I/O; they’ll also get you full PCI Express 5.0 support in the GPU slot and components better-suited to handling faster and more power-hungry components. We’ve swapped to a modular ATX 3.x-compliant power supply to simplify cable management and get a 12V-2×6 power connector. And we picked out a slightly higher-end SSD, too. But we’ve tried not to spend unnecessary money on things that won’t meaningfully improve performance—no 1,000+ watt power supplies, PCIe 5.0 SSDs, or 64GB RAM kits here.

A Ryzen 7 7800X3D might arguably be overkill for this build—especially at 4K, where the GPU will still be the main bottleneck—but it will be useful for getting higher frame rates at lower resolutions and just generally making sure performance stays consistent and smooth. Ryzen 7900X, 7950X, or 9900X chips are all good alternatives if you want more multi-core CPU performance—if you plan to stream as you play, for instance. A 9700X or even a 7700X would probably hold up fine if you won’t be doing that kind of thing and want to save a little.

You could cool any of these with a closed-loop AIO cooler, but a solid air cooler like the Thermalright model will keep it running cool for less money, and with a less-complicated install process.

A GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is the best 4K performance you can get for less than $1,000, but that doesn’t make it cheap. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Based on current pricing and availability, I think the RTX 5070 Ti makes the most sense for a non-absurd 4K-capable build. Its prices are still elevated slightly above its advertised $749 MSRP, but it’s giving you RTX 4080/4080 Super-level performance for between $200 and $400 less than those cards launched for. Nvidia’s next step up, the RTX 5080, will run you at least $1,200 or $1,300—and usually more. AMD’s best option, the RX 9070 XT, is a respectable contender, and it’s probably the better choice if you plan on using Linux instead of Windows. But for a Windows-based gaming box, Nvidia still has an edge in games with ray-tracing effects enabled, plus DLSS upscaling and frame generation.

Is it silly that the GPU costs as much as our entire budget gaming PC? Of course! But it is what it is.

Even more than the budget-focused builds, the case here is a matter of personal preference, and $100 or $150 is enough to buy you any one of several dozen competent cases that will fit our chosen components. We’ve highlighted a few from case makers with good reputations to give you a place to start. Some of these also come in multiple colors, with different side panel options and both RGB and non-RGB options to suit your tastes.

If you like something a little more statement-y, the Fractal Design North ($155) and Lian Li Lancool 217 ($120) both include the wood accents that some case makers have been pushing lately. The Fractal Design case comes with both mesh and tempered glass side panel options, depending on how into RGB you are, while the Lancool case includes a whopping five case fans for keeping your system cool.

The “God Box”

What it’s good for: Anything and everything.

What it sucks at: Being affordable.

Cost as of this writing: $4,891 to $5,146

We’re avoiding Xeon and Threadripper territory here—frankly, I’ve never even tried to do a build centered on those chips and wouldn’t trust myself to make recommendations—but this system is as fast as consumer-grade hardware gets.

An Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 guarantees the fastest GPU performance you can buy and continues the trend of “paying as much for a GPU as you could for an entire fully functional PC.” And while we have specced this build with a single GPU, the motherboard we’ve chosen has a second full-speed PCIe 5.0 x16 slot that you could use for a dual-GPU build.

A Ryzen 9950X3D chip gets you top-tier gaming performance and tons of CPU cores. We’re cooling this powerful chip with a 360 mm Arctic Liquid Freezer III Pro cooler, which has generally earned good reviews from Gamers Nexus and other outlets for its value, cooling performance, and quiet performance. A white option is also available if you’re going for a light-mode color scheme instead of our predominantly dark-mode build.

Other components have been pumped up similarly gratuitously. A 1,000 W power supply is the minimum for an RTX 5090, but to give us some headroom, why not use a 1,200 W model with lights on it? Is PCIe 5.0 storage strictly necessary for anything? No! But let’s grab a 4 TB PCIe 5.0 SSD anyway. And populating all four of our RAM slots with a 32GB stick of DDR5 avoids any unsightly blank spots inside our case.

We’ve selected a couple of largish case options to house our big builds, though as usual, there are tons of other options to fit all design sensibilities and tastes. Just make sure, if you’re selecting a big Extended ATX motherboard like the X870E Taichi, that your case will fit a board that’s slightly wider than a regular ATX or micro ATX board (the Taichi is 267 mm wide, which should be fine in either of our case selections).

