Paul Patrick – Page 8

Republicans drop Trump-ordered block on state AI laws from defense bill

AI, AI safety, Donald Trump, Policy, raise act, state AI laws / Paul Patrick / December 3, 2025

“A silly way to think about risk”

“Widespread and powerful movement” keeps Trump from blocking state AI laws.

A Donald Trump-backed push has failed to wedge a federal measure that would block states from passing AI laws for a decade into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told reporters Tuesday that a sect of Republicans is now “looking at other places” to potentially pass the measure. Other Republicans opposed including the AI preemption in the defense bill, The Hill reported, joining critics who see value in allowing states to quickly regulate AI risks as they arise.

For months, Trump has pressured the Republican-led Congress to block state AI laws that the president claims could bog down innovation as AI firms waste time and resources complying with a patchwork of state laws. But Republicans have continually failed to unite behind Trump’s command, first voting against including a similar measure in the “Big Beautiful” budget bill and then this week failing to negotiate a solution to pass the NDAA measure.

Among Republican lawmakers pushing back this week were Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, The Hill reported.

According to Scalise, the effort to block state AI laws is not over, but Republicans caved to backlash over including it in the defense bill, ultimately deciding that the NDAA “wasn’t the best place” for the measure “to fit.” Republicans will continue “looking at other places” to advance the measure, Scalise said, emphasizing that “interest” remains high, because “you know, you’ve seen the president talk about it.”

“We MUST have one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last month. “If we don’t, then China will easily catch us in the AI race. Put it in the NDAA, or pass a separate Bill, and nobody will ever be able to compete with America.”

If Congress bombs the assignment to find another way to pass the measure, Trump will likely release an executive order to enforce the policy. Republicans in Congress had dissuaded Trump from releasing a draft of that order, requesting time to find legislation where they believed an AI moratorium could pass.

“Widespread” movement blocked Trump’s demand

Celebrating the removal of the measure from the NDAA, a bipartisan group that lobbies for AI safety laws, Americans for Responsible Innovation (ARI), noted that Republicans didn’t just face pressure from members of their own party.

“The controversial proposal had faced backlash from a nationwide, bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers, parents, faith leaders, unions, whistleblowers, and other public advocates,” an ARI press release said.

This “widespread and powerful” movement “clapped back” at Republicans’ latest “rushed attempt to sneak preemption through Congress,” Brad Carson, ARI’s president, said, because “Americans want safeguards that protect kids, workers, and families, not a rules-free zone for Big Tech.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) called the measure “controversial,” The Hill reported, suggesting that a compromise that the White House is currently working on would potentially preserve some of states’ rights to regulate some areas of AI since “you know, both sides are kind of dug in.”

$150 million war over states’ rights to regulate AI

Perhaps the clearest sign that both sides “are kind of dug in” is a $150 million AI lobbying war that Forbes profiled last month.

ARI is a dominant group on one side of this war, using funding from “safety-focused” and “effective altruism-aligned” donor networks to support state AI laws that ARI expects can be passed much faster than federal regulations to combat emerging risks.

The major player on the other side, Forbes reported, is Leading the Future (LTF), which is “backed by some of Silicon Valley’s largest investors” who want to block state laws and prefer a federal framework for AI regulation.

Top priorities for ARI and like-minded groups include protecting kids from dangerous AI models, preventing AI from supercharging crime, protecting against national security threats, and getting ahead of “long-term frontier-model risks,” Forbes reported.

But while some Republicans have pushed for compromises that protect states’ rights to pass laws shielding kids or preventing fraud, Trump’s opposition to AI safety laws like New York’s “RAISE Act” seems unlikely to wane as the White House mulls weakening the federal preemption.

Quite the opposite, a Democrat and author the RAISE Act, Alex Bores, has become LTF’s prime target to defeat in 2026, Politico reported. LTF plans to invest many millions in ads to block Bores’ Congressional bid, CNBC reported.

New York lawmakers passed the RAISE Act this summer, but it’s still waiting for New York’s Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, to sign it into law. If that happens—potentially by the end of this year—big tech companies like Google and OpenAI will have to submit risk disclosures and safety assessments or else face fines up to $30 million.

LTF leaders, Zac Moffatt and Josh Vlasto, have accused Bores of “pushing “ideological and politically motivated legislation that would ‘handcuff’ the US and its ability to lead in AI,” Forbes reported. But Bores told Ars that even the tech industry groups spending hundreds of thousands of dollars opposing his law have reported that tech giants would only have to hire one additional person to comply with the law. To him, that shows how “simple” it would be for AI firms to comply with many state laws.

To LTF, whose donors include Marc Andreessen and OpenAI cofounder Greg Brockman, defeating Bores would keep the opposition out of Congress, where it could be easier to meddle with industry dreams that AI won’t be heavily regulated. Scalise argued Tuesday that the AI preemption is necessary to promote an open marketplace, because “AI is where a lot of new massive investment is going” and “we want that money to be invested in America.”

“And when you see some states starting to put a patchwork of limitations, that’s why it’s come to the federal government’s attention to allow for an open marketplace, so you don’t have limitations that hurt innovation,” Scalise said.

Bores told Ars that he agrees that a federal law would be superior to a patchwork of state laws, but AI is moving “too quickly,” and “New York had to take action to protect New Yorkers.”

Why Bores’ bill has GOP so spooked

With a bachelor’s degree in computer science and prior work as an engineer at Palantir, Bores hopes to make it to Congress to help bridge bipartisan gaps and drive innovation in the US. He told Ars that the RAISE Act is not intended to block AI innovation but to “be a first step that deals with the absolute worst possible outcomes” until Congress is done deliberating a federal framework.

Bores emphasized that stakeholders in the tech industry helped shape the RAISE Act, which he described as “a limited bill that is focused on the most extreme risks.”

“I would never be the one to say that once the RAISE Act is signed, we’ve solved the problems of AI,” Bores told Ars. Instead, it’s meant to help states combat risks that can’t be undone, such as bad actors using AI to build “a bioweapon or doing an automated crime spree that results in billions of dollars in damage.” The bill defines “critical harm” as “the death or serious injury of 100 people or at least $1 billion in damages,” setting a seemingly high bar for the types of doomsday scenarios that AI firms would have to plan for.

Bores agrees with Trump-aligned critics who advocate that the US should “regulate just how people use” AI, “not the development of the technology itself.” But he told Ars that Republicans’ efforts to block states from regulating the models themselves are “a silly way to think about risk,” since “there’s certain catastrophic incidents where if you just said, ‘well, we’ll just sue the person afterwards,’ no one would be satisfied by that resolution.”

Whether Hochul will sign the RAISE Act has yet to be seen. Earlier this year, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a similar law that the AI industry worried would rock their bottom lines by requiring a “kill switch” in case AI models went off the rails. Newsom did, however, sign a less extreme measure, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act. And other states, including Colorado and Illinois, have passed similarly broad AI transparency laws providing consumer and employee protections.

Bores told Ars in mid-November that he’d had informal talks with Hochul about possible changes to the RAISE Act, but she had not yet begun the formal process of proposing amendments. The clock is seemingly ticking, though, as Hochul has to take action on the bill by the end of the year, and once it reaches her desk, she has 10 days to sign it.

