Author name: Tim Belzer

google-goes-“agentic”-with-gemini-2.0’s-ambitious-ai-agent-features

Google goes “agentic” with Gemini 2.0’s ambitious AI agent features

On Wednesday, Google unveiled Gemini 2.0, the next generation of its AI-model family, starting with an experimental release called Gemini 2.0 Flash. The model family can generate text, images, and speech while processing multiple types of input including text, images, audio, and video. It’s similar to multimodal AI models like GPT-4o, which powers OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

“Gemini 2.0 Flash builds on the success of 1.5 Flash, our most popular model yet for developers, with enhanced performance at similarly fast response times,” said Google in a statement. “Notably, 2.0 Flash even outperforms 1.5 Pro on key benchmarks, at twice the speed.”

Gemini 2.0 Flash—which is the smallest model of the 2.0 family in terms of parameter count—launches today through Google’s developer platforms like Gemini API, AI Studio, and Vertex AI. However, its image generation and text-to-speech features remain limited to early access partners until January 2025. Google plans to integrate the tech into products like Android Studio, Chrome DevTools, and Firebase.

The company addressed potential misuse of generated content by implementing SynthID watermarking technology on all audio and images created by Gemini 2.0 Flash. This watermark appears in supported Google products to identify AI-generated content.

Google’s newest announcements lean heavily into the concept of agentic AI systems that can take action for you. “Over the last year, we have been investing in developing more agentic models, meaning they can understand more about the world around you, think multiple steps ahead, and take action on your behalf, with your supervision,” said Google CEO Sundar Pichai in a statement. “Today we’re excited to launch our next era of models built for this new agentic era.”

Google goes “agentic” with Gemini 2.0’s ambitious AI agent features Read More »

reminder:-donate-to-win-swag-in-our-annual-charity-drive-sweepstakes

Reminder: Donate to win swag in our annual Charity Drive sweepstakes

If you’ve been too busy punching virtual Nazis to take part in this year’s Ars Technica Charity Drive sweepstakes, don’t worry. You still have time to donate to a good cause and get a chance to win your share of over $4,000 worth of swag (no purchase necessary to win).

In the first three days of the drive, over 100 readers have contributed almost $9,500 to either the Electronic Frontier Foundation or Child’s Play as part of the charity drive (Child’s Play is now leading in the donation totals by about $1,000). That’s a long way off from 2020’s record haul of over $58,000, but there’s still plenty of time until the Charity Drive wraps up on Thursday, January 2, 2025.

That doesn’t mean you should put your donation off, though. Do yourself and the charities involved a favor and give now while you’re thinking about it.

See below for instructions on how to enter, and check out the Charity Drive kickoff post for a complete list of available prizes.

How it works

Donating is easy. Simply donate to Child’s Play using a credit card or PayPal or donate to the EFF using PayPal, credit card, or cryptocurrency. You can also support Child’s Play directly by using this Ars Technica campaign page or picking an item from the Amazon wish list of a specific hospital on its donation page. Donate as much or as little as you feel comfortable with—every little bit helps.

Reminder: Donate to win swag in our annual Charity Drive sweepstakes Read More »

report:-google-told-ftc-microsoft’s-openai-deal-is-killing-ai-competition

Report: Google told FTC Microsoft’s OpenAI deal is killing AI competition

Google reportedly wants the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to end Microsoft’s exclusive cloud deal with OpenAI that requires anyone wanting access to OpenAI’s models to go through Microsoft’s servers.

Someone “directly involved” in Google’s effort told The Information that Google’s request came after the FTC began broadly probing how Microsoft’s cloud computing business practices may be harming competition.

As part of the FTC’s investigation, the agency apparently asked Microsoft’s biggest rivals if the exclusive OpenAI deal was “preventing them from competing in the burgeoning artificial intelligence market,” multiple sources told The Information. Google reportedly was among those arguing that the deal harms competition by saddling rivals with extra costs and blocking them from hosting OpenAI’s latest models themselves.

In 2024 alone, Microsoft generated about $1 billion from reselling OpenAI’s large language models (LLMs), The Information reported, while rivals were stuck paying to train staff to move data to Microsoft servers if their customers wanted access to OpenAI technology. For one customer, Intuit, it cost millions monthly to access OpenAI models on Microsoft’s servers, The Information reported.

Microsoft benefits from the arrangement—which is not necessarily illegal—of increased revenue from reselling LLMs and renting out more cloud servers. It also takes a 20 percent cut of OpenAI’s revenue. Last year, OpenAI made approximately $3 billion selling its LLMs to customers like T-Mobile and Walmart, The Information reported.

Microsoft’s agreement with OpenAI could be viewed as anti-competitive if businesses convince the FTC that the costs of switching to Microsoft’s servers to access OpenAI technology is so burdensome that it’s unfairly disadvantaging rivals. It could also be considered harming the market and hampering innovation by seemingly disincentivizing Microsoft from competing with OpenAI in the market.

