Features

verizon-refused-to-unlock-man’s-iphone,-so-he-sued-the-carrier-and-won

Verizon refused to unlock man’s iPhone, so he sued the carrier and won


Verizon customer fights back

Verizon changed policy after he bought the phone, wouldn’t unlock it despite FCC rule.

Illustration of a gloved hand holding a smartphone that displays an image of a padlock with a Verizon logo

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

When Verizon refused to unlock an iPhone purchased by Kansas resident Patrick Roach, he had no intention of giving up without a fight. Roach sued the wireless carrier in small claims court and won.

Roach bought a discounted iPhone 16e from Verizon’s Straight Talk brand on February 28, 2025, as a gift for his wife’s birthday. He intended to pay for one month of service, cancel, and then switch the phone to the US Mobile service plan that the couple uses. Under federal rules that apply to Verizon and a Verizon unlocking policy that was in place when Roach bought the phone, this strategy should have worked.

“The best deals tend to be buying it from one of these MVNOs [Mobile Virtual Network Operators] and then activating it until it unlocks and then switching it to whatever you are planning to use it with. It usually saves you about half the value of the phone,” Roach said in a phone interview.

Unlocking a phone allows it to be used with another carrier. Verizon, unlike other carriers, is required by the Federal Communications Commission to unlock phones shortly after they are activated on its network. Verizon gained significant benefits in exchange for agreeing to the unlocking requirement, first in 2008 when it purchased licenses to use 700 MHz spectrum that came with open access requirements and then in 2021 when it agreed to merger conditions to obtain approval for its purchase of TracFone.

Verizon is thus required to unlock handsets 60 days after they are activated on its network. This applies to Verizon’s flagship brand and TracFone brands such as Straight Talk.

“That was the compromise. For their competitive advantage of acquiring the spectrum, they had to give up the ability to lock down phones for an extended period of time,” Roach said.

Verizon decided it can change the rules

But 60 days after Roach activated his phone, Verizon refused to unlock it. Verizon claimed it didn’t have to because of a recent policy change in which Verizon decided to only unlock devices after “60 days of paid active service.” Roach had only paid for one month of service on the phone.

The FCC-imposed restriction says Verizon must unlock phones 60 days after activation and doesn’t say that Verizon may refuse to unlock a phone when a customer has not maintained paid service for 60 days. Moreover, Verizon implemented its “60 days of paid active service” policy for TracFone brands and Verizon prepaid phones on April 1, 2025, over a month after Roach bought the phone.

Company policy at the time Roach made the purchase was to unlock phones 60 days after activation, with no mention of needing 60 days of paid active service. In other words, Roach bought the phone under one policy, and Verizon refused to unlock it based on a different policy it implemented over a month later. Verizon’s attempt to retroactively enforce its new policy on Roach was not looked upon favorably by a magistrate judge in District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas.

“Under the KCPA [Kansas Consumer Protection Act], a consumer is not required to prove intent to defraud. The fact that after plaintiff purchased the phone, the defendant changed the requirements for unlocking it so that plaintiff could go to a different network essentially altered the nature of the device purchased… With the change in defendant’s unlocking policy, the phone was essentially useless for the purpose plaintiff intended when he purchased it,” Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Henry wrote in an October 2025 ruling.

There’s still the question of why Verizon and its brands are demanding 60 days of paid active service before unlocking phones when the FCC-imposed conditions require it to unlock phones 60 days after activation. Roach filed a complaint to the FCC, alleging that Verizon violated the conditions. Verizon has meanwhile petitioned the FCC to eliminate the 60-day requirement altogether.

Customer rejected Verizon settlement offer

Before his small-claims court win, Roach turned down a Verizon settlement offer of $600 plus court fees because he didn’t want to give up the right to speak about the case publicly. Roach said he filed an arbitration case against Verizon nearly a decade ago on a different matter related to gift cards that were supposed to be provided through a device recycling program. He said he can’t reveal details about the settlement in that previous case because of a non-disclosure agreement.

After refusing Verizon’s settlement offer in the new case, Roach gained a modest financial benefit from his court victory. The judge ordered Verizon to pay back the $410.40 he paid for the device, plus court costs and service fees.

When it appeared that the Straight Talk iPhone wouldn’t be unlocked, Roach decided to buy an unlocked phone from Costco for $643.93. But he ended up returning that phone to Costco and paying Straight Talk for a second month of service to get the original phone unlocked, he said.

The now-unlocked phone—the one he bought from Straight Talk—is being used by his wife on their US Mobile plan. The court-ordered refund check that Verizon sent Roach included the phone cost and one month of service fees, he said.

Roach estimated he spent 20 or so hours on the suit, including arranging to have a summons served on Verizon and arguing his case in a court hearing. Roach didn’t get much of a payout considering the amount of time he spent, “but it wasn’t about that,” he said.

Roach provided Ars with the emails in which Verizon offered the $600 settlement. A Verizon executive relations employee wrote to Roach, “My offer is not an admission of guilt but trying to extend the olive branch.”

In his email declining the offer, Roach told Verizon, “I highly value the non-monetary outcomes I would achieve in court—transparency, accountability, and the absence of restrictions such as NDAs. Any settlement proposal that requires me to remain silent about the issue, while offering only modest monetary compensation, is less attractive to me than pursuing the matter through judgment. If Verizon Value is genuinely interested in settlement, the offer would need to reflect both the tangible costs I’ve incurred and the intangible but significant benefits the company receives by avoiding litigation and publicity.”

“It was really starting to irk me”

The FCC has taken no action on Roach’s complaint, and in fact, the commission could allow Verizon to scrap the 60-day requirement. As we reported in May, Verizon petitioned the FCC to let it lock phones to its network for longer periods of time. This would make it harder for customers to switch to other carriers, but Verizon claims longer locking periods are necessary to deter fraud.

The FCC hasn’t ruled yet on Verizon’s petition. Roach says Verizon seems to be acting as if it can change the rules without waiting for the FCC to do so formally. “It was really starting to irk me that they were basically just going ahead with it anyways while they had an open request,” Roach said.