Whether Hochul signs the law or not, Bores will likely continue to face opposition over authoring the bill, as he runs to represent New York’s 12th Congressional District in 2026. With a history of passing bipartisan bills in his state, he’s hoping to be elected so he can work with lawmakers across the aisle to pass other far-reaching tech regulations.

Meanwhile, Trump may face pressure to delay an executive order requiring AI preemption, Forbes reported, as “AI’s economic impact and labor displacement” are “rising as voter concerns” ahead of the midterm elections. Public First, a bipartisan initiative aligned with ARI, has said that 97 percent of Americans want AI safety rules, Forbes reported.

Like Bores, ARI plans to keep pushing a bipartisan movement that could scramble Republicans from ever unifying behind Trump’s message that state AI laws risk throttling US innovation and endangering national security, should a less-regulated AI industry in China race ahead.

To maintain momentum, ARI created a tracker showing opposition to federal preemption of state AI laws. Among recent commenters logged was Andrew Gounardes, a Democrat and state senator in New York—where Bores noted a poll found that 84 percent of residents supported the RAISE Act, only 8 percent opposed, and 8 percent were undecided. Gounardes joined critics on the far right, like Steve Bannon, who warned that federal preemption was a big gift for Big Tech. AI firms and the venture capitalist lobbyists “don’t want any regulation whatsoever,” Gounardes argued.

“They say they support a national standard, but in reality, it’s just cheaper for them to buy off Congress to do nothing than it is to try and buy off 50 state legislatures,” Gounardes said.

Bores expects that his experience in the tech industry could help Congress avoid that fate while his policies like the RAISE Act could sway voters who “don’t want Trump mega-donors writing all tech policy,” he wrote on X.

“I am someone with a master’s in computer science, two patents, and nearly a decade working in tech,” Bores told CNBC. “If they are scared of people who understand their business regulating their business, they are telling on themselves.”

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.

Republicans drop Trump-ordered block on state AI laws from defense bill Read More »

Meet CDC’s new lead vaccine advisor who thinks shots cause heart disease

ACIP, anti-vaccine, CDC, fda, health, Kirk Milhoan, myocarditis, robert f kennedy jr, vinay prasad / Paul Patrick / December 2, 2025

Milhoan has a history of touting unproven COVID cures while disparaging vaccines.

Kirk Milhoan, James Pagano, and Robert Malone are seen during a meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on September 18, 2025 in Chamblee, Georgia. Credit: Getty | Elijah Nouvelage

When the federal vaccine committee hand-picked by anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. meets again this week, it will have yet another new chairperson to lead its ongoing work of dismantling the evidence-based vaccine recommendations set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

On Monday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that the chairperson who has been in place since June—when Kennedy fired all 17 expert advisors on the committee and replaced them with questionably qualified allies—is moving to a senior role in the department. Biostatistician Martin Kulldorff will now be the chief science officer for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), HHS said. As such, he’s stepping down from the vaccine committee, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Kulldorff gained prominence amid the COVID-19 pandemic, criticizing public health responses to the crisis, particularly lockdowns and COVID-19 vaccines. He was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration that advocated for letting the deadly virus spread unchecked through the population, which was called unethical by health experts.

As ACIP chair, Kulldorff frequently made false and misleading statements about vaccine safety and efficacy that were in line with Kennedy’s views and statements. While Kulldorff presided over the committee, it made a series of decisions that were sharply denounced by scientific and medical groups as being based on ideology rather than evidence. Those include voting for the removal of the vaccine preservative thimerosal from some flu vaccines, despite well-established data indicating it is safe, with no evidence of harms. The committee also added restrictions to a combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) MMRV vaccine and made an unprecedented effort to prevent Americans from getting COVID-19 vaccines, though the moves were largely ineffective.

In his new role, Kulldorff will be working with ASPE to provide analyses on health policy options, coordinate research efforts, and provide policy advice.

“It’s an honor to join the team of distinguished scientists that Secretary Kennedy has assembled,” Kulldorff said in a press release announcing his new role. “I look forward to contributing to the science-based public health policies that will Make America Healthy Again.”

The new chair, Kirk Milhoan

With Kulldorff moving on, ACIP will now be chaired by Kirk Milhoan, a pediatric oncologist with a track record for spreading COVID-19 misinformation and anti-vaccine views. In August 2021, the Hawaii Medical Board filed a complaint against Milhoan after he appeared on a panel promoting ineffective COVID-19 treatments, downplaying the severity of the disease, and spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Maui News. The complaint was dropped in April 2022 after state regulators said they had insufficient evidence to prove a violation of statutes regarding the practice of medicine.

While Milhoan claimed at the time that he is “pro-vaccine,” his statement, affiliations, and prescribing practices suggest otherwise. Milhoan is a member of the Independent Medical Alliance (formerly the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance), a group of dubious health care providers set up amid the pandemic to promote the use of the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine and the de-worming drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19. Both drugs have shown to be ineffective and potentially harmful when used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The IMA also emphasizes vaccine injuries while pushing vitamins and other unproven treatments.

In 2024, Milhoan appeared on a panel set up by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to discuss alleged injuries from COVID-19 vaccines alongside other prominent anti-vaccine and COVID-19 misinformation voices. In his opening statement, Milhoan suggested that COVID-19 vaccines were causing severe cardiovascular disease and death in people aged 15 to 44—an unsubstantiated claim he frequently echoes. In his bio for the IMA, he touts that he offers treatment for “vaccine-related cardiovascular toxicity due to the spike protein.”

CDC data has found that boys and young men, aged 12 to 24, have a heightened risk of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart) after COVID-19 vaccination. However, the cases are rare, relatively mild, and almost always resolve, according to CDC data. In a COVID-19 safety data presentation in June, CDC staff scientists reported that its vast vaccine safety monitoring systems indicated that in males 12–24, there are 27 myocarditis cases per million doses of COVID-19 vaccine administered (roughly one case in 37,000 doses). In cases identified during 2021, 83 percent recovered within three months, with more than 90 percent recovering within the year. The monitoring data found no instances of cardiac transplant or death from COVID-19 vaccination.

While anti-vaccine activists have seized on this minor risk from vaccination, health experts note that the risk of myocarditis and other inflammatory conditions from a COVID-19 infection is significantly greater than the risk from vaccination. Exact estimates vary, but one CDC study in 2021 found that people with COVID-19 infections had a 16-fold higher risk of myocarditis than people without the infection. Specifically, the study estimated that there were 150 myocarditis cases among 100,000 COVID-19-infected patients versus just nine myocarditis cases among 100,000 people without COVID-19 infections and who were also unvaccinated. Similar to what’s seen with vaccination, the study found that young males were most at risk of myocarditis.

Kennedy’s allies attack on COVID-19 shots

Kennedy and his allies, like Milhoan, have consistently inflated the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination, with some claiming without evidence that they have caused sudden cardiac arrest and deaths in young males, though studies have found no such link. In 2022, Milhoan and fellow ACIP member and conspiracy theorist Robert Malone were featured in a viral social media post suggesting that 50 percent of college athletes in the Big Ten athletic conference had myocarditis linked to COVID-19 vaccines, which could lead to deaths if they played. But the two were referencing a JAMA Cardiology study that examined subclinical myocarditis in Big Ten athletes after COVID-19 infection—not vaccination. In fact, researchers confirmed for an AFP fact check that none of the athletes in the study were vaccinated. And the rate of subclinical myocarditis in the group was 2.3 percent, not 50 percent.