To avoid any disruption to the deal, however, Microsoft could simply point to AI models sold by Google and Amazon as proof of “robust competition,” The Information noted. The FTC may not buy that defense, though, since rivals’ AI models significantly fall behind OpenAI’s models in sales. Any perception that the AI market is being foreclosed by an entrenched major player could trigger intense scrutiny as the US seeks to become a world leader in AI technology development.

Report: Google told FTC Microsoft’s OpenAI deal is killing AI competition Read More »

new-congressional-report:-“covid-19-most-likely-emerged-from-a-laboratory”

New congressional report: “COVID-19 most likely emerged from a laboratory”


A textbook example of shifting the standards of evidence to suit its authors’ needs.

Did masks work to slow the spread of COVID-19? It all depends on what you accept as “evidence.” Credit: Grace Cary

Recently, Congress’ Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released its final report. The basic gist is about what you’d expect from a Republican-run committee, in that it trashes a lot of Biden-era policies and state-level responses while praising a number of Trump’s decisions. But what’s perhaps most striking is how it tackles a variety of scientific topics, including many where there’s a large, complicated body of evidence.

Notably, this includes conclusions about the origin of the pandemic, which the report describes as “most likely” emerging from a lab rather than being the product of the zoonotic transfer between an animal species and humans. The latter explanation is favored by many scientists.

The conclusions themselves aren’t especially interesting; they’re expected from a report with partisan aims. But the method used to reach those conclusions is often striking: The Republican majority engages in a process of systematically changing the standard of evidence needed for it to reach a conclusion. For a conclusion the report’s authors favor, they’ll happily accept evidence from computer models or arguments from an editorial in the popular press; for conclusions they disfavor, they demand double-blind controlled clinical trials.

This approach, which I’ll term “shifting the evidentiary baseline,” shows up in many arguments regarding scientific evidence. But it has rarely been employed quite this pervasively. So let’s take a look at it in some detail and examine a few of the other approaches the report uses to muddy the waters regarding science. We’re likely to see many of them put to use in the near future.

What counts as evidence?

If you’ve been following the politics of the pandemic response, you can pretty much predict the sorts of conclusions the committee’s majority wanted to reach: Masks were useless, the vaccines weren’t properly tested for safety, and any restrictions meant to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 were ill-informed, etc. At the same time, some efforts pursued during the Trump administration, such as the Operation Warp Speed development of vaccines or the travel restrictions he put in place, are singled out for praise.

Reaching those conclusions, however, can be a bit of a challenge for two reasons. One, which we won’t really go into here, is that some policies that are now disfavored were put in place while Republicans were in charge of the national pandemic response. This leads to a number of awkward juxtapositions in the report: Operation Warp Speed is praised, while the vaccines it produced can’t really be trusted; lockdowns promoted by Trump adviser Deborah Birx were terrible, but Birx’s boss at the time goes unmentioned.

That’s all a bit awkward, but it has little to do with evaluating scientific evidence. Here, the report authors’ desire to reach specific conclusions runs into a minefield of a complicated evidentiary record. For example, the authors want to praise the international travel restrictions that Trump put in place early in the pandemic. But we know almost nothing about their impact because most countries put restrictions in place after the virus was already present, and any effect they had was lost in the pandemic’s rapid spread.

At the same time, we have a lot of evidence that the use of well-fitted, high-quality masks can be effective at limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Unfortunately, that’s the opposite of the conclusion favored by Republican politicians.

So how did they navigate this? By shifting the standard of evidence required between topics. For example, in concluding that “President Trump’s rapidly implemented travel restrictions saved lives,” the report cites a single study as evidence. But that study is primarily based on computer models of the spread of six diseases—none of them COVID-19. As science goes, it’s not nothing, but we’d like to see a lot more before reaching any conclusions.

In contrast, when it comes to mask use, where there’s extensive evidence that they can be effective, the report concludes they’re all worthless: “The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relied on flawed studies to support the issuance of mask mandates.” The supposed flaw is that these studies weren’t randomized controlled trials—a standard far more strict than the same report required for travel restrictions. “The CDC provided a list of approximately 15 studies that demonstrated wearing masks reduced new infections,” the report acknowledges. “Yet all 15 of the provided studies are observational studies that were conducted after COVID-19 began and, importantly, none of them were [randomized controlled trials].”

Similarly, in concluding that “the six-foot social distancing requirement was not supported by science,” the report quotes Anthony Fauci as saying, “What I meant by ‘no science behind it’ is that there wasn’t a controlled trial that said, ‘compare six foot with three feet with 10 feet.’ So there wasn’t that scientific evaluation of it.”