He doesn’t expect the FCC to penalize Verizon, though. “It’s just kind of slimy of them, so I feel like it deserves a spotlight,” he said. “I’m not sure with the current state of the FCC that anything would happen, but the rule of law should be respected.”

The Verizon petition to relax the unlocking requirements was opposed in a filing by Public Knowledge and other consumer advocacy groups. Public Knowledge Legal Director John Bergmayer, who wrote the filing, told Ars that Roach “has a pretty strong argument under the law as it stands.”

Verizon must unlock phones automatically

The unlocking rules applying to Verizon used to be stricter, resulting in the company selling phones that were already unlocked. In 2019, Verizon requested a waiver to let it lock phones for 60 days.

The FCC granted the waiver in June 2019, allowing Verizon “to lock a customer’s handset for 60 days from the date it becomes active on Verizon’s network” and requiring it to unlock the handset once the period is over. This condition was expanded to TracFone and its brands such as Straight Talk in the 2021 merger, with the FCC approval stating that “For 700 MHz C Block TracFone devices that operate on the Verizon network and are capable of unlocking automatically (e.g., Apple devices), they will unlock automatically 60 days after activation.”

The 2019 waiver grant said Verizon must automatically unlock phones after 60 days “regardless of whether: (1) the customer asks for the handset to be unlocked, or (2) the handset is fully paid off.” The FCC order specifies that “the only exception to the rule will be that Verizon will not have to automatically unlock handsets that it determines within the 60-day period to have been purchased through fraud.”

Bergmayer said the FCC order “granting the waiver just starts a countdown, with no ‘paid service’ requirement, or room for Verizon to just impose one. Many people may use prepaid phones that they don’t keep in continuous service but just charge up as needed. Maybe people are fine with just having Wi-Fi on their phones for a while if they’re at home anyway.”

Given the restrictive nature of the FCC conditions, “I don’t think that can be read to allow a paid service requirement,” Bergmayer said. But as a practical matter, the FCC under Chairman Brendan Carr has been aggressively eliminating regulations that apply to telecom carriers under Carr’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative. To actually enforce Verizon’s obligations under the current rules, “you have to convince the current FCC not to just change it,” Bergmayer said.

The FCC and Verizon did not respond to requests for comment.

Retroactive policy change irked other buyers, too

Roach wasn’t the only person whose plans to buy a discounted phone were thwarted by Verizon refusing to unlock the device after 60 days. Roach had learned of the discount offer from a Slick Deals thread. Eventually, users posting in that thread started reporting that they weren’t able to get the phone unlocked.

“My status: I used 30 days with Straight Talk. Waited another 35 days but it did not unlock,” one person wrote.

Some people in the thread said they canceled after 30 days, like Roach did, but eventually bought a second month of service in order to get the unlock. Although Verizon and its brands are required to unlock phones automatically, some commenters said they had to contact Straight Talk support to get an unlock. “Needless to say this has been an arduous journey. Good luck to others and hope you manage to successfully unlock your devices as well,” one user wrote.

There’s also a Reddit thread started by someone who said they bought a Samsung phone in February and complained that Straight Talk refused to honor the unlocking policy that was in place at the time.

“I called to ask for the phone to be unlocked on April 16 but was told it can’t be unlocked since it did not have 60 days of paid service,” the Reddit user wrote. “When I said that was not the policy on phones activated prior to April 1, the rep told me ‘we have the right to change our policy.’ I agreed, they do [have] the right to change their policy GOING FORWARD but can’t change the rules going backwards. He disagreed.”

FCC complaint didn’t go anywhere

Roach’s FCC complaint received a response from Verizon, but nothing substantial from the FCC itself. “There’s not really any sort of moderation or mediation from the FCC, it’s just kind of a dialogue between you and the other party. And I’m not really sure if any human eyes from the government even look at it. It’s probably just a data point,” Roach said.

Roach had previously called Straight Talk customer service about the changed terms. “There were a couple phone calls involved, and they were just very unrelenting that the only way that thing was getting unlocked is with the extra month of paid service,” he said.

In its formal response to the FCC, Verizon’s TracFone division asserted that it could apply the April 1, 2025, policy change to the phone that Roach bought over a month earlier. The carrier’s letter to the FCC said:

We understand Mr. Roach’s desire to use his device on another carrier’s network, and we want to provide clarity based on our Unlocking Policy, which became effective on April 1, 2025. As outlined in our policy, for cellphones capable of remote unlocking (this includes most iPhones and some Android cellphones) that were activated with Straight Talk service prior to November 23, 2021, on any carrier network, the device becomes eligible for remote unlocking upon the customer’s request after 60 days of active paid service.

Our redemption records indicate that Mr. Roach’s account does not have the required minimum 60 days of active paid service based on the payment records. Therefore, the device does not currently meet the eligibility criteria for unlocking as outlined in our policy. Once the account reflects the required 60 days of active paid service, and the device meets the other conditions, he can resubmit the unlocking request.

Verizon’s letter did not explain how its new policy complies with the FCC conditions or why the new policy should apply to phones purchased before the policy was in place.

Roach’s complaint said the FCC should force Straight Talk to “honor the FCC-mandated 60-day post-activation unlock condition for all affected phones, without imposing the additional ‘paid service’ requirement.” His complaint further urged the FCC to “investigate this practice as a violation of FCC rules and the merger conditions” and “take enforcement action to protect consumers’ rights.”

“Straight Talk’s new policy conflicts with the FCC’s binding conditions,” Roach told the agency. “The Commission’s order clearly requires unlocking after 60 days from activation, with no additional obligation to maintain service. By conditioning unlocks on two months of service, Straight Talk is effectively adding a term that Verizon did not promise and the FCC did not approve.”

Kansas consumer protection law to the rescue

In his small claims court filing, Roach alleged that Verizon and Straight violated the FCC conditions and that the retroactive application of the “60 days of paid service” term, without disclosure at the point of sale, is an unfair and deceptive practice prohibited by the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.

The magistrate judge’s ruling in Roach’s favor said, “It does appear that defendant’s change unlocking policy is contrary to the applicable FCC regulations.” She noted that federal communications law does not prevent users from suing carriers individually and that the Kansas Consumer Protection Act “contains provisions prohibiting deceptive acts by a supplier which would be applicable in this case.”