Milhoan’s misinformation about the cardiovascular harms from COVID-19 vaccines seems particularly pertinent to the direction of Kennedy’s anti-vaccine allies. On Friday, Vinay Prasad, the Food and Drug Administration’s top vaccine regulator, sent a memo to staff claiming without evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have killed 10 children. The memo provides little information about the extraordinary claim, but it hints that the deaths were linked to myocarditis and found among reports submitted between 2021 and 2024 to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

VAERS is a system by which anyone, including members of the public, can report anything they think could be linked to vaccines. The reports are considered a type of early warning system, but the vast majority of the reports submitted are not actually related to vaccines. Further, CDC scientists have thoroughly evaluated VAERS reports and ruled out deaths attributed to COVID-19 vaccines. Prasad’s memo—which experts have speculated was designed to be leaked to produce alarming headlines about child deaths—claimed that before Trump administration officials with anti-vaccine views began sifting through the data, these deaths were “ignored” by FDA and CDC scientists. Prasad also claimed that there could be many more deaths that have gone unreported, despite the fact that healthcare providers have been legally required to report any deaths that occurred after COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of cause.

This week’s ACIP meeting

In this week’s scheduled ACIP meeting on Thursday and Friday, COVID-19 vaccines don’t appear on the draft agenda. Instead, ACIP is expected to vote to remove a recommendation for a birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. That dose protects newborns from contracting the highly infectious virus from their mothers during birth or from other family or acquaintances shortly after birth. About half of the people infected with hepatitis B are not aware of their infections, and testing of mothers before birth is imperfect. That can leave newborns particularly vulnerable, as infections that start at or shortly after birth almost always develop into chronic infections that can lead to liver disease, liver transplant, and cancer. In a previous ACIP meeting, CDC staff scientists presented data showing that there are no significant harms of birth doses and there is no evidence that delaying the immunization offers any benefit.

The committee is also taking on the childhood vaccine schedule as a whole, though the agenda on this topic is not yet clear. In his memo, Prasad attacked the common practice of providing multiple vaccinations at once, hinting that it could be a way in which the committee will try to dismantle current childhood vaccination recommendations. On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that the committee will examine whether the childhood vaccine schedule as a whole is causing allergies and autoimmune diseases, something Kennedy and his anti-vaccine organization have long floated despite evidence refuting a link.

Under clear attack are aluminum salt adjuvants, which are used in many vaccines to help spur protective immune responses. Aluminum salts have been used safely in vaccines for more than 70 years. The FDA notes that the most common source of aluminum exposure is from food and water, not vaccines.

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.

Meet CDC’s new lead vaccine advisor who thinks shots cause heart disease Read More »

Samsung reveals Galaxy Z TriFold with 10-inch foldable screen, astronomical price

Foldables, samsung, smartphones, Tech / Paul Patrick / December 2, 2025

Samsung has a new foldable smartphone, and it’s not just another Z Flip or Z Fold. The Galaxy Z TriFold has three articulating sections that house a massive 10-inch tablet-style screen, along with a traditional smartphone screen on the outside. The lavish new smartphone is launching this month in South Korea with a hefty price tag, and it will eventually make its way to the US in early 2026.

Samsung says it refined its Armor FlexHinge design for the TriFold. The device’s two hinges are slightly different sizes because the phone’s three panels have distinct shapes. The center panel is the thickest at 4.2 mm, and the other two are fractions of a millimeter thinner. The phone has apparently been designed to account for the varying sizes and weights, allowing the frame to fold up tight in a pocketable form factor.

Huawei’s impressive Mate XT tri-fold phones have been making the rounds online, but they’re not available in Western markets. Samsung’s new foldable looks similar at a glance, but the way the three panels fit together is different. The Mate XT folds in a Z-shaped configuration, using part of the main screen as the cover display. On Samsung’s phone, the left and right segments fold inward behind the separate cover screen. Samsung claims it has tested the design extensively to verify that the hinges will hold up to daily use for years.

Precision Engineering in Every Fold | Galaxy Z TriFold

While this does push the definition of “pocketable” for some people, the Galaxy Z TriFold is a tablet that technically fits in your pocket. When folded, it measures 12.9 mm thick, which is much more unwieldy than the Galaxy Z Fold 7‘s 8.9 mm profile. However, the TriFold is only a little thicker than Samsung’s older tablet-style foldables like the Galaxy Z Fold 6. The 1080p cover screen measures 6.5 inches, which is also quite similar to the Z Fold 7. It is very, very heavy for a phone, though, tipping the scales at 309 g.

Samsung reveals Galaxy Z TriFold with 10-inch foldable screen, astronomical price Read More »

3D model shows small clans created Easter Island statues

Archaeology, easter island, Science / Paul Patrick / December 2, 2025

Credit: ArcGIS

Easter Island is famous for its giant monumental statues, called moai, built some 800 years ago. The volcanic rock used for the moai came from a quarry site called Rano Raraku. Archaeologists have created a high-resolution interactive 3D model of the quarry site to learn more about the processes used to create the moai. (You can explore the full interactive model here.) According to a paper published in the journal PLoS ONE, the model shows that there were numerous independent groups, probably family clans, that created the moai, rather than a centralized management system.

“You can see things that you couldn’t actually see on the ground. You can see tops and sides and all kinds of areas that just would never be able to walk to,” said co-author Carl Lipo of Binghamton University. “We can say, ‘Here, go look at it.’ If you want to see the different kinds of carving, fly around and see stuff there. We’re documenting something that really has needed to be documented, but in a way that’s really comprehensive and shareable.”

Lipo is one of the foremost experts on the Easter Island moai. In October, we reported on Lipo’s experimental confirmation—based on 3D modeling of the physics and new field tests to re-create that motion—that Easter Island’s people transported the statues in a vertical position, with workers using ropes to essentially “walk” the moai onto their platforms. To explain the presence of so many moai, the assumption has been that the island was once home to tens of thousands of people.

Lipo’s latest field trials showed that the “walking” method can be accomplished with far fewer workers: 18 people, four on each lateral rope and 10 on a rear rope, to achieve the side-to-side walking motion. They were efficient enough in coordinating their efforts to move the statue forward 100 meters in just 40 minutes. That’s because the method operates on basic pendulum dynamics, which minimizes friction between the base and the ground. It’s also a technique that exploits the gradual build-up of amplitude, suggesting a sophisticated understanding of resonance principles.

3D model shows small clans created Easter Island statues Read More »

The missile meant to strike fear in Russia’s enemies fails once again

ICBM, launch, russia, Sarmat, Science, Space, vladimir putin / Paul Patrick / December 1, 2025

Therefore, it’s no wonder Russian officials like to talk up Sarmat’s capabilities. Russian President Vladimir Putin has called Sarmat a “truly unique weapon” that will “provide food for thought for those who, in the heat of frenzied aggressive rhetoric, try to threaten our country.” Dmitry Rogozin, then the head of Russia’s space agency, called the Sarmat missile a “superweapon” after its first test flight in 2022.

So far, what’s unique about the Sarmat missile is its propensity for failure. The missile’s first full-scale test flight in 2022 apparently went well, but the program has suffered a string of consecutive failures since then, most notably a catastrophic explosion last year that destroyed the Sarmat missile’s underground silo in northern Russia.