Perhaps the most egregious example of shifting the standards of evidence comes when the report discusses the off-label use of drugs such as chloroquine and ivermectin. These were popular among those skeptical of restrictions meant to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, but there was never any solid evidence that the drugs worked, and studies quickly made it clear that they were completely ineffective. Yet the report calls them “unjustly demonized” as part of “pervasive misinformation campaigns.” It doesn’t even bother presenting any evidence that they might be effective, just the testimony of one doctor who decided to prescribe them. In terms of scientific evidence, that is, in fact, nothing.

Leaky arguments

One of the report’s centerpieces is its conclusion that “COVID-19 most likely emerged from a laboratory.” And here again, the arguments shift rapidly between different standards of evidence.

While a lab leak cannot be ruled out given what we know, the case in favor largely involves human factors rather than scientific evidence. These include things like the presence of a virology institute in Wuhan, anecdotal reports of flu-like symptoms among its employees, and so on. In contrast, there’s extensive genetic evidence linking the origin of the pandemic to trade in wildlife at a Wuhan seafood market. That evidence, while not decisive, seems to have generated a general consensus among most scientists that a zoonotic origin is the more probable explanation for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2—as had been the case for the coronaviruses that had emerged earlier, SARS and MERS.

So how to handle the disproportionate amount of evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the committee didn’t like? By acting like it doesn’t exist. “By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin, it would have already surfaced,” the report argues. Instead, it devotes page after page to suggesting that one of the key publications that laid out the evidence for a natural origin was the result of a plot among a handful of researchers who wanted to suppress the idea of a lab leak. Subsequent papers describing more extensive evidence appear to have been ignored.

Meanwhile, since there’s little scientific evidence favoring a lab leak, the committee favorably cites an op-ed published in The New York Times.

An emphasis on different levels of scientific confidence would have been nice, especially when dealing with complicated issues like the pandemic. There are a range of experimental and observational approaches to topics, and they often lead to conclusions that have different degrees of certainty. But this report uses scientific confidence as a rhetorical tool to let its authors reach their preferred conclusions. High standards of evidence are used when its authors want to denigrate a conclusion that they don’t like, while standards can be lowered to non-existence for conclusions they prefer.

Put differently, even weak scientific evidence is preferable to a New York Times op-ed, yet the report opts for the latter.

This sort of shifting of the evidentiary baseline has been a feature of some of the more convoluted arguments in favor of creationism or against the science of climate change. But it has mostly been confined to arguments that take place outside the view of the general public. Given its extensive adoption by politicians, however, we can probably expect the public to start seeing a lot more of it.

Photo of John Timmer

John is Ars Technica’s science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots.

New congressional report: “COVID-19 most likely emerged from a laboratory” Read More »

ai-company-trolls-san-francisco-with-billboards-saying-“stop-hiring-humans”

AI company trolls San Francisco with billboards saying “stop hiring humans”

Artisan CEO Jaspar Carmichael-Jack defended the campaign’s messaging in an interview with SFGate. “They are somewhat dystopian, but so is AI,” he told the outlet in a text message. “The way the world works is changing.” In another message he wrote, “We wanted something that would draw eyes—you don’t draw eyes with boring messaging.”

So what does Artisan actually do? Its main product is an AI “sales agent” called Ava that supposedly automates the work of finding and messaging potential customers. The company claims it works with “no human input” and costs 96% less than hiring a human for the same role. Although, given the current state of AI technology, it’s prudent to be skeptical of these claims.

Artisan also has plans to expand its AI tools beyond sales into areas like marketing, recruitment, finance, and design. Its sales agent appears to be its only existing product so far.

Meanwhile, the billboards remain visible throughout San Francisco, quietly fueling existential dread in a city that has already seen a great deal of tension since the pandemic. Some of the billboards feature additional messages, like “Hire Artisans, not humans,” and one that plays on angst over remote work: “Artisan’s Zoom cameras will never ‘not be working’ today.”

AI company trolls San Francisco with billboards saying “stop hiring humans” Read More »

micron’s-$6b-chips-funding-should-have-more-strings-attached,-critics-say

Micron’s $6B CHIPS funding should have more strings attached, critics say


Micron’s NY fabs are the only CHIPS projects undergoing full environmental review.

Micron Technology will receive more than $6.1 billion after the US Department of Commerce finalized one of the largest CHIPS Act awards ever to “the only US-based manufacturer of memory chips,” Vice President Kamala Harris said in a press statement.

Micron will use the funding to construct “several state-of-the-art memory chips facilities” in New York and Idaho, Harris said. The chipmaker has committed to a “$125 billion investment over the next few decades” and promised to create “at least 20,000 jobs,” Harris confirmed.

Additionally, Micron “agreed to preliminary terms for an additional investment of $275 million to expand” its facility in Manassas, Virginia, Harris confirmed. Those facilities will mostly be used to manufacture chips for automotive and defense industries, Harris noted.

Because of billions in CHIPS funding doled out by the Biden administration, Harris said, the US’s “share of advanced memory manufacturing” will go “from nearly 0 percent today to 10 percent over the next decade.”