Roach asked for $10,000, mainly because that was the limit on damages in the venue, but the judge decided to award him damages in the amount of his actual losses. “He lost the benefit of the bargain he made with defendant such that his damages were loss of the $410.40,” the ruling said.

Straight Talk’s terms of service require disputes to be resolved either in arbitration or small claims court. Verizon pays the arbitration fees if users go that route. Arbitration is “a little more murky” in terms of how the parties’ interests are aligned, Roach said.

“When the arbitrators are being paid by Verizon, are they really a neutral party?” he said. Roach also said he “thought it was honestly just a good opportunity for an easy win and an opportunity to learn about the small claims court system a bit. So at that point I was like, if I don’t make any money from this, whatever, but at least I’ll learn a little bit about the process.”

Verizon’s “argument was pretty weak”

Roach said he did not consult with a lawyer on his small claims case, instead opting to do it all himself. “The first time I showed up to court for the original date, they asked for proof of the returned mail summons, and I did not have that,” he said.

The court hearing was rescheduled. When it was eventually held, the carrier sent a representative to argue against Roach.

“Their argument was pretty weak, I guess,” Roach said. “It was basically like, ‘Well, he didn’t pay the two months of service, so we didn’t unlock his phone. We offered him a settlement but he rejected it.’… My argument was, yeah, the terms had changed in kind of a consumer-unfriendly way. But beyond that, it was the fact that the terms had changed from something that was legal to something that was not legal with the federal regs. So regardless of the fact that the terms had changed, the current terms were illegal, which I thought was my strongest argument. And then I also put in that it was probably a violation of Kansas consumer protection law, which I’m glad I did.”

Roach said that toward the end of the hearing, the judge indicated that she couldn’t make a judgment based on FCC regulations and would need to rule on what the Kansas court has jurisdiction over. She issued the ruling that Verizon violated the state’s consumer protection law about five or six weeks later, he said.

Given that the FCC hasn’t acted on Verizon’s petition to change the unlocking rules, the federal regulations “haven’t changed at all in regards to Verizon’s obligation to unlock devices,” Roach said. He believes it would be relatively easy for consumers who were similarly harmed to beat Verizon in court or even to pursue a class action.

“I would think this would be a slam dunk for any further cases,” Roach said. “I don’t think I have any grounds anymore since my damages have been resolved, but it seems like it’d be a very easy class action for somebody.”

Photo of Jon Brodkin

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

Verizon refused to unlock man’s iPhone, so he sued the carrier and won Read More »

how-to-break-free-from-smart-tv-ads-and-tracking

How to break free from smart TV ads and tracking


The Ars guide to “dumb” TVs

Sick of smart TVs? Here are your best options.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Smart TVs can feel like a dumb choice if you’re looking for privacy, reliability, and simplicity.

Today’s TVs and streaming sticks are usually loaded up with advertisements and user tracking, making offline TVs seem very attractive. But ever since smart TV operating systems began making money, “dumb” TVs have been hard to find.

In response, we created this non-smart TV guide that includes much more than dumb TVs. Since non-smart TVs are so rare, this guide also breaks down additional ways to watch TV and movies online and locally without dealing with smart TVs’ evolution toward software-centric features and snooping. We’ll discuss a range of options suitable for various budgets, different experience levels, and different rooms in your home.

Table of Contents

Our best recommendation

This is a dumb TV guide, but first, let’s briefly highlight the best recommendation for most people: Take your TV offline and plug in an Apple TV box.

The Apple TV 4K and Siri Remote.

Your best option.

Credit: Jeff Dunn

Your best option. Credit: Jeff Dunn

An Apple TV lets you replace smart TV software with Apple’s cleaner tvOS, and it’s more intuitive than using most smart TVs and other streaming devices. Apple’s tvOS usually runs faster and more reliably, and it isn’t riddled with distracting ads or recommendations. And there’s virtually no learning curve for family members or visitors, something that can’t always be said for DIY alternatives.

Critically, Apple TV boxes are also an easy recommendation on the privacy front. The setup process makes it simple for anyone to ensure that the device is using relatively minimal user tracking. You’re likely to use an Apple TV box with the Apple TV app or with an Apple account, which means sending some data to Apple. But Apple has a better reputation for keeping user information in-house, and Apple TV boxes don’t have automatic content recognition (ACR).

For more information, read my previous article on why Apple TVs are privacy advocates’ go-to streaming device.

Differing from other smart TV alternatives in this guide (such as a laptop), you don’t have to worry about various streaming services’ requirements for streaming in 4K or HDR with an Apple TV. But you still have to make sure your display and HDMI cable are HDCP 2.2-compliant and that you’re using HDMI 2.0 or better if you want to watch 4K or HDR content. You could even connect network-attached storage (NAS) to your Apple TV box so you can stream files from the storage device.

Plus, using a smart TV offline means you’ll have access to the latest and greatest display technologies, which is generally not the case for dumb TVs.

Things to keep in mind

One common concern about using smart TVs offline is the fear that the TV will repeatedly nag you to connect to the Internet. I’ve seen some reports of this happening over the years, but generally speaking, this doesn’t seem to be expected behavior. If you can’t find a way to disable TV notifications, try contacting support.

You may want your offline TV to keep LAN access so you can still use some smart TV features, like phone mirroring or streaming from a NAS. In this case, you can use your router (if supported) to block your TV’s IP address from connecting to the Internet.

And Google TV users should remember to set their TV to “basic TV” mode, which lets you use the TV without connecting to the Internet.

Dumb TVs are endangered

Buying a TV that doesn’t connect to the Internet is an obvious solution to avoiding smart TV tracking and ads, but that’s much easier said than done.

Smart TV OSes help TV-makers stay afloat in an industry with thin margins on hardware. Not only do they provide ad space, but they also give OS operators and their partners information on how people use their TVs—data that is extremely valuable to advertisers. Additionally, mainstream acceptance of the Internet of Things has led many people to expect their TVs to have integrated Wi-Fi. These factors have all made finding a dumb TV difficult, especially in the US.