The Sarmat is supposed to replace Russia’s aging R-36M2 strategic ICBM fleet, which was built in Ukraine. The RS-28, sometimes called the Satan II, is a “product solely of Russian industry cooperation,” according to Russia’s Ministry of Defense.

The video of the missile failure last week lacks the resolution to confirm whether it was a Sarmat missile or the older-model R-36M2, analysts agree it was most likely a Sarmat. The missile silo used for Friday’s test was recently renovated, perhaps to convert it to support Sarmat tests after the destruction of the new missile’s northern launch site last year.

“Work there began in Spring 2025, after the ice thawed,” wrote Etienne Marcuz, an analyst on strategic armaments at the Foundation for Strategic Research, a French think tank. The “urgent renovation” of the missile silo at Dombarovsky lends support for the hypothesis that last week’s accident involved the Sarmat, and not the R-36M2, which was last tested more than 10 years ago, Marcuz wrote on X.

“If this is indeed another Sarmat failure, it would be highly detrimental to the medium-term future of Russian deterrence,” Marcuz continued. “The aging R-36M2 missiles, which carry a significant portion of Russia’s strategic warheads, are seeing their replacement pushed even further into the future, while their maintenance—previously handled by Ukraine until 2014—remains highly uncertain.”

In this pool photograph distributed by the Russian state media agency Sputnik, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin chairs a Security Council meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow on November 5, 2025. Credit: Gavriil Grigorov/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

Podvig, the UN researcher who also runs the Russian Nuclear Forces blog site, agrees with Marcuz’s conclusions. With the R-36M2 missile soon to retire, “it is extremely unlikely that the Rocket Forces would want to test launch them,” Podvig wrote on his website. “This leaves Sarmat.”

The failure adds fresh uncertainty to the readiness of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. If this were actually a test of one of Russia’s older ICBMs, the result would raise questions about hardware decay and obsolescence. In the more likely case of a Sarmat test flight, it would be the latest in a series of problems that have delayed its entry into service since 2018.

The missile meant to strike fear in Russia’s enemies fails once again Read More »

OpenAI desperate to avoid explaining why it deleted pirated book datasets

AI, chatgpt, copyright infringement, online piracy, openai, pirating books, Policy, training data / Paul Patrick / December 1, 2025

Not for OpenAI to reason why?

OpenAI risks increased fines after deleting pirated books datasets.

OpenAI may soon be forced to explain why it deleted a pair of controversial datasets composed of pirated books, and the stakes could not be higher.

At the heart of a class-action lawsuit from authors alleging that ChatGPT was illegally trained on their works, OpenAI’s decision to delete the datasets could end up being a deciding factor that gives the authors the win.

It’s undisputed that OpenAI deleted the datasets, known as “Books 1” and “Books 2,” prior to ChatGPT’s release in 2022. Created by former OpenAI employees in 2021, the datasets were built by scraping the open web and seizing the bulk of its data from a shadow library called Library Genesis (LibGen).

As OpenAI tells it, the datasets fell out of use within that same year, prompting an internal decision to delete them.

But the authors suspect there’s more to the story than that. They noted that OpenAI appeared to flip-flop by retracting its claim that the datasets’ “non-use” was a reason for deletion, then later claiming that all reasons for deletion, including “non-use,” should be shielded under attorney-client privilege.

To the authors, it seemed like OpenAI was quickly backtracking after the court granted the authors’ discovery requests to review OpenAI’s internal messages on the firm’s “non-use.”

In fact, OpenAI’s reversal only made authors more eager to see how OpenAI discussed “non-use,” and now they may get to find out all the reasons why OpenAI deleted the datasets.

Last week, US district judge Ona Wang ordered OpenAI to share all communications with in-house lawyers about deleting the datasets, as well as “all internal references to LibGen that OpenAI has redacted or withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege.”

According to Wang, OpenAI slipped up by arguing that “non-use” was not a “reason” for deleting the datasets, while simultaneously claiming that it should also be deemed a “reason” considered privileged.

Either way, the judge ruled that OpenAI couldn’t block discovery on “non-use” just by deleting a few words from prior filings that had been on the docket for more than a year.

“OpenAI has gone back-and-forth on whether ‘non-use’ as a ‘reason’ for the deletion of Books1 and Books2 is privileged at all,” Wang wrote. “OpenAI cannot state a ‘reason’ (which implies it is not privileged) and then later assert that the ‘reason’ is privileged to avoid discovery.”

Additionally, OpenAI’s claim that all reasons for deleting the datasets are privileged “strains credulity,” she concluded, ordering OpenAI to produce a wide range of potentially revealing internal messages by December 8. OpenAI must also make its in-house lawyers available for deposition by December 19.

OpenAI has argued that it never flip-flopped or retracted anything. It simply used vague phrasing that led to confusion over whether any of the reasons for deleting the datasets were considered non-privileged. But Wang didn’t buy into that, concluding that “even if a ‘reason’ like ‘non-use’ could be privileged, OpenAI has waived privilege by making a moving target of its privilege assertions.”

Asked for comment, OpenAI told Ars that “we disagree with the ruling and intend to appeal.”

OpenAI’s “flip-flop” may cost it the win

So far, OpenAI has avoided disclosing its rationale, claiming that all the reasons it had for deleting the datasets are privileged. In-house lawyers weighed in on the decision to delete and were even copied on a Slack channel initially called “excise-libgen.”

But Wang reviewed those Slack messages and found that “the vast majority of these communications were not privileged because they were ‘plainly devoid of any request for legal advice and counsel [did] not once weigh in.’”

In a particularly non-privileged batch of messages, one OpenAI lawyer, Jason Kwon, only weighed in once, the judge noted, to recommend the channel name be changed to “project-clear.” Wang reminded OpenAI that “the entirety of the Slack channel and all messages contained therein is not privileged simply because it was created at the direction of an attorney and/or the fact that a lawyer was copied on the communications.”

The authors believe that exposing OpenAI’s rationale may help prove that the ChatGPT maker willfully infringed on copyrights when pirating the book data. As Wang explained, OpenAI’s retraction risked putting the AI firm’s “good faith and state of mind at issue,” which could increase fines in a loss.

“In a copyright case, a court can increase the award of statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed work if the infringement was willful, meaning the defendant ‘was actually aware of the infringing activity’ or the ‘defendant’s actions were the result of reckless disregard for, or willful blindness to, the copyright holder’s rights,’” Wang wrote.

In a court transcript, a lawyer representing some of the authors suing OpenAI, Christopher Young, noted that OpenAI could be in trouble if evidence showed that it decided against using the datasets for later models due to legal risks. He also suggested that OpenAI could be using the datasets under different names to mask further infringement.

Judge calls out OpenAI for twisting fair use ruling

Wang also found it contradictory that OpenAI continued to argue in a recent filing that it acted in good faith, while “artfully” removing “its good faith affirmative defense and key words such as ‘innocent,’ ‘reasonably believed,’ and ‘good faith.’” These changes only strengthened discovery requests to explore authors’ willfulness theory, Wang wrote, noting the sought-after internal messages would now be critical for the court’s review.

“A jury is entitled to know the basis for OpenAI’s purported good faith,” Wang wrote.

The judge appeared particularly frustrated by OpenAI seemingly twisting the Anthropic ruling to defend against the authors’ request to learn more about the deletion of the datasets.