The Semiconductor Industry Association, a trade and lobbying group that bills itself as “the voice of the semiconductor industry,” celebrated Micron’s award. In a press release, its president and CEO, John Neuffer, said that the award sets the US on a path to become a leading memory chip innovator.

“Memory is a technology critical to America’s economic future and national security, and Micron’s historic investments in producing memory chips in the US will strengthen US leadership for the long term,” Neuffer said.

In a statement, Micron President and CEO Sanjay Mehrotra said that “Micron is uniquely positioned to bring leading-edge memory manufacturing to the U.S., strengthening the country’s technology leadership and fostering advanced innovation.”

“Micron’s investments in domestic semiconductor manufacturing capabilities, supported by the bipartisan CHIPS Act, will help drive economic growth and ensure that the US remains at the forefront of technological advancements,” Mehrotra said.

Advocates: Micron needs to explain what a “good job” is

But while Neuffer joined Harris’ and the Commerce Department’s chorus, praising the award for creating “high-paying American jobs,” bolstering US national and economic security, and fueling “innovation for years to come,” communities are raising questions.

Advocates with Jobs to Move America (JMA)—who are organizing ahead of Micron’s New York construction starting in 2026—are concerned that Micron hasn’t been clear about what a “good job” is before moving into an area with “one of the highest poverty rates in the country.”

“There has been little discussion or firm commitments made regarding what exactly a ‘good job’ is, or how equitable access for said jobs will be achieved for current local residents,” JMA’s “Good Jobs Platform,” drafted earlier this year with more than 20 local advocacy groups, said.

“We define a ‘good job’ as one that guarantees: workers have a fair and clear process to organize a union without employer opposition, family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits, safe working conditions, equitable hiring and employment practices, and is supported by an accessible workforce pipeline,” the platform said.

And equally important are communities’ and workers’ health and safety concerns, the platform noted, urging that “a good job is a safe job.”

A senior researcher and policy coordinator for JMA, Anna Smith, told Ars that Harris’ statement was missing any mention of a community impact statement. And while Harris mentioned “utilizing project labor agreements and registered apprenticeship programs, which will further strengthen local economies” and “support workers,” more enforceable commitments are needed to protect communities as Micron’s construction begins, Smith said.

The “Good Jobs Platform” recommends a range of commitments, from labor peace agreements that would ensure workers can unionize to community workforce agreements keeping workers involved in key discussions regarding ongoing training and career development. Local labor leaders have sought similar commitments, urging Micron to commit to a community benefits agreement “that enshrines legally enforceable provisions that protect the community, its workers, and the environment.”

In his statement, Mehrotra said that Micron had formed local partnerships to build a “community investment framework” that would “revitalize central New York.”

Micron first CHIPS fabs to get full environmental review

More transparency is also urgently needed regarding Micron’s environmental commitments, advocates told Ars. In New York, Micron’s fabs are preparing to wipe out over 200 acres of mature forested wetlands, and so far, Micron has not provided a public “detailed mitigation plan to compensate for the loss,” a local environmental expert, Catherine Landis, warned during a public comment period on Micron’s plan to pave over the wetlands.

Unlike any other fab site in the US receiving CHIPS Act funding, Micron’s New York fabs must release a full environmental impact statement (EIS), which is currently being drafted and expected to be distributed to agencies this month, advocates told Ars. Construction has been delayed until the EIS is completed, at which point the public will gain a better understanding of how much harm could be caused by the project and what steps Micron will take to mitigate harms.

JMA has warned about potential impacts, like increased flooding in the area impacting both communities and Micron’s fabs. Destroying the wetlands will also displace federally protected endangered animal populations, JMA said, including the northern long-eared bat and the sedge wren. Potential chemical spills, reported at other US fabs, could endanger water quality, as could any mismanaged handling of chemical waste. And perhaps most critically, the energy demand to operate Micron’s facilities could risk setting back New York’s climate goals, JMA advocates said.

More transparency would help communities better prepare to welcome Micron and other chipmakers developing fabs across the US. JMA and local experts have agreed that the promised economic benefits Micron’s fabs will deliver in New York are a positive development, as are Micron’s commitments guaranteeing New York construction workers can unionize.

But communities will likely be the ones raising alarms as Micron’s operations introduce to the environment “thousands of compounds used in chip manufacture (most unregulated)” with “short- and long-term effects on plants, animals, people” still largely unknown, Landis said. And that’s where JMA hopes to make an impact, submitting freedom of information acts to request undisclosed data and pushing for community benefit agreements and other commitments from Micron to ensure communities aren’t irreversibly harmed by new fabs.

JMA expects that the EIS could help galvanize communities preparing for Micron’s construction to start in New York.