Dumb TVs sold today have serious image and sound quality tradeoffs, simply because companies don’t make dumb versions of their high-end models. On the image side, you can expect lower resolutions, sizes, and brightness levels and poorer viewing angles. You also won’t find premium panel technologies like OLED. If you want premium image quality or sound, you’re better off using a smart TV offline. Dumb TVs also usually have shorter (one-year) warranties.

Any display or system you end up using needs HDCP 2.2 compliance to play 4K or HDR content via a streaming service or any other DRM-protected 4K or HDR media, like a Blu-ray disc.

Best ways to find a dumb TV

Below are the brands I’ve identified as most likely to have dumb TVs available for purchase online as of this writing.

Emerson

I was able to find the greatest number of non-smart TVs from Emerson. Emerson is a Parsippany, New Jersey, electronics company that was founded in 1948.

As of this writing, Emerson’s dumb TV options range from 7-inch portable models to 50-inch 4K TVs. Its TVs are relatively easy to get since they’re sold directly and through various online retailers, including Amazon, Home Depot, Best Buy, and, for some reason, Shein.

Westinghouse



Another company still pushing non-smart TVs is Westinghouse, a Pittsburgh-headquartered company founded in 1886. In addition to other types of electronics and home goods, Westinghouse also has an industrial business that includes nuclear fuel.

Westinghouse’s dumb TVs max out at 32 inches and 720p resolution, but some of them also have a built-in DVD player. You can find Westinghouse’s dumb TVs on Amazon. However, Westinghouse seems to have the most dubious reputation of these brands based on online chatter.

Sceptre

Sceptre, a Walmart brand, still has a handful of dumb TVs available. I’ve noticed inventory dwindle in recent months, but Walmart usually has at least one Sceptre dumb TV available.

Amazon search

Outside the above brands, your best bet for finding a non-smart TV is Amazon. I’ve had success searching for “dumb TVs” and have found additional results by searching for a “non-smart TV.”

Projectors

For now, it’s not hard to find a projector that doesn’t connect to the Internet or track user activity. And there are options that are HDCP 2.2-compliant so you can project in 4K and HDR.

Things to keep in mind

Projectors aren’t for everyone. They still require dim rooms and a decent amount of physical space to produce the best image. (To see how much space you need for a projector, I recommend RTINGS’ handy throw calculator.)

The smart-tech bug has come for projectors, too, though, and we’ve started seeing more smart projectors released over the past two years.

Computer monitors

If you want a dumb display for watching TV, it’s cheaper to buy a smart TV and keep it offline than it is to get a similarly specced computer monitor. But there are benefits to using a monitor instead of a dumb TV or an offline smart TV. (Of course, this logic doesn’t carry over to “smart monitors.”)

When it comes to smaller screens, you’ll have more options if you look at monitors instead of TVs. This is especially true if you want premium features, like high refresh rates or quality speakers, which are hard to find among TVs that are under 42 inches.

Monitor vendors are typically more forthcoming about product specs than TV makers are. It’s hard to find manufacturer claims about a TV’s color gamut, color accuracy, or typical brightness, but a computer monitor’s product page usually has all this information. It’s also easier to find a monitor with professional-grade color accuracy than a TV with the same, and some monitors have integrated calibration tools.

Things to keep in mind

Newer and advanced types of display technologies are rarer in monitors. This includes OLED, Mini LED, and Micro RGB. And if you buy a new monitor, you’ll probably need to supply your own speakers.

A computer monitor isn’t a TV, so there’s no TV tuner or way to use an antenna. If you really wanted to, you could get a cable box to work with a monitor with the right ports or adapters. People are streaming more than they’re watching broadcast and cable channels, though, so you may not mind the lack of traditional TV capabilities.

Digital signage

Digital signage displays are purpose-built for displaying corporate messages, often for all or most hours of the day. They typically have features that people don’t need for TV watching, such as content management software. And due to their durability and warranty needs, digital signage displays are often more expensive than similarly specced computer monitors.

Again, it’s important to ensure that the digital signage is HDCP 2.2-compliant if you plan to watch 4K or HDR.

Things to keep in mind

But if you happen to come across a digital signage display that’s the right size and the right price, is there any real reason why you shouldn’t use it as a TV? I asked Panasonic, which makes digital signage. A spokesperson from Panasonic Connect North America told me that digital signage displays are made to be on for 16 to 24 hours per day and with high brightness levels to accommodate “retail and public environments.”

The spokesperson added:

Their rugged construction and heat management systems make them ideal for demanding commercial use, but these same features can result in higher energy consumption, louder operation, and limited compatibility with home entertainment systems.

Panasonic’s representative also pointed out that real TVs offer consumer-friendly features for watching TV, like “home-optimized picture tuning, simplified audio integration, and user-friendly menu interfaces.”

If you’re fine with these caveats, though, and digital signage is your easiest option, there isn’t anything stopping you from using one to avoid smart TVs.

What to connect to your dumb TV

After you’ve settled on an offline display, you’ll need something to give it life. Below is a breakdown of the best things to plug into your dumb TV (or dumb display) so you can watch TV without your TV watching you.

Things to keep in mind

If you’re considering using an older device for TV, like a used laptop, make sure it’s HDCP 2.2-compliant if you want to watch 4K or HDR.

And although old systems and displays and single-board computers can make great dumb TV alternatives, remember that these devices need HDMI 2.0 or DisplayPort 1.2 or newer to support 4K at 60 Hz.

What to connect: a Phone

Before we get into more complex options for powering your dumb TV, let’s start with devices you may already own.

It’s possible to connect your phone to a dumb display, but doing so is harder than connecting a PC. You’d need an adapter, such as a USB-C (or Lightning) Digital AV Adapter.

You can use a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard to control the phone from afar. By activating Assistive Touch, I’ve even been able to use my iPhone with a mouse that claims not to support iOS. With an extra-long cable, you could potentially control the phone from your lap. That’s not the cleanest setup, though, and it would look odd in a family room.

Things to keep in mind

If your phone is outputting to your display, you can’t use it to check your email, read articles, or doomscroll while you watch TV. You can fix this by using a secondary phone as your streaming device.