In a footnote, Wang called out OpenAI for “bizarrely” citing an Anthropic ruling that “grossly” misrepresented Judge William Alsup’s decision by claiming that he found that “downloading pirated copies of books is lawful as long as they are subsequently used for training an LLM.”

Instead, Alsup wrote that he doubted that “any accused infringer could ever meet its burden of explaining why downloading source copies from pirate sites that it could have purchased or otherwise accessed lawfully was itself reasonably necessary to any subsequent fair use.”

If anything, Wang wrote, OpenAI’s decision to pirate book data—then delete it—seemed “to fall squarely into the category of activities proscribed by” Alsup. For emphasis, she quoted Alsup’s order, which said, “such piracy of otherwise available copies is inherently, irredeemably infringing even if the pirated copies are immediately used for the transformative use and immediately discarded.”

For the authors, getting hold of OpenAI’s privileged communications could tip the scales in their favor, the Hollywood Reporter suggested. Some authors believe the key to winning could be testimony from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who is accused of creating the controversial datasets while he was still at OpenAI. The authors think Amodei also possesses information on the destruction of the datasets, court filings show.

OpenAI tried to fight the authors’ motion to depose Amodei, but a judge sided with the authors in March, compelling Amodei to answer their biggest questions on his involvement.

Whether Amodei’s testimony is a bombshell remains to be seen, but it’s clear that OpenAI may struggle to overcome claims of willful infringement. Wang noted there is a “fundamental conflict” in circumstances “where a party asserts a good faith defense based on advice of counsel but then blocks inquiry into their state of mind by asserting attorney-client privilege,” suggesting that OpenAI may have substantially weakened its defense.

The outcome of the dispute over the deletions could influence OpenAI’s calculus on whether it should ultimately settle the lawsuit. Ahead of the Anthropic settlement—the largest publicly reported copyright class action settlement in history—authors suing pointed to evidence that Anthropic became “not so gung ho about” training on pirated books “for legal reasons.” That seems to be the type of smoking-gun evidence that authors hope will emerge from OpenAI’s withheld Slack messages.

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.

OpenAI desperate to avoid explaining why it deleted pirated book datasets Read More »

Space CEO explains why he believes private space stations are a viable business

cld, commercial space stations, dylan taylor, NASA, Space / Paul Patrick / December 1, 2025

It’s a critical time for companies competing to develop a commercial successor to the International Space Station. NASA is working with several companies, including Axiom Space, Voyager Technologies, Blue Origin, and Vast, to develop concepts for private stations where it can lease time for its astronauts.

The space agency awarded Phase One contracts several years ago and is now in the final stages of writing requirements for Phase Two after asking for feedback from industry partners in September. This program is known as Commercial LEO Destinations, or CLDs in industry parlance.

Time is running out for NASA if it wants to establish continuity from the International Space Station, which will reach its end of life in 2030, with a follow-on station ready to go before then.

One of the more intriguing companies in the competition is Voyager Technologies, which recently announced a strategic investment from Janus Henderson, a global investment firm. In another sign that the competition is heating up, Voyager also just hired John Baum away from Vast, where he was the company’s business development leader.

To get a sense of this competition and how Voyager is coming along with its Starlab space station project, Ars spoke with the firm’s chairman, Dylan Taylor. This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.

Ars: I know a lot of the companies working on CLDs are actively fundraising right now. How is this coming along for Voyager and Starlab?

Dylan Taylor: Fundraising is going quite well. You saw the Janus announcement. That’s significant for a few reasons. One is, it’s a significant investment. Of course, we’re not disclosing exactly how much. (Editor’s note: It likely is on the order of $100 million.) But the more positive development on the Janus investment is that they are such a well-known, well-respected financial investor.

If you look at the kind of bellwether investors, Janus would be up there with a Blackstone or Blackrock or Fidelity. So it’s significant not only in terms of capital contribution, but in… showing that commercial space stations are investable. This isn’t money coming from the Gulf States. It’s not a syndication of a bunch of $1,000 checks from retail investors. This is a very significant institutional investor coming in, and it’s a signal to the market. They did significant diligence on all our competitors, and they went out of the way saying that we’re far and away the best business plan, best design, and everything else, so that’s why it’s so meaningful.

Space CEO explains why he believes private space stations are a viable business Read More »

ULA aimed to launch up to 10 Vulcan rockets this year—it will fly just once

launch, military space, Science, Space, united launch alliance, US Space Force, vulcan / Paul Patrick / November 26, 2025

Engineers traced the problem to a manufacturing defect in an insulator on the solid rocket motor, and telemetry data from all four boosters on the following flight in August exhibited “spot-on” performance, according to Bruno. But officials decided to recover the spent expendable motor casings from the Atlantic Ocean for inspections to confirm there were no other surprises or close calls.

The hangup delaying the next Vulcan launches isn’t in rocket production. ULA has hardware for multiple Vulcan rockets in storage at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida.

Instead, one key reason for Vulcan’s past delays has been the rocket’s performance, particularly its solid rocket boosters. It isn’t clear whether the latest delays are related to the readiness of the Space Force’s GSSAP satellites (the next GPS satellite to fly on Vulcan has been available for launch since 2022), the inspections of Vulcan’s solid rocket motors, or something else.

Vulcan booster cores in storage at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. Credit: United Launch Alliance

A Space Systems Command spokesperson told Ars that “appropriate actions are being executed to ensure a successful USSF-87 mission … The teams analyze all hardware as well as available data from previous missions to evaluate space flight worthiness of future missions.”

The spokesperson did not provide a specific answer to a question from Ars about inspections on the solid rocket motors from the most recent Vulcan flight.

ULA’s outfitting of a new rocket assembly hangar and a second mobile launch platform for the Vulcan rocket at Cape Canaveral has also seen delays. With so many launches in its backlog, ULA needs capacity to stack and prepare at least two rockets in different buildings at the same time. Eventually, the company’s goal is to launch at an average clip of twice per month.

On Monday, ground crews at Cape Canaveral moved the second Vulcan launch platform to the company’s launch pad for fit checks and “initial technical testing.” This is a good sign that the company is moving closer to ramping up the Vulcan launch cadence, but it’s now clear it won’t happen this year.

Vulcan’s slow launch rate since its first flight in January 2024 is not unusual for new rockets. It took 28 months for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and ULA’s Atlas V to reach their fourth flight, a timeline that the Vulcan vehicle will reach in May 2026.

The Delta IV rocket from ULA flew its fourth mission 25 months after debuting in 2002. Europe’s Ariane 6 rocket reached its fourth flight in 16 months, but it shares more in common with its predecessor than the others. SpaceX’s Starship also had a faster ramp-up, with its fourth test flight coming less than 14 months after the first.

ULA aimed to launch up to 10 Vulcan rockets this year—it will fly just once Read More »

Russia’s Soyuz 5 will soon come alive. But will anyone want to fly on it?

rockets, russia, soyuz-5, Space / Paul Patrick / November 26, 2025

The Soyuz 5 rocket, also named Irtysh for a river that flows through Russia and Kazakhstan, answers to that purpose. Its first stage is powered by a single RD-171MV engine, which at sea level has three times the thrust of a single Raptor 3 engine, and is part of a family of engines that are the most powerful liquid-fueled rocket engines in the world. The RD-171MV uses only Russian components.