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

Ars Technica System Guide: Five sample PC builds, from $500 to $5,000 Read More »

The case of the coke-snorting Chihuahua

animals, Biology, canine behavior, Dogs, Science, veterinary medicine, veterinary science / Paul Patrick / August 18, 2025

Every dog owner knows that canines are natural scavengers and that vigilance is required to ensure they don’t eat toxic substances. But accidental ingestions still happen—like the chihuahua who vets discovered had somehow managed to ingest a significant quantity of cocaine, according to a case study published in the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

There have been several studies investigating the bad effects cocaine can have on the cardiovascular systems of both humans and animals. However, these controlled studies are primarily done in laboratory settings and often don’t match the messier clinical realities. “Case reports are crucial in veterinary medicine by providing real-world examples,” said co-author Jake Johnson of North Carolina State University. “They capture clinical scenarios that larger studies might miss, preserve unusual presentations for future reference, and help build our collective understanding of rare presentations, ultimately improving emergency preparedness and treatment protocols.”

In the case of a male 2-year-old chihuahua, the dog presented as lethargic and unresponsive. His owners had found him with his tongue sticking out and unable to focus visually. The chihuahua was primarily an outdoor dog but was also allowed inside, and all its vaccines were up to date. Examination revealed bradycardia, i.e., a slow heart rate, a blue tinge to the dog’s mucus membranes—often a sign of too much unoxygenated hemoglobin circulating through the system—and dilated pupils. The dog’s symptoms faded after the vet administered a large dose of atropine, followed by epinephrine.

Then the dog was moved to a veterinary teaching hospital for further evaluation and testing. A urine test was positive for cocaine with traces of fentanyl, confirmed with liquid chromatography testing. The authors estimate the dog could have snorted (or ingested) as much as 96 mg of the drug. Apparently the Chihuahua had a history of ingesting things it shouldn’t, but the owners reported no prescription medications missing at home. They also did not have any controlled substances or illegal drugs like cocaine in the home.

The case of the coke-snorting Chihuahua Read More »

US may purchase stake in Intel after Trump attacked CEO

Chips Act, Donald trump. intel, Joe Biden, NVIDIA, Policy, semiconductors, us-china trade war / Paul Patrick / August 15, 2025

Trump’s attacks on Intel CEO may stem from beef with Biden.

Lip-Bu Tan, chief executive officer of Intel Corp., departs following a meeting at the White House. President Donald Trump said Tan had an “amazing story” after the meeting.

Donald Trump has been meddling with Intel, which now apparently includes mulling “the possibility of the US government taking a financial stake in the troubled chip maker,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Trump and Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan weighed the option during a meeting on Monday at the White House, people familiar with the matter told WSJ. These talks have only just begun—with Intel branding them a rumor—and sources told the WSJ that Trump has yet to iron out how the potential arrangement might work.

The WSJ’s report comes after Trump called for Tan to “resign immediately” last week. Trump’s demand was seemingly spurred by a letter that Republican senator Tom Cotton sent to Intel, accusing Tan of having “concerning” ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Cotton accused Tan of controlling “dozens of Chinese companies” and holding a stake in “hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms,” at least eight of which “reportedly have ties to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”

Further, before joining Intel, Tan was CEO of Cadence Design Systems, which recently “pleaded guilty to illegally selling its products to a Chinese military university and transferring its technology to an associated Chinese semiconductor company without obtaining license.”

“These illegal activities occurred under Mr. Tan’s tenure,” Cotton pointed out.

He demanded answers by August 15 from Intel on whether they weighed Tan’s alleged Cadence conflicts of interest against the company’s requirements to comply with US national security laws after accepting $8 billion in CHIPS Act funding—the largest granted during Joe Biden’s term. The senator also asked Intel if Tan was required to make any divestments to meet CHIPS Act obligations and if Tan has ever disclosed any ties to the Chinese government to the US government.

Neither Intel nor Cotton’s office responded to Ars’ request to comment on the letter or confirm whether Intel has responded.

But Tan has claimed that there is “a lot of misinformation” about his career and portfolio, the South China Morning Post reported. Born in Malaysia, Tan has been a US citizen for 40 years after finishing postgraduate studies in nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In an op-ed, SCMP reporter Alex Lo suggested that Tan’s investments—which include stakes in China’s largest sanctioned chipmaker, SMIC, as well as “several” companies on US trade blacklists, SCMP separately reported—seem no different than other US executives and firms with substantial investments in Chinese firms.