If you’re using a phone to watch a streaming service, there’s a good chance you won’t be watching in 4K, even if your streaming subscription supports it. Netflix, for example, limits resolution to 1080p or less (depending on the model) for iPhones. HDR is supported across iPhone models but not with Android devices.

Screen mirroring doesn’t always work well with streaming services and phones. Netflix, for instance, doesn’t support AirPlay or Android phone casting. Disney+ supports Chromecast and AirPlay, but AirPlay won’t work if you subscribe to Disney+ with ads (due to “technical reasons”).

What to connect: A laptop

A laptop is an excellent smart TV alternative that’s highly customizable yet simple to deploy.

Most mainstream streaming providers that have dedicated smart TV apps, like Netflix and HBO Max, have PC versions of their apps. And most of those services are also available via web browsers, which work much better on computers than they do on smart TVs. You can also access local files—all via a user interface that you and anyone else watching TV is probably familiar with already.

With a tethered laptop, you can quickly set up a multi-picture view for watching two games or shows simultaneously. Multi-view support on streaming apps is extremely limited right now, with only Peacock and dedicated sports apps like ESPN and MLB TV offering it.

A laptop also lets you use your dumb TV for common PC tasks, like PC gaming or using productivity software (sometimes you just want to see that spreadsheet on a bigger screen).

Things to keep in mind

Streaming in 4K or HDR sometimes comes with specific requirements that are easy to overlook. Some streaming services, for example, won’t stream in 4K on certain web browsers—or with any web browser at all.

Streaming services sometimes have GPU requirements for 4K and HDR streaming. For example, to stream Netflix in 4K or HDR from a browser, you need Microsoft Edge and an Intel 7th Generation Core or AMD Ryzen CPU or better, plus the latest graphics drivers. Disney+ doesn’t allow 4K HDR streaming from any web browsers. Streaming 4K content in a web browser might also require you to acquire the HEVC/H.265 codec, depending on your system.

If 4K or HDR streaming is critical to you, it’s important to check your streaming providers’ 4K and HDR limits; it may be best to rely on a dedicated app.

If you want to be able to comfortably control your computer from a couch, you’ll also need to invest in some hardware or software. You can get away with a basic Bluetooth mouse and keyboard. Air mice are another popular solution.

The WeChip W1 air mouse.

The WeChip W1 air mouse.

Credit: WeChip/Amazon

The WeChip W1 air mouse. Credit: WeChip/Amazon

If you don’t want extra gadgets taking up space, software like the popular Unified Remote (for iOS and Android) can turn your phone into a remote control for your computer. It also supports Wake-On-LAN.

You may encounter hiccups with streaming availability. Most streaming services available on smart TVs are also accessible via computers, but some aren’t. Many FAST (free ad-supported streaming television) services and channels, such as the Samsung TV Plus service and Filmrise FAST app and channel, are only available via smart TVs. And many streaming services’ apps, including Netflix and Disney+, aren’t available on macOS. If you’re using a very old computer, you might run into compatibility issues with streaming services. Netflix’s PC app, for example, requires Windows 10 or newer, and if you stream Netflix via a browser on a system running an older OS, you’re limited to SD resolution.

And while a laptop and dumb display setup can keep snooping TVs out of your home, there are obviously lots of user tracking and privacy concerns with web browsers, too. You can alleviate some concerns by researching the browsers you want to use for watching TV.

What to connect: A home theater PC

For a more permanent setup, consider a dedicated home theater PC (HTPC). They don’t require beefy, expensive specs and are more flexible than smart TV platforms in terms of software support and customization.

You can pick a system that fits on your living room console table, like a mini PC, or match your home’s aesthetics with a custom build. Raspberry Pis are a diminutive solution that you can dress up in a case and use for various additional tasks, like streaming games from your gaming PC to your TV or creating an AirPlay music server for streaming Spotify and other online music and local music to AirPlay-compatible speakers.

The right accessories can take an HTPC to the next level. You can use an app like TeamViewer or the more TV-remote-like Unified Remote to control your PC with your phone. But investing in dedicated hardware is worthwhile for long-term and multi-person use. Bluetooth keyboards and mice last a long time without needing a charge and can even be combined into one device.

K400 Plus Wireless Touch Keyboard

Logitech’s wireless K400 combines a keyboard with a touchpad.

Credit: Logitech

Logitech’s wireless K400 combines a keyboard with a touchpad. Credit: Logitech

Other popular options for HTPC control are air remotes and the Flirc USB, which plugs into a computer’s USB-A port to enable IR remote control. Speaking of USB ports, you could use them to connect a Blu-ray/DVD player or gaming controller to your HTPC. If you want to add support for live TV, you can still find PCIe over-the-air (OTA) tuner cards.

Pepper Jobs W10 GYRO Smart Remote

The Pepper Jobs W10 GYRO Smart Remote is a popular air remote for controlling Windows 10 PCs.

Credit: Pepper Jobs

The Pepper Jobs W10 GYRO Smart Remote is a popular air remote for controlling Windows 10 PCs. Credit: Pepper Jobs

Helpful software for home theater PCs

With the right software, an HTPC can be more useful to a household than a smart TV. You probably already have some apps in mind for your ideal HTPC. That makes this a fitting time to discuss some solid software that you may not have initially considered or that would be helpful to recommend to other cord cutters.

If you have a lot of media files you’d like to easily navigate through on your HTPC, media server software, such as Plex Media Server, is a lifesaver. Plex specifically has an app streamlined for HTPC use. The company has taken some criticism recently due to changes like new remote access rules, higher prices, and a foray into movie rentals. Although Plex is probably the most common and simplest media server software, alternatives like Jellyfin have been gaining popularity lately and are worth checking out.

Whichever media server software you use, consider pairing it with a dedicated NAS. NAS media servers are especially helpful if you want to let people, including those outside of your household, watch stuff from your media library at any time and without having to keep a high-power system turned on 24/7.

You can stream files from your NAS to a dumb TV by setting up a streaming system—such as a Raspberry Pi, Nvidia Shield, or Apple TV box—that connects to the dumb display. That device can then stream video from the NAS by using Network File System or the Infuse app, for example. 