“I do think it is a really helpful tool that we have in our belt, and something that will help the public engage about concerns that we have,” Smith told Ars. “It spans, of course, air emissions, wastewater, runoff, toxics, wetlands, but it also includes things like housing and transportation, and those are things that we think that the Syracuse community is very concerned about.”

The EIS could mean that New York residents have a clearer understanding of how CHIPS funding may be polluting their communities. Most of the other communities nationwide impacted by CHIPS projects likely won’t have the same level of detailed information. Eric Romann, a JMA regional director, told Ars that, while “it’s positive that a higher bar has been set” for Micron’s New York project, that’s only “compared to the very low bar set for the other projects around the country, or you could say very low to non-existent bar.”

Micron declined to comment directly on workers’ concerns. In a statement provided to Ars, Micron’s spokesperson said that “Micron is committed to environmental stewardship across our global operations, including developing and maintaining critical environmental protections for our planned investment” in New York.

“A required environmental impact statement is currently in production with both federal and state lead agencies, and we are working closely with government stakeholders to ensure we meet any environmental permitting required for the project,” Micron’s spokesperson said. “We look forward to engaging with the public and government stakeholders during comment periods for the project’s draft environmental impact statement and environmental permitting in the near future.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

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.

Micron’s $6B CHIPS funding should have more strings attached, critics say Read More »

amazon-starts-selling-hyundai-cars,-more-brands-next-year

Amazon starts selling Hyundai cars, more brands next year

Fear not—there’s no one-click option, so no one should be in any danger of absent-mindedly buying a brand-new Palisade. Instead, there’s a “Begin Purchase” button, at which point you can choose to pay the entire amount or finance the purchase.

Here is a huge difference to the traditional dealership experience: There’s no negotiation, no browbeating or asking you how much of a monthly payment you want to make, and no upselling paint protection or the like. Everything can be done through amazon with a few clicks, ending with scheduling a pick-up time for the new car at the dealership. You can even trade in your existing car during the process. (I only tested it so far lest I accidentally end up with a brand-new Ioniq 5 N, which I still can’t charge at home.)

Amazon says it will add more brands next year, as well as leasing, and will also expand to more cities. For now, Amazon Autos is available in Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Beaumont-Port Arthur, Birmingham, Boston, Champaign/Springfield, Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbia, Columbus, Dallas, Denver, El Paso, Fond Du Lac, Ft. Myers/Naples, Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York, Harrisonburg, Hartford, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Nashville, New York, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Providence, Raleigh-Durham, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Sheboygan, Springfield, St. Louis, Tampa, West Palm Beach, and Washington, DC.

Amazon starts selling Hyundai cars, more brands next year Read More »

avian-flu-cases-are-on-the-upswing-at-big-dairy-farms

Avian flu cases are on the upswing at big dairy farms


Rise in cases amplifies concerns about consolidation in agriculture.

Holstein dairy cows in a freestall barn. Credit: Getty |

A handful of dairy farms sprawl across the valley floor, ringed by the spikey, copper-colored San Jacinto mountains. This is the very edge of California’s dairy country—and so far, the cows here are safe.

But everyone worries that the potentially lethal bird flu is on the way. “I hope not,” says Clemente Jimenez, as he fixes a hose at Pastime Lakes, a 1,500-head dairy farm. “It’s a lot of trouble.”

Further north and west, in the San Joaquin Valley—the heart of the state’s dairy industry—the H5N1 virus, commonly known as bird flu, has rippled through the massive herds that provide most of the country’s milk. Farmworkers have piled carcasses into black and white heaps. This week the state reported 19 new confirmed cases in cows and more than 240,000 in chickens. Another 50,000 cases were confirmed at a chicken breeding facility in Oklahoma.

Most worrying, though, is the spillover from livestock to humans. So far, 58 people in the United States have tested positive for bird flu. Fifty-six of them worked either on dairy or poultry farms where millions of birds had to be culled.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that four of the cases in humans had no known connection to livestock, raising fears that the virus eventually could jump from one human to another, though that hasn’t happened yet. On Thursday, a study published in Science by researchers at The Scripps Research Institute said it would take only a single mutation in the H5N1 virus for it to attach itself to human receptor cells.

Large livestock facilities in states across the country, and especially in California, have become the epicenters of these cases, and some researchers say that’s no surprise: Putting thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of animals together in confined, cramped barns or corrals creates a petri dish for viruses to spread, especially between genetically similar and often stressed animals.

More drought and higher temperatures, fueled by climate change, supercharge those conditions.

“Animal production acts like a connectivity for the virus,” said Paula Ribeiro Prist, a conservation scientist with the EcoHealth Alliance, a not-for-profit group that focuses on research into pandemics. “If you have a lot of cattle being produced in more places, you have a higher chance of the virus spreading. When you have heat stress, they’re more vulnerable.”