“Cotton accused [Tan] of having extensive investments in China,” Lo wrote. “Well, name me a Wall Street or Silicon Valley titan in the past quarter of a century who didn’t have investment or business in China. Elon Musk? Apple? BlackRock?”

He also noted that “numerous news reports” indicated that “Cadence staff in China hid the dodgy sales from the company’s compliance officers and bosses at the US headquarters,” which Intel may explain to Cotton if a response comes later today.

Any red flags that Intel’s response may raise seems likely to heighten Trump’s scrutiny, as he looks to make what Reuters reported was yet another “unprecedented intervention” by a president in a US firm’s business. Previously, Trump surprised the tech industry by threatening the first-ever tariffs aimed at a US company (Apple) and more recently, Trump struck an unusual deal with Nvidia and AMD that gives US a 15 percent cut of the firms’ revenue from China chip sales.

However, Trump was seemingly impressed by Tan after some face-time this week. Trump came out of their meeting professing that Tan has an “amazing story,” Bloomberg reported, noting that any agreement between Trump and Tan “would likely help Intel build out” its planned $28 billion chip complex in Ohio.

Those chip fabs—boosted by CHIPS Act funding—were supposed to put Intel on track to launch operations by 2030, but delays have set that back by five years, Bloomberg reported. That almost certainly scrambles another timeline that Biden’s Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo had suggested would ensure that “20 percent of the world’s most advanced chips are made in the US by the end of the decade.”

Why Intel may be into Trump’s deal

At one point, Intel was the undisputed leader in chip manufacturing, Bloomberg noted, but its value plummeted from $288 billion in 2020 to $104 billion today. The chipmaker has been struggling for a while—falling behind as Nvidia grew to dominate the AI chip industry—and 2024 was its “first unprofitable year since 1986,” Reuters reported. As the dismal year wound down, Intel’s longtime CEO Pat Gelsinger retired.

Helming Intel for more than 40 years, Gelsinger acknowledged the “challenging year.” Now Tan is expected to turn it around. To do that, he may need to deprioritize the manufacturing process that Gelsinger pushed, which Tan suspects may have caused Intel being viewed as an outdated firm, anonymous insiders told Reuters. Sources suggest he’s planning to pivot Intel to focus more on “a next-generation chipmaking process where Intel expects to have advantages over Taiwan’s TSMC,” which currently dominates chip manufacturing and even counts Intel as a customer, Reuters reported. As it stands now, TSMC “produces about a third of Intel’s supply,” SCMP reported.

This pivot is supposedly how Tan expects Intel can eventually poach TSMC’s biggest customers like Apple and Nvidia, Reuters noted.

Intel has so far claimed that any discussions of Tan’s supposed plans amount to nothing but speculation. But if Tan did go that route, one source told Reuters that Intel would likely have to take a write-off that industry analysts estimate could trigger losses “of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.”

Perhaps facing that hurdle, Tan might be open to agreeing to the US purchasing a financial stake in the company while he rights the ship.

Trump/Intel deal reminiscent of TikTok deal

Any deal would certainly deepen the government’s involvement in the US chip industry, which is widely viewed as critical to US national security.

While unusual, the deal does seem somewhat reminiscent to the TikTok buyout that the Trump administration has been trying to iron out since he took office. Through that deal, the US would acquire enough ownership divested from China-linked entities to supposedly appease national security concerns, but China has been hesitant to sign off on any of Trump’s proposals so far.

Last month, Trump admitted that he wasn’t confident that he could sell China on the TikTok deal, which TikTok suggested would have resulted in a glitchier version of the app for American users. More recently, Trump’s commerce secretary threatened to shut down TikTok if China refuses to approve the current version of the deal.

Perhaps the terms of a US deal with Intel could require Tan to divest certain holdings that the US fears compromises the CEO. Under terms of the CHIPS Act grant, Intel is already required to be “a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations,” Cotton reminded the company in his letter.

But social media users in Malaysia and Singapore have criticized Cotton of the “usual case of racism” in attacking Intel’s CEO, SCMP reported. They noted that Cotton “was the same person who repeatedly accused TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew of ties with the Chinese Communist Party despite his insistence of being a Singaporean,” SCMP reported.