Russian officials also plan to use the Soyuz 5 rocket as the “boost” stage of a super-heavy lift rocket, known as Yenisei, that would be used for a human lunar program. However the Yenisei rocket seems to be one of those Russian space initiatives that is forever mired in a nebulous development stage—often talked about as a national priority, but rarely advanced.

What market is there?

But the Soyuz 5 rocket now is very real, and it should launch within the next month. The question is, what market will it serve? Russia presently has the Soyuz 2, which has about half the lift capacity, for crew and cargo missions to the International Space Station, as well as the launch of smaller spacecraft. There is also the line of Angara rockets that has come online during the last decade.

The Soyuz 5 slots in between the Soyuz 2 and Angara A5 rocket in terms of performance. So what demand is there for a rocket with 18 tons of capacity to low-Earth orbit? One concern is that the number of geostationary satellites launched annually, once the bread and butter of the Proton vehicle, has dropped precipitously.

Another is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has taken Russian rockets off the table for many Western satellite operators. At the same time, international competition in the medium-lift market has stiffened. China has an increasing number of government and commercial options, and India’s launch offerings are growing as well. And for any company or country mostly concerned about price, Russia almost certainly can’t beat the reusable Falcon 9 booster offered by SpaceX.

Russia’s Soyuz 5 will soon come alive. But will anyone want to fly on it? Read More »

Vision Pro M5 review: It’s time for Apple to make some tough choices

AI, Apple, Apple M5, apple vision pro, ar, augmented reality, Features, metaverse, Mixed Reality, spatial computing, Tech, virtual reality, vision pro, visionOS, visionos 26, vr, XR / Paul Patrick / November 26, 2025

A state of the union from someone who actually sort of uses the thing.

The M5 Vision Pro with the Dual Knit Band. Credit: Samuel Axon

With the recent releases of visionOS 26 and newly refreshed Vision Pro hardware, it’s an ideal time to check in on Apple’s Vision Pro headset—a device I was simultaneously amazed and disappointed by when it launched in early 2024.

I still like the Vision Pro, but I can tell it’s hanging on by a thread. Content is light, developer support is tepid, and while Apple has taken action to improve both, it’s not enough, and I’m concerned it might be too late.

When I got a Vision Pro, I used it a lot: I watched movies on planes and in hotel rooms, I walked around my house placing application windows and testing out weird new ways of working. I tried all the neat games and educational apps, and I watched all the immersive videos I could get ahold of. I even tried my hand at developing my own applications for it.

As the months went on, though, I used it less and less. The novelty wore off, and as cool as it remained, practicality beat coolness. By the time Apple sent me the newer model a couple of weeks ago, I had only put the original one on a few times in the prior couple of months. I had mostly stopped using it at home, but I still took it on trips as an entertainment device for hotel rooms now and then.

That’s not an uncommon story. You even see it in the subreddit for Vision Pro owners, which ought to be the home of the device’s most dedicated fans. Even there, people say, “This is really cool, but I have to go out of my way to keep using it.”

Perhaps it would have been easier to bake it into my day-to-day habits if developer and content creator support had been more robust, a classic chicken-and-egg problem.

After a few weeks of using the new Vision Pro hardware refresh daily, it’s clear to me that the platform needs a bigger rethink. As a fan of the device, I’m concerned it won’t get that, because all the rumors point to Apple pouring its future resources into smart glasses, which, to me, are a completely different product category.

What changed in the new model?

For many users, the most notable change here will be something you can buy separately (albeit at great expense) for the old model: A new headband that balances the device’s weight on your head better, making it more comfortable to wear for long sessions.

Dubbed the Dual Knit Band, it comes with an ingeniously simple adjustment knob that can be used to tighten or loosen either the band that goes across the back of your head (similar to the old band) or the one that wraps around the top.

It’s well-designed, and it will probably make the Vision Pro easier to use for many people who found the old model to be too uncomfortable—even though this model is slightly heavier than its predecessor.

The band fit is adjusted with this knob. You can turn it to loosen or tighten one strap, then pull it out and turn it again to adjust the other. Credit: Samuel Axon

I’m one of the lucky few who never had any discomfort problems with the Vision Pro, but I know a bunch of folks who said the pressure the device put on their foreheads was unbearable. That’s exactly what this new band remedies, so it’s nice to see.

The M5 chip offers more than just speed

Whereas the first Vision Pro had Apple’s M2 chip—which was already a little behind the times when it launched—the new one adds the M5. It’s much faster, especially for graphics-processing and machine-learning tasks. We’ve written a lot about the M5 in our articles on other Apple products if you’re interested to learn more about it.

Functionally, this means a lot of little things are a bit faster, like launching certain applications or generating a Persona avatar. I’ll be frank: I didn’t notice any difference that significantly impacted the user experience. I’m not saying I couldn’t tell it was faster sometimes. I’m just saying it wasn’t faster in a way that’s meaningful enough to change any attitudes about the device.

It’s most noticeable with games—both native mixed-reality Vision Pro titles and the iPad versions of demanding games that you can run on a virtual display on the device. Demanding 3D games look and run nicer, in many cases. The M5 also supports more recent graphics advancements like ray tracing and mesh shading, though very few games support them, even in terms of iPad versions.

All this is to say that while I always welcome performance improvements, they are definitely not enough to convince an M2 Vision Pro owner to upgrade, and they won’t tip things over for anyone who has been on the fence about buying one of these things.

The main perk of the new chip is improved efficiency, which is the driving force behind modestly increased battery life. When I first took the M2 Vision Pro on a plane, I tried watching 2021’s Dune. I made it through the movie, but just barely; the battery ran out during the closing credits. It’s not a short movie, but there are longer ones.

Now, the new headset can easily get another 30 or 60 minutes, depending on what you’re doing, which finally puts it in “watch any movie you want” territory.

Given how short battery life was in the original version, even a modest bump like that makes a big difference. That, alongside a marginally increased field of view (about 10 percent) and a new 120 Hz maximum refresh rate for passthrough are the best things about the new hardware. These are nice-to-haves, but they’re not transformational by any means.

We already knew the Vision Pro offered excellent hardware (even if it’s overkill for most users), but the platform’s appeal is really driven by software. Unfortunately, this is where things are running behind expectations.

For content, it’s quality over quantity

When the first Vision Pro launched, I was bullish about the promise of the platform—but a lot of that was contingent on a strong content cadence and third-party developer support.

And as I’ve written since, the content cadence for the first year was a disappointment. Whereas I expected weekly episodes of Apple’s Immersive Videos in the TV app, those short videos arrived with gaps of several months. There’s an enormous wealth of great immersive content outside of Apple’s walled garden, but Apple didn’t seem interested in making that easily accessible to Vision Pro owners. Third-party apps did some of that work, but they lagged behind those on other platforms.

The first-party content cadence picked up after the first year, though. Plus, Apple introduced the Spatial Gallery, a built-in app that aggregates immersive 3D photos and the like. It’s almost TikTok-like in that it lets you scroll through short-form content that leverages what makes the device unique, and it’s exactly the sort of thing that the platform so badly needed at launch.