So far, this bird flu outbreak has affected more than 112 million chickens, turkeys, and other poultry across the US since it was first detected at a turkey-producing facility in Indiana in February 2022. In March of this year, officials confirmed a case of the virus in a Texas dairy cow—the first evidence that the virus had jumped from one livestock species to another. Since then, 720 cows have been affected, most of them in California, where there have been nearly 500 recorded cases.

In the United States, a trend of consolidation in agriculture, particularly dairies, has seen more animals housed together on ever-larger farms as the number of small farms has rapidly shrunk. In 1987, half of the country’s dairy cows were in herds of 80 or more, and half in herds of 80 or fewer. Twenty years later, half the country’s cows were raised in herds of 1,300 or more. Today, 5,000-head dairies are common, especially in the arid West.

California had just over 21,000 dairy farms in 1950, producing 5.6 billion pounds of milk. Today, it has 1,100 producing around 41 billion pounds. Total US milk production has soared from about 116 billion pounds in 1950 to about 226 billion today.

“The pace of consolidation in dairy far exceeds the pace of consolidation seen in most of US agriculture,” a recent USDA report said.

Initially, researchers thought the virus was spreading through cows’ respiration, but recent research suggests it’s being transmitted through milking equipment and milk itself.

“It’s been the same strain in dairy cows… We don’t necessarily have multiple events of spillover,” said Meghan Davis, an associate professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Now it’s transmission from one cow to the next, often through milking equipment.”

It’s still unclear what caused that initial jump from wild birds, which are the natural reservoirs of the virus, to commercial poultry flocks and then to cows, but some research suggests that changing migration patterns caused by warmer weather are creating conditions conducive to the spreading of viruses. Some wild birds are migrating earlier than usual, hatching juvenile birds in new or different habitats.

“This is leading to a higher number of young that are naive to the virus,” Prist explained. “This makes the young birds more infectious—they have a higher chance of transmitting the virus because they don’t have antibodies protecting them.

“They’re going to different areas and they’re staying longer,” Prist added, “so they have higher contact with other animals, to the other native populations, that they have never had contact [with] before.”

That, researchers believe, could have initiated the spillover from wild birds to poultry, where it has become especially virulent. In wild birds, the virus tends to be a low pathogenic strain that occurs naturally, causing only minor symptoms in some birds.

“But when we introduce the virus to poultry operations where birds live in unsanitary and highly confined conditions, the virus is … able to spread through them like wildfire,” said Ben Rankin, a legal expert with the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group. “There are so many more opportunities for the virus to mutate, to adapt to new kinds of hosts, and eventually, the virus spills back into the wild and this creates this cycle, or this loop, of intensification and increasing pathogenicity.”

Rankin pointed to an analysis that looked at 39 different viral outbreaks in birds from 1959 to 2015, where a low pathogenic avian influenza became a highly pathogenic one. Out of those, 37 were associated with commercial poultry operations. “So it’s a very clear relationship between the increasing pathogenicity of this virus and its relationship with industrial animal raising,” Rankin said.

Some researchers worry that large farms with multiple species are providing the optimal conditions for more species-to-species transfer. In North Carolina, the second-largest hog-producing state after Iowa, some farmers have started raising both chickens and hogs under contracts that require huge numbers of animals.

“So you’ve got co-location at a pretty substantial scale of herd size, on a single property,” said Chris Heaney, an associate professor of environmental health, engineering, epidemiology, and international health at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Another concern is seeing it jump into swine. That host, in particular, is uniquely well suited for those influenza viruses to re-assort and acquire properties that are very beneficial for taking up residence in humans.”

In late October, the USDA reported the first case of bird flu in a pig that lived on a small poultry and hog farm in Oregon.

Farmworker advocates say the number of cases in humans is likely underreported, largely because the immigrant and non-English speaking workforce on farms could be reluctant to seek help or may not be informed about taking precautions.

“What we’re dealing with is the lack of information from the top to the workers,” said Ana Schultz, a director with Project Protect Food Systems Workers.

In northern Colorado, home to dozens of large dairies, Schultz started to ask dairy workers in May if they were getting protective gear and whether anyone was falling ill. Many workers told her they were feeling flu-ish but didn’t go to the doctor for fear of losing a day of work or getting fired.

“I feel like there’s a lot more avian flu incidents, but no one knows about it because they don’t go to the doctor and they don’t get tested,” Schultz said. “In all the months that we’ve been doing outreach and taking protective gear and flyers, we haven’t had one single person tell us they’ve been to the doctor.”

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.

Georgina Gustin covers agriculture for Inside Climate News and has reported on the intersections of farming, food systems, and the environment for much of her journalism career. Her work has won numerous awards, including the John B. Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism, and she was twice named the Glenn Cunningham Agricultural Journalist of the Year, once with ICN colleagues. She has worked as a reporter for The Day in New London, Conn., the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and CQ Roll Call, and her stories have appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post, and National Geographic’s The Plate, among others. She is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Photo of Inside Climate News

Avian flu cases are on the upswing at big dairy farms Read More »

we’ve-got-a-lavish-new-trailer-for-star-trek:-section-31

We’ve got a lavish new trailer for Star Trek: Section 31

Michelle Yeoh stars in Star Trek: Section 31.