What to connect: An antenna

Nowadays, you can watch traditional, live TV channels over the Internet through over-the-top streaming services like YouTube TV and Sling TV. But don’t underestimate the power of TV antennas, which have improved in recent years and let you watch stuff for free.

This year, Horowitz Research surveyed 2,200 US adults and found that 19 percent of respondents were still using a TV antenna.

If you haven’t checked them out in a while, you might be surprised by how sleek bunny ears look now. Many of the best TV antennas now have flat, square shapes and can be mounted to your wall or windowsill.

Mohu's Leaf antenna.

Mohu’s Leaf antenna. Bye, bye, bunny ears.

Mohu’s Leaf antenna. Bye, bye, bunny ears. Credit: Mohu

The best part is that companies can’t track what you watch with an antenna. As Nielsen said in a January 2024 blog post:

Big data sources alone can’t provide insight into the viewing behaviors of the millions of viewers who watch TV using a digital antenna.

Antennas have also gotten more versatile. For example, in addition to local stations, an antenna can provide access to dozens of digital subchannels. They’re similar to the free ad-supported television channels gaining popularity with smart TVs users today, in that they often show niche programming or a steady stream of old shows and movies with commercial breaks. You can find a list of channels you’re likely to get with an antenna via this website from the Federal Communications Commission.

TV and movies watched through an antenna are likely to be less compressed than what you get with cable, which means you can get excellent image quality with the right setup.

You can also add DVR capabilities, like record and pause, to live broadcasts through hardware, such as a Tablo OTA DVR device or Plex DVR, a subscription service that lets antenna users add broadcast TV recordings to their Plex media servers.

A diagram of the 4th Gen Tablo's ports.

A diagram of the 4th Gen Tablo’s ports.

A diagram of the 4th Gen Tablo’s ports. Credit: Tablo

Things to keep in mind

You’re unlikely to get 4K or HDR broadcasts with an antenna. ATSC 3.0, also known as Next Gen TV, enables stations to broadcast in 4K HDR but has been rolling out slowly. Legislation recently proposed by the FCC could further slow things.

In order to watch a 4K or HDR broadcast, you’ll also need an ATSC 3.0 tuner or an ATSC 3.0-equipped TV. The latter is rare. LG, for example, dropped support in 2023 over a patent dispute. You can find a list of ATSC 3.0-certified TVs and converters here.

Realistically, an antenna doesn’t have enough channels to provide sufficient entertainment for many modern households. Sixty percent of antenna owners also subscribe to some sort of streaming service, according to Nielsen.

Further, obstructions like tall buildings and power lines could hurt an antenna’s performance. Another challenge is getting support for multiple TVs in your home. If you want OTA TV in multiple rooms, you either need to buy multiple antennas or set up a way to split the signal (such as by using an old coaxial cable and splitter, running a new coaxial cable, or using an OTA DVR, such as a Tablo or SiliconDust’s HDHomeRun).

Photo of Scharon Harding

Scharon is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica writing news, reviews, and analysis on consumer gadgets and services. She’s been reporting on technology for over 10 years, with bylines at Tom’s Hardware, Channelnomics, and CRN UK.

How to break free from smart TV ads and tracking Read More »

please-send-help-i-can’t-stop-playing-these-roguelikes.

Please send help. I can’t stop playing these roguelikes.


it’s “rogue,” not “rouge”

2025 was a very good year for my favorite genre.

Hades 2 has me in a chokehold. Credit: Supergiant Games

Hades 2 has me in a chokehold. Credit: Supergiant Games

It’s time to admit, before God and the good readers of Ars Technica, that I have a problem. I love roguelikes. Reader, I can’t get enough of them. If there’s even a whisper of a hot new roguelike on Steam, I’m there. You may call them arcane, repetitive, or maddeningly difficult; I call them heaven.

The second best part of video games is taking a puny little character and, over 100 hours, transforming that adventurer into a god of destruction. The best thing about video games is doing the same thing in under an hour. Beat a combat encounter, get an upgrade. Enter a new area, choose a new item. Put together a build and watch it sing.

If you die—immediately ending your ascent and returning you to the beginning of the game—you’ll often make a pit stop at a home base to unlock new goodies to help you on your next run. (Some people distiguish between roguelikes and “roguelites,” with the latter including permanent, between-run upgrades. For simplicity’s sake, I’ll use “roguelike” as an umbrella term).

2025 has been a truly horrific year for most things. But for roguelikes? It’s been an embarrassment of riches. Because I’m an editor and there’s no one here to stop me, I’d like to tell you about them. To keep things manageable, I’ll stick to games that hit 1.0 in 2025.

Hades II

Screenshot of hades 2

Credit: Supergiant Games

Where else could we start? In a year of wall-to-wall video game showstoppers, Hades II sticks out. The first Hades got our nod for best game of 2020, and Hades 2 certainly has my vote for 2025.

This time, you play as Melinoë, sister to Hades protagonist Zagreus and daughter of Hades himself, as she attempts to take back the house of Hades from Chronos, the titan of time. The cast of Olympian gods returns to bestow blessings (upgrades to your various attacks and defensive maneuvers) to help you on your way. If you played the first game, you’ll know what you’re getting into here; the sequel just vastly expands the content and mechanics.

As you fight through the game’s two different paths, you’ll slowly uncover the game’s story via little snippets of dialogue (there’s a truly mind-boggling amount of dialogue in this game), and oodles of unlockables and endgame challenge runs ensure you’ll be playing for a long time.

You won’t find many roguelikes with higher production values. The game is $30. Madness! If you like roguelikes, you’ve probably already picked this up. I’ll go further, though. If you enjoy video games at all, you should buy Hades II. It’s that good.

Ball x Pit

ball x pit screenshot

You ever boot up a new game and immediately think, “Well, this thing is going to be a problem for me”? Yeah.

We’ve been blessed with several pachinko-style roguelites over the past couple of years (Peglin, Ballionaire, and Nubby’s Number Factory are all worth your time); now comes a take on another ball-centric classic. I’m talking about last month’s Ball x Pit, a roguelite version of Breakout. Or at least that’s the simple way to describe it. In actuality, the game is that rarest of finds: something that feels unique.