The Spatial Gallery is sort of like a horizontally-scrolling TikTok for 3D photos and video. Credit: Samuel Axon

The content that is there—whether in the TV app or the Spatial Gallery—is fantastic. It’s beautifully, professionally produced stuff that really leans on the hardware. For example, there is an autobiographical film focused on U2’s Bono that does some inventive things with the format that I had never seen or even imagined before.

Bono, of course, isn’t everybody’s favorite, but if you can stomach the film’s bloviating, it’s worth watching just with an eye to what a spatial video production can or should be.

I still think there’s significant room to grow, but the content situation is better than ever. It’s not enough to keep you entertained for hours a day, but it’s enough to make putting on the headset for a bit once a week or so worth it. That wasn’t there a year ago.

The software support situation is in a similar state.

App support is mostly frozen in the year 2024

Many of us have a suite of go-to apps that are foundational to our individual approaches to daily productivity. For me, primarily a macOS user, they are:

Firefox
Spark
Todoist
Obsidian
Raycast
Slack
Visual Studio Code
Claude
1Password

As you can see, I don’t use most of Apple’s built-in apps—no Safari, no Mail, no Reminders, no Passwords, no Notes… no Spotlight, even. All that may be atypical, but it has never been a problem on macOS, nor has it been on iOS for a few years now.

Impressively, almost all of these are available on visionOS—but only because it can run iPad apps as flat, virtual windows. Firefox, Spark, Todoist, Obsidian, Slack, 1Password, and even Raycast are all available as supported iPad apps, but surprisingly, Claude isn’t, even though there is a Claude app for iPads. (ChatGPT’s iPad app works, though.) VS Code isn’t available, of course, but I wasn’t expecting it to be.

Not a single one of these applications has a true visionOS app. That’s too bad, because I can think of lots of neat things spatial computing versions could do. Imagine browsing your Obsidian graph in augmented reality! Alas, I can only dream.

You can tell the native apps from the iPad ones: The iPad ones have rectangular icons nested within circles, whereas the native apps fill the whole circle. Credit: Samuel Axon

If you’re not such a huge productivity software geek like me and you use Apple’s built-in apps, things look a little better, but surprisingly, there are still a few apps that you would imagine would have really cool spatial computing features—like Apple Maps—that don’t. Maps, too, is just an iPad app.

Even if you set productivity aside and focus on entertainment, there are still frustrating gaps. Almost two years later, there is still no Netflix or YouTube app. There are decent-enough third-party options for YouTube, but you have to watch Netflix in a browser, which is lower-quality than in a native app and looks horrible on one of the Vision Pro’s big virtual screens.

To be clear, there is a modest trickle of interesting spatial app experiences coming in—most of them games, educational apps, or cool one-off ideas that are fun to check out for a few minutes.

All this is to say that nothing has really changed since February 2024. There was an influx of apps at launch that included a small number of show-stoppers (mostly educational apps), but the rest ranged from “basically the iPad app but with one or two throwaway tech-demo-style spatial features you won’t try more than once” to “basically the iPad app but a little more native-feeling” to “literally just the iPad app.” As far as support from popular, cross-platform apps, it’s mostly the same list today as it was then.

Its killer app is that it’s a killer monitor

Even though Apple hasn’t made a big leap forward in developer support, it has made big strides in making the Vision Pro a nifty companion to the Mac.

From the start, it has had a feature that lets you simply look at a Mac’s built-in display, tap your fingers, and launch a large, resizable virtual monitor. I have my own big, multi-monitor setup at home, but I have used the Vision Pro this way sometimes when traveling.

I had some complaints at the start, though. It could only do one monitor, and that monitor was limited to 60 Hz and a standard widescreen resolution. That’s better than just using a 14-inch MacBook Pro screen, but it’s a far cry from the sort of high-end setup a $3,500 price tag suggests. Furthermore, it didn’t allow you to switch audio between the two devices.

Thanks to both software and hardware updates, that has all changed. visionOS now supports three different monitor sizes: the standard widescreen aspect ratio, a wider one that resembles a standard ultra-wide monitor, and a gigantic, ultra-ultra-wide wrap-around display that I can assure you will leave no one wanting for desktop space. It looks great. Problem solved! Likewise, it will now transfer your Mac audio to the Vision Pro or its Bluetooth headphones automatically.

All of that works not just on the new Vision Pro, but also on the M2 model. The new M5 model exclusively addresses the last of my complaints: You can now achieve higher refresh rates for that virtual monitor than 60 Hz. Apple says it goes “up to 120 Hz,” but there’s no available tool for measuring exactly where it’s landing. Still, I’m happy to see any improvement here.

This is the standard width for the Mac monitor feature… Samuel Axon

Through a series of updates, Apple has turned a neat proof-of-concept feature into something that is genuinely valuable—especially for folks who like ultra-wide or multi-monitor setups but have to travel a lot (like myself) or who just don’t want to invest in the display hardware at home.

You can also play your Mac games on this monitor. I tried playing No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk 2077 on it with a controller, and it was a fantastic experience.

This, alongside spatial video and watching movies, is the Vision Pro’s current killer app and one of the main areas where Apple has clearly put a lot of effort into improving the platform.

Stop trying to make Personas happen

Strangely, another area where Apple has invested quite a bit to make things better is in the Vision Pro’s usefulness as a communications and meetings device. Personas—the 3D avatars of yourself that you create for Zoom calls and the like—were absolutely terrible when the M2 Vision Pro came out.

There is also EyeSight, which uses your Persona to show a simulacrum of your eyes to people around you in the real world, letting them know you are aware of your surroundings and even allowing them to follow your gaze. I understand the thought behind this feature—Apple doesn’t want mixed reality to be socially isolating—but it sometimes puts your eyes in the wrong place, it’s kind of hard to see, and it honestly seems like a waste of expensive hardware.

Primarily via software updates, I’m pleased to report that Personas are drastically improved. Mine now actually looks like me, and it moves more naturally, too.

I joined a FaceTime call with Apple reps where they showed me how Personas float and emote around each other, and how we could look at the same files and assets together. It was indisputably cool and way better than before, thanks to the improved Personas.

I can’t say as much for EyeSight, which looks the same. It’s hard for me to fathom that Apple has put multiple sensors and screens on this thing to support this feature.

In my view, dropping EyeSight would be the single best thing Apple could do for this headset. Most people don’t like it, and most people don’t want it, yet there is no question that its inclusion adds a not-insignificant amount to both the price and the weight, the product’s two biggest barriers to adoption.

Likewise, Personas are theoretically cool, and it is a novel and fun experience to join a FaceTime call with people and see how it works and what you could do. But it’s just that: a novel experience. Once you’ve done it, you’ll never feel the need to do it again. I can barely imagine anyone who would rather show up to a call as a Persona than take the headset off for 30 minutes to dial in on their computer.

Much of this headset is dedicated to this idea that it can be a device that connects you with others, but maintaining that priority is simply the wrong decision. Mixed reality is isolating, and Apple is treating that like a problem to be solved, but I consider that part of its appeal.

If this headset were capable of out-in-the-world AR applications, I would not feel that way, but the Vision Pro doesn’t support any application that would involve taking it outside the home into public spaces. A lot of the cool, theoretical AR uses I can think of would involve that, but still no dice here.

The metaverse (it’s telling that this is the first time I’ve typed that word in at least a year) already exists: It’s on our phones, in Instagram and TikTok and WeChat and Fortnite. It doesn’t need to be invented, and it doesn’t need a new, clever approach to finally make it take off. It has already been invented. It’s already in orbit.