We’ve got a shiny new trailer for Star Trek: Section 31, the long-awaited spinoff film that brings back Michelle Yeoh’s magnificent Phillipa Georgiou from Star Trek: Discovery. The film will give us the backstory for Georgiou’s evil Mirror Universe counterpart, where she was a despotic emperor who murdered millions of her own people.

As previously reported, Yeoh’s stylishly acerbic Georgiou was eventually written out of Discovery, but fans took hope from rumors of a spinoff series featuring the character. That turned into a spinoff film, and we’ll take it. Miku Martineau plays a young Phillipa Georgiou in the film. Meanwhile, Yeoh’s older Georgiou is tasked with protecting the United Federation of Planets as part of a black ops group called Section 31, while dealing with all the blood she’s spilled in her past.

Any hardcore Star Trek fan will tell you that Section 31 was first introduced as an urban legend of sorts in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Apparently Ira Steven Behr—who came up with the idea of a secret rogue organization within Starfleet doing shady things to protect the Federation—took inspiration from Commander Sisko’s comment in one episode about how “It’s easy to be a saint in paradise.” The name is taken from Starfleet Charter Article 14, Section 31, which allows Starfleet to take extraordinary measures in the face of extreme threats—including sabotage, assassination, and even biological warfare.

We’ve got a lavish new trailer for Star Trek: Section 31 Read More »

in-a-not-so-subtle-signal-to-regulators,-blue-origin-says-new-glenn-is-ready

In a not-so-subtle signal to regulators, Blue Origin says New Glenn is ready

Blue Origin said Tuesday that the test payload for the first launch of its new rocket, New Glenn, is ready for liftoff. The company published an image of the “Blue Ring” pathfinder nestled up against one half of the rocket’s payload fairing.

“There is a growing demand to quickly move and position equipment and infrastructure in multiple orbits,” the company’s chief executive, Dave Limp, said on LinkedIn. “Blue Ring has advanced propulsion and communication capabilities for government and commercial customers to handle these maneuvers precisely and efficiently.”

This week’s announcement—historically Blue Origin has been tight-lipped about new products, but is opening up more as it nears the debut of its flagship New Glenn rocket—appears to serve a couple of purposes.

All Blue wants for Christmas is…

First of all, the relatively small payload contrasted with the size of the payload fairing highlights the greater volume the rocket offers over most conventional boosters. New Glenn’s payload fairing is 7 meters (23 feet) in diameter as opposed to the more conventional 5 meters (16.4 feet). It looks roomy inside.

Additionally, the company appears to be publicly signaling the Federal Aviation Administration and other regulatory agencies that it believes New Glenn is ready to fly, pending approval to conduct a hot fire test at Launch Complex-36, and then for a liftoff from Florida. This is a not-so-subtle message to regulators to please hurry up and complete the paperwork necessary for launch activities. It is not clear what is holding up the hot-fire and launch approval in this case, but it is often environmental issues or certification of a flight termination system.

Blue Origin’s release on Tuesday was carefully worded. The headline said New Glenn was “on track” for a launch this year and stated that the Blue Ring payload is “ready” for a launch this year. As yet there is no notional or public launch date. The hot-fire test has been delayed multiple times since the company put the rocket on its launch pad on Nov. 23. It had been targeting November for the test, and more recently, this past weekend.

After years of delays for the rocket, originally due to debut in 2020, Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos hired a new chief executive to run the company a little more than a year ago. Limp, an executive from Amazon, was given the mandate to change Blue Origin’s slower-moving culture to be more nimble and urgent and was told to launch New Glenn by the end of 2024.

In a not-so-subtle signal to regulators, Blue Origin says New Glenn is ready Read More »

From Products to Customers: Delivering Business Transformation At Scale

Transformation is a journey, not a destination – so how to transform at scale? GigaOm Field CTOs Darrel Kent and Whit Walters explore the nuances of business and digital transformation, sharing their thoughts on scaling businesses, value-driven growth, and leadership in a rapidly evolving world.

Whit: Darrel, transformation is such a well-used word these days—digital transformation, business transformation. It’s tough enough at a project level, but for enterprises looking to grow, where should they begin?

Darrel: You’re right. Transformation has become one of those overused buzzwords, but at its core, it’s about fundamental change. What is digital transformation? What is business transformation? It’s about translating those big concepts into value-based disciplines—disciplines that drive real impact.

Whit: That sounds compelling. Can you give us an example of what that looks like in practice – how does transformation relate to company growth?