Take one of your many and varied characters onto the battlefield, and you’ll lob a stream of balls toward the top of the screen, where slowly descending enemies periodically fire attacks back at you. When you level up, you’ll choose “special balls,” which have all manner of effects, like inflicting fire or poison on enemies or balls that explode into other balls. As the game progresses, you can “fuse” these balls together, combining the effects. Sometimes, you’ll be able to “evolve” two balls into an entirely new type of ball. Not enough for you? Slam two evolved balls together for even more wackiness.

The moment-to-moment gameplay is fantastic, with different characters and upgrades forcing you to play differently to succeed. The game doles out new mechanics and surprises along the way to keep things fresh, though this is a game you can “complete”; the between-run metaprogression eventually lets you become a bit of a god.

A base-building system—and a minigame in which you bounce your characters around the map to activate buildings—is a nice, thematic diversion between runs, but it’s mostly just a flashy upgrade screen. I usually just wanted to get back into the game as soon as possible.

Need more convincing? Check out the free demo.

Absolum

absolum screenshot

Absolum’s well-regarded demo was released in June, but this thing came out of nowhere for me. The elevator pitch: a beat ‘em up, but make it roguelite.

Not really a beat ‘em up fan? Me neither. Doesn’t matter. The last side-scrolling brawler I played for more than an hour was probably 1991’s The Simpsons arcade game or that same year’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time (though the original TMNT arcade game from 1989 was my first quarter-munching arcade love).

The game features gorgeous hand-drawn visuals and the year’s best soundtrack, including this absolute banger from Doom’s Mick Gordon (that’s from a particularly metal boss fight; most of the songs are more fantasy-forward).

Over your runs, you’ll traverse multiple paths, finding secrets and unlocking new features. The roguelike elements are a bit thin at first, but piecing together powerful builds becomes simple as you fill out your options. The combat is sublime—you can get away with button-mashing for a while, but you’ll want to learn at least some of its intricacies to make it to the end.

This thing’s the complete package, and it’s easily one of the best games of the year. Bring along a friend if you’re into co-op. The surprisingly beefy demo is still available—there’s really no excuse not to check it out.

Clover Pit

clover pit screenshot

I’ve never actually been to a casino, but judging by the electric dopamine surge I get when hitting a jackpot in the slot machine roguelike Clover Pit, I know I should maintain my chastity.

Clover Pit locks you in a disgusting, blood-soaked closet of a room, and the only way to earn your freedom is to deposit money into an ATM over a series of ever-increasing payments. In other words, it’s what’s come to be known in some circles as a Balatro-like, aka a numbers-go-up game (of course, Balatro was just the first such game to hit it big; the genre’s true progenitor came a year or so earlier in the form of another excellent slot machine roguelike, Luck be a Landlord).

Standing on a trap door that will drop you to your death if you fail to hit your deadlines, you’ll pull a lever on a slot machine over and over, hoping to hit it big. It’s not totally random, though, of course. Purchaseable trinkets allow you to manipulate your odds, trigger beneficial effects, and multiply your score. Getting a jackpot of all 7’s? It’s easier than you may think.

Don’t expect Balatro-like depth—most strategies here involve simply picking one symbol and buffing it to high heaven—but fun, game-breaking builds are easy to put together to make you feel like a winner. There’s something disconcertingly hypnotic and soothing about repeatedly pulling a slot machine lever—it’s best to do it here, where you won’t end up losing your home.

Shape of Dreams

shape of dreams screenshot

I’ve been playing the hell out of this game, but if you stopped me on the street, I could not tell you what it’s called. Forgettable name aside, I love it.

I’ve heard the game’s combat and controls described as MOBA-like. That seems reasonable, at least from what I remember from my ill-advised and short-lived attempt to get into Dota 2 a decade ago. Don’t let that scare you off, though; this is basically a top-down action RPG where you’ll be fighting through small rooms of enemies, Hades-style.

What makes it special is its skill system. You start each run with a couple of attacks and a passive ability, and you’ll pick up (and replace) skills as you go. Each skill—here called “memories” (don’t ask me; I skipped the lore)—can fit up to three “essences,” modifications that affect how the skill functions. You can rearrange these modifications at any time, enabling a “make your own skill” system that’s endlessly fascinating.

Unique unlockable characters and robust metaprogression skill trees will keep you busy for embarrassing amounts of time. You can even play with friends. Before long, you’ll be creating game-breaking, room-nuking builds, the hallmark of my favorite games of the genre.

Megabonk

Megabonk screenshot

As its name might suggest, Megabonk is not a serious game. Unlike some other games on this list, there’s no chance of this one becoming an all-time great. But there’s a reason this buzzy little title has been on many gamers’ lips since its release in September. The concept is simple: it’s Vampire Survivors meets Risk of Rain 2.

If you’ve played both games, mash them up in your mind and you’ll know exactly how this thing plays. And not just in the way that most “Survivor-likes” tread extremely similar ground to the original. Megabonk‘s treasure-chest-opening animation is ripped straight from Vampire Survivors, and the game’s structure and items (down to the artwork style) are basically just Risk of Rain 2.

So no, it’s in no way original. And I was disappointed to learn that there are only two real “stages” to play; a Risk of Rain-style teleporter just takes you to a harder version of the stage you’ve picked. There are also balance issues; the damage scaling on anything but the first 10-minute stage is absurd. But there is some ridiculous fun to be had with it.

If you’re not into the whole auto-shooter/bullet heaven thing, there’s nothing here for you. But if you’re interested in seeing how chaotic a third-person Vampire Survivors can get, step right up.

It’s also the one 2025 game where you can play as a sunglasses-wearing, skateboarding skeleton who throws bouncing bones at enemies. In these tough times, that’s not nothing.

Deep Rock Galactic Survivor

deep rock galactic survivor screenshot

We’ve talked about this Survivors-like take on the beloved co-op shooter Deep Rock Galactic a couple of times over its Early Access period, but we were remiss in not discussing it upon its 1.0 release last month. The game was already an Ars favorite, but its progression systems still needed a bit of work. It’s now ready for public consumption, and it’s one of the best auto-shooters on the market. It’s so good that you might want to take a look at it even if you want nothing to do with the oversaturated subgenre.