“Now it’s the Intel’s CEO’s turn on the chopping block for being [ethnic] Chinese,” a Facebook user, Michael Ong, said.

Tensions were so high that there was even a social media push for Tan to “call on Trump’s bluff and resign, saying ‘Intel is the next Nokia’ and that Chinese firms would gladly take him instead,” SCMP reported.

So far, Tan has not criticized the Trump administration for questioning his background, but he did issue a statement yesterday, seemingly appealing to Trump by emphasizing his US patriotism.

“I love this country and am profoundly grateful for the opportunities it has given me,” Tan said. “I also love this company. Leading Intel at this critical moment is not just a job—it’s a privilege.”

Trump’s Intel attacks rooted in Biden beef?

In his op-ed, SCMP’s Lo suggested that “Intel itself makes a good punching bag” as the biggest recipient of CHIPS Act funding. The CHIPS Act was supposed to be Biden’s lasting legacy in the US, and Trump has resolved to dismantle it, criticizing supposed handouts to tech firms that Trump prefers to strong-arm into US manufacturing instead through unpredictable tariff regimes.

“The attack on Intel is also an attack on Trump’s predecessor, Biden, whom he likes to blame for everything, even though the industrial policies of both administrations and their tech war against China are similar,” Lo wrote.

At least one lawmaker is ready to join critics who question if Trump’s trade war is truly motivated by national security concerns. On Friday, US representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D.-Ill.) sent a letter to Trump “expressing concern” over Trump allowing Nvidia to resume exports of its H20 chips to China.

“Trump’s reckless policy on AI chip exports sells out US security to Beijing,” Krishnamoorthi warned.

“Allowing even downgraded versions of cutting-edge AI hardware to flow” to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) “risks accelerating Beijing’s capabilities and eroding our technological edge,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. Further, “the PRC can build the largest AI supercomputers in the world by purchasing a moderately larger number of downgraded Blackwell chips—and achieve the same capability to train frontier AI models and deploy them at scale for national security purposes.”

Krishnamoorthi asked Trump to send responses by August 22 to four questions. Perhaps most urgently, he wants Trump to explain “what specific legal authority would allow the US government to “extract revenue sharing as a condition for the issuance of export licenses” and what exactly he intends to do with those funds.

Trump was also asked to confirm if the president followed protocols established by Congress to ensure proper export licensing through the agreement. Finally, Krishnamoorthi demanded to know if Congress was ever “informed or consulted at any point during the negotiation or development of this reported revenue-sharing agreement with NVIDIA and AMD.”

“The American people deserve transparency,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. “Our export control regime must be based on genuine security considerations, not creative taxation schemes disguised as national security policy.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

US may purchase stake in Intel after Trump attacked CEO Read More »

NASA’s acting chief calls for the end of Earth science at the space agency

Earth science, NASA, Sean Duffy, Space / Paul Patrick / August 15, 2025

Sean Duffy, the acting administrator of NASA for a little more than a month, has vowed to make the United States great in space.

With a background as a US Congressman, reality TV star, and television commentator, Duffy did not come to the position with a deep well of knowledge about spaceflight. He also already had a lot on his plate, serving as the secretary of transportation, a Cabinet-level position that oversees 55,000 employees across 13 agencies.

Nevertheless, Duffy is putting his imprint on the space agency, seeking to emphasize the agency’s human exploration plans, including the development of a lunar base, and ending NASA’s efforts to study planet Earth and its changing climate.

Duffy has not spoken much with reporters who cover the space industry, but he has been a frequent presence on Fox News networks, where he previously worked as a host. On Thursday, he made an 11-minute appearance on “Mornings with Maria,” a FOX Business show hosted by Maria Bartiromo to discuss NASA.

NASA should explore, he says

During this appearance, Duffy talked up NASA’s plans to establish a permanent presence on the Moon and his push to develop a nuclear reactor that could provide power there. He also emphasized his desire to end NASA’s focus on studying the Earth and understanding how the planet’s surface and atmosphere are changing. This shift has been a priority of the Trump Administration at other federal agencies.

“All the climate science, and all of the other priorities that the last administration had at NASA, we’re going to move aside, and all of the science that we do is going to be directed towards exploration, which is the mission of NASA,” Duffy said during the appearance. “That’s why we have NASA, to explore, not to do all of these Earth sciences.”

NASA’s acting chief calls for the end of Earth science at the space agency Read More »

Author name: Paul Patrick