Darrel: Sure. Think of a company aiming to grow from 1 billion, to 2 billion, to 5 billion in revenue. That’s not just a numbers game; it’s a journey of transformation. To get to 1 billion, you can get there by focusing on product excellence. But you won’t get to 2 billion based on product alone – you need more. You need to rethink your approach to scaling—whether it’s through innovation, operations, or culture. Finance needs to invest strategically, sales needs to evolve, and leadership must align every decision with long-term goals.

Whit: It’s a fascinating shift. So, scaling isn’t just about selling more products?

Darrel: Exactly. Scaling requires a transformation in how you deliver value. For example, moving beyond transactional sales to consultative relationships. It’s about operational efficiency, customer experience, and innovation working together to create value at scale. I call these value-based disciplines.

Whit: Let’s break that down a bit more. You’ve mentioned product excellence, operational excellence, and customer excellence. How do these concepts build on each other?

Darrel: Great question. Product excellence is the foundation. When building a company, your product needs to solve a real problem and do it exceptionally well. That’s how you reach your first milestone—say, that 1-billion-dollar mark. But to scale beyond that, you can’t rely on product alone. This is where operational excellence comes in. It’s about streamlining your processes, reducing inefficiencies, and ensuring that every part of the organization is working in harmony.

Whit: And customer excellence? Where does that fit in?

Darrel: Customer excellence takes it to the next level beyond operational excellence. Once again, what gets you to 2 billion does not take you beyond that. You have to change again. It’s not just about creating a great product or running a smooth operation. It’s about truly understanding and anticipating your customers’ needs. Companies that master customer excellence create loyalty and advocacy. They don’t just react to customer feedback; they proactively shape the customer experience. This is where long-term growth happens, and it’s a hallmark of companies that scale successfully.

Whit: That makes so much sense. So, it’s a progression—starting with product, moving to operations, and finally centering everything around the customer?

Darrel: Exactly. Think of it as a ladder. Each step builds on the previous one. You need product excellence to get off the ground, operational excellence to scale efficiently, and customer excellence to ensure longevity and market leadership. And these aren’t isolated phases—they’re interconnected. A failure in one area can disrupt the whole system.

Whit: That’s a powerful perspective. What role does leadership play in this transformation?

Darrel: Leadership is everything. It starts with understanding that transformation isn’t optional—it’s survival. Leaders must champion change, align the organization’s culture with its strategy, and invest in the right areas. For example, what does the CFO prioritize? What technologies or processes does the COO implement? It all needs to work together.

Whit: That’s a powerful perspective. What would you say to leaders who are hesitant to embark on such a daunting journey?

Darrel: I’d tell them this: Transformation isn’t just about surviving the present; it’s about thriving in the future. It’s what Simon Sinek refers to as ‘the long game’. Companies that embrace these principles—aligning value creation with their business strategy—will not only grow but will set the pace in their industries.

Whit: Do you have any final thoughts for organizations navigating their own transformations?

Darrel: Focus on value. Whether it’s your customers, employees, or stakeholders, every transformation effort should return to delivering value. And remember, it’s a journey. You don’t have to get it perfect overnight, but you do have to start.

Whit: Thank you, Darrel. Your insights are invaluable.

From Products to Customers: Delivering Business Transformation At Scale Read More »

ev-charging-infrastructure-isn’t-just-for-road-trippers

EV charging infrastructure isn’t just for road trippers

Although there’s been a whole lot of pessimism recently, electric vehicle sales continue to grow, even if it is less quickly than many hoped. That’s true in the commercial vehicle space as well—according to Cox Automotive, 87 percent of vehicle fleet operators expect to add EVs in the next five years, and more than half thought they were likely to buy EVs this year. And where and when to plug those EVs in to charge is a potential headache for fleet operators.

The good news is that charging infrastructure really is growing. It doesn’t always feel that way—the $7.5 billion allocated under the Inflation Reduction Act for charging infrastructure has to be disbursed via state departments of transportation, so the process there has been anything but rapid. But according to the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, the total number of public charging plugs has doubled since 2020, to more than 144,000 level 2 plugs and closing in on 49,000 DC fast charger plugs.

There are ways to throw off a planned timeline when building out a station with multiple chargers. Obviously you need the funds to pay for it all—if these are to come from grants like the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, that had to wait for the states to each develop their own funding plans, then open for submissions, and so on, before even approving a project, for example.

Permitting can add plenty more delays, and then there’s the need to run sufficient power to a site. “The challenge is getting the power to the points that it needs to be used. The good thing is that the rollout for EV is not happening overnight, and it’s staged. So that does give some opportunity,” said Amber Putignano, market development leader at ABB Electrification.

For example, ABB has been working with Greenlane, a $650 million joint venture between Daimler Truck North America, NextEra Energy Resources, and BlackRock, as it builds out a series of charging corridors along freight routes, starting with a 280-mile (450 km) stretch of I-15 between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

EV charging infrastructure isn’t just for road trippers Read More »