Like the iPad and the Apple Watch before it, the Vision Pro needs to stop trying to be a general-purpose device and instead needs to lean into what makes it special.

In doing so, it will become a better user experience, and it will get lighter and cheaper, too. There’s real potential there. Unfortunately, Apple may not go that route if leaks and insider reports are to be believed.

There’s still a ways to go, so hopefully this isn’t a dead end

The M5 Vision Pro was the first of four planned new releases in the product line, according to generally reliable industry analyst Ming-Chi Kuo. Next up, he predicted, would be a full Vision Pro 2 release with a redesign, and a Vision Air, a cheaper, lighter alternative. Those would all precede true smart glasses many years down the road.

I liked that plan: keep the full-featured Vision Pro for folks who want the most premium mixed reality experience possible (but maybe drop EyeSight), and launch a cheaper version to compete more directly with headsets like Meta’s Quest line of products, or the newly announced Steam Frame VR headset from Valve, along with planned competitors by Google, Samsung, and others.

True augmented reality glasses are an amazing dream, but there are serious problems of optics and user experience that we’re still a ways off from solving before those can truly replace the smartphone as Tim Cook once predicted.

All that said, it looks like that plan has been called into question. A Bloomberg report in October claimed that Apple CEO Tim Cook had told employees that the company was redirecting resources from future passthrough HMD products to accelerate work on smart glasses.

Let’s be real: It’s always going to be a once-in-a-while device, not a daily driver. For many people, that would be fine if it cost $1,000. At $3,500, it’s still a nonstarter for most consumers.

I believe there is room for this product in the marketplace. I still think it’s amazing. It’s not going to be as big as the iPhone, or probably even the iPad, but it has already found a small audience that could grow significantly if the price and weight could come down. Removing all the hardware related to Personas and EyeSight would help with that.

I hope Apple keeps working on it. When Apple released the Apple Watch, it wasn’t entirely clear what its niche would be in users’ lives. The answer (health and fitness) became crystal clear over time, and the other ambitions of the device faded away while the company began building on top of what was working best.

You see Apple doing that a little bit with the expanded Mac spatial display functionality. That can be the start of an intriguing journey. But writers have a somewhat crass phrase: “kill your darlings.” It means that you need to be clear-eyed about your work and unsentimentally cut anything that’s not working, even if you personally love it—even if it was the main thing that got you excited about starting the project in the first place.

It’s past time for Apple to start killing some darlings with the Vision Pro, but I truly hope it doesn’t go too far and kill the whole platform.

Samuel Axon is the editorial lead for tech and gaming coverage at Ars Technica. He covers AI, software development, gaming, entertainment, and mixed reality. He has been writing about gaming and technology for nearly two decades at Engadget, PC World, Mashable, Vice, Polygon, Wired, and others. He previously ran a marketing and PR agency in the gaming industry, led editorial for the TV network CBS, and worked on social media marketing strategy for Samsung Mobile at the creative agency SPCSHP. He also is an independent software and game developer for iOS, Windows, and other platforms, and he is a graduate of DePaul University, where he studied interactive media and software development.

Vision Pro M5 review: It’s time for Apple to make some tough choices Read More »

Crypto hoarders dump tokens as shares tumble

Bitcoin, Biz & IT, crypto, ether, syndication / Paul Patrick / November 26, 2025

“It was inevitable,” said Jake Ostrovskis, head of OTC trading at Wintermute, referring to the sell-off in digital asset treasury stocks. “It got to the point where there’s too many of them.”

Several companies have begun selling their crypto stockpiles in an effort to fund share buybacks and shore up their stock prices, in effect putting the crypto treasury model into reverse.

North Carolina-based ether holder FG Nexus sold about $41.5 million of its tokens recently to fund its share buyback program. Its market cap is $104 million, while the crypto it holds is worth $116 million. Florida-based life sciences company turned ether buyer ETHZilla recently sold about $40 million worth of its tokens, also to fund its share buyback program.

Sequans Communications, a French semiconductor company, sold about $100 million of its bitcoin this month in order to service its debt, in a sign of how some companies that borrowed to fund crypto purchases are now struggling. Sequans’ market capitalization is $87 million, while the bitcoin it holds is worth $198 million.

Georges Karam, chief executive of Sequans, said the sale was a “tactical decision aimed at unlocking shareholder value given current market conditions.”

While bitcoin and ether sellers can find buyers, companies with more niche tokens will find it more difficult to raise money from their holdings, according to Morgan McCarthy. “When you’ve got a medical device company buying some long-tail asset in crypto, a niche in a niche market, it is not going to end well,” he said, adding that 95 percent of digital asset treasuries “will go to zero.”

Strategy, meanwhile, has doubled down and bought even more bitcoin as the price of the token has fallen to $87,000, from $115,000 a month ago. The firm also faces the looming possibility of being cut from some major equity indices, which could heap even more selling pressure on the stock.

But Saylor has brushed off any concerns. “Volatility is Satoshi’s gift to the faithful,” he said this week, referring to the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin.

Crypto hoarders dump tokens as shares tumble Read More »

There may not be a safe off-ramp for some taking GLP-1 drugs, study suggests

GLP-1, health, obesity, Tirzepatide, weight loss / Paul Patrick / November 25, 2025

Of the 308 who benefited from tirzepatide, 254 (82 percent) regained at least 25 percent of the weight they had lost on the drug by week 88. Further, 177 (57 percent) regained at least 50 percent, and 74 (24 percent) regained at least 75 percent. Generally, the more weight people regained, the more their cardiovascular and metabolic health improvements reversed.

Data gaps and potential off-ramps

On the other hand, there were 54 participants of the 308 (17.5 percent) that didn’t regain a significant amount of weight (less than 25 percent.) This group saw some of their health metrics worsen on withdrawal of the drug, but not all— blood pressure increased a bit, but cholesterol didn’t go up significantly overall. About a dozen participants (4 percent of the 308) continued to lose weight after stopping the drug.

The researchers couldn’t figure out why these 54 participants fared so well; there were “no apparent differences” in demographic or clinical characteristics, they reported. It’s clear the topic requires further study.

But, overall, the study offers a gloomy outlook for patients hoping to avoid needing to take anti-obesity drugs for the foreseeable future.

Oczypok and Anderson highlight that the study involved an abrupt withdrawal from the drug. In contrast, many patients may be interested in slowly weaning off the drugs, stepping down dosage levels over time. So far, data on this strategy and the protocols to pull it off have little data behind them. It also might not be an option for patients who abruptly lose access or insurance coverage of the drugs. Other strategies for weaning off the drugs could involve ramping up physical activity or calorie restriction in anticipation of dropping the drugs, the experts note.

In addition to more data on potential GLP-1 off-ramps, the pair calls for more data on the effects of weight fluctuations from people going on and off the treatment. At least one study has found that the regained weight after intentional weight loss may end up being proportionally higher in fat mass, which could be harmful.

For now, Oczypok and Anderson say doctors should be cautious about talking with patients about these drugs and what the future could hold. “These results add to the body of evidence that clinicians and patients should approach starting [anti-obesity medications] as long-term therapies, just as they would medications for other chronic diseases.”

There may not be a safe off-ramp for some taking GLP-1 drugs, study suggests Read More »

Author name: Paul Patrick