Its Vampire Survivor-like bones are obvious—you walk around a map while your weapons fire automatically at hordes of enemies closing in on you. Collect the XP gems defeated enemies drop to level up and choose an upgrade. The difference here is that you’re also able to mine through walls of rocks, letting you escape tricky situations and funnel bad guys to traps you’ve laid.

The progression system is heavy on the grind, but there’s plenty of fun to be had no matter how hardcore you want to be about it.

Rock and stone!

Monster Train 2

monster train 2 screenshot

Five years after the original, it’s time for the sequel to the second-best roguelike deckbuilder of all time (the sequel to the first-best roguelike deckbuilder has—thankfully, if I’m being honest—been delayed until the beginning of next year). As in the first game, and as the game’s title might suggest, you’ll be fighting monsters on a train, trying to stop them before they ascend three floors to reach your “pyre”—your health pool for the run.

In Monster Train 2, as in any deckbuilder, you start with a fairly crappy deck of cards and upgrade and expand it throughout your run to try to make it to the end. But in addition to the usual spells and attacks, Monster Train 2 gives you units to assign to the different levels of your battlefield, infusing an interesting spatial element to the cartoonishly violent proceedings.

The sequel is more of the first game, but with smart updates that make everything flow smoother. It’s one of my favorite games of the year, and I highly recommend it to any fan of tactical card games.

Deadzone Rogue

deadzone rogue screenshot

Deadzone Rogue instantly joins the pantheon of roguelite first-person looter shooters, which includes perennial favorites Gunfire Reborn and Roboquest (I haven’t played them yet, but the brand-new Abyssus and Void/Breaker are also generating a bunch of buzz).

Where Roboquest excels at fun, Doom-like movement and colorful environments, Deadzone Rogue is all about the shooting. The game has the best gunplay of any FPS roguelike I’ve played, and the random weapons, armor, and upgrades you get give each run a sense of personality.

The game’s music, voice acting, and lore are best ignored, but the sound design is nice and punchy. This won’t be a game you’ll play for 100 hours, but sometimes it’s just fun to shoot a gun in a video game, and Deadzone Rogue gets that simple formula right.

9 Kings

9 kings screenshot

Look, I’m going to cheat here, and I’m not ashamed of it. It’s true—9 Kings is not fully released. But I can’t not talk about. I initially wrote the game off when it was released into Early Access in July, thinking it looked too simple. It is simple, but that’s to its credit.

The premise is easy to explain: Build a little kingdom on a 3-by-3 grid of squares. Play a card to construct or upgrade a building or unit in your kingdom. Afterward, a neighboring kingdom will attack, and your units will automatically fight to defend your home. After the battle, you draft a card from the defeated kingdom to add to your hand.

As you can see from the above screenshot, you can expand your kingdom beyond the initial nine squares, and unlockable perks change up the way you play each king. A handful of enemies are randomly chosen from the pool of nine, meaning that the cards you can draft each run will be different.

Making busted builds and fighting your way up the difficulty levels is extremely compelling; there was a week where the “one more run” curse descended on me, and I did little else than play this game.

Photo of Aaron Zimmerman

Aaron is Ars Technica’s Copy Chief. He has worked as an editor for over 17 years. In addition to editing features at Ars, he occasionally reviews board and video games. He lives in Chicago.

Please send help. I can’t stop playing these roguelikes. Read More »

a-massive,-chinese-backed-port-could-push-the-amazon-rainforest-over-the-edge

A massive, Chinese-backed port could push the Amazon Rainforest over the edge


“this would come with a road”

The port will revolutionize global trade, but it’s sparking destructive rainforest routes.

CHANCAY, Peru—The elevator doors leading to the fifth-floor control center open like stage curtains onto a theater-sized screen.

This “Operations Productivity Dashboard” instantaneously displays a battery of data: vehicle locations, shipping times, entry times, loading data, unloading data, efficiency statistics.

Most striking, though, are the bold lines arcing over the dashboard’s deep-blue Pacific—digital streaks illustrating the routes that lead thousands of miles across the ocean, from this unassuming city, to Asia’s biggest ports.

Inside the Chancay port, a digital dashboard displays detailed statistics of shipments and shows the direct routes across the Pacific from Peru’s coast to major ports in Asia, including Shanghai, the world’s largest. Credit: Georgina Gustin/Inside Climate News

Chancay sits at a curve along the ocean, about 50 miles north of Lima. Until recently, it was best known for its medieval-themed amusement park, a crescent of beach, and a row of seaside restaurants. Now it’s home to South America’s newest, most technologically advanced deepwater megaport and the epicenter of China’s bid to control the flow of goods to and from this commodity-rich continent.

For Peru, the recent opening of the port here was the realization, nearly two decades in the making, of a dream to position itself as South America’s global transportation hub, the continent’s primary launching point for a straight shot across the Pacific to Asia’s biggest economies.

For China, the port delivers a strategically direct route for the critical minerals and agricultural commodities coming off the continent, and in the other direction, a more expedient channel for its cars, machinery, and electronics to stream into South American markets.

The port represents Peru’s first project under the banner of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing’s $1.3 trillion bid to remake how the world travels and trades, and collectively speaking, the most ambitious infrastructure project in history. It is China’s flagship infrastructure investment in South America—and a crucial node in Beijing’s global strategy for securing access to critical commodities.

It also brings China logistically closer to one of its chief goals: direct access to neighboring Brazil and the massive amounts of timber, soy, and beef produced in the Amazon rainforest. Now, in theory, these commodities no longer have to travel through the politically fraught Panama Canal or around the continent’s southern tip. The new megaport, the only one in South America that can manage the largest class of fully loaded container ships, cuts the transport time by 10 days or more.

First, though, these commodities have to make their way to the port—and to do that, they have to somehow cross the Andes, the vertiginous mountain system that traces the western edge of the continent, from Venezuela to Chile.

There is no good, easy way to haul goods over the Andes now. That is changing.

The port has reawakened old ambitions of roads, railways, and water routes that could connect the riches of the Amazon to the continent’s west coast and the world’s largest ocean. The prospect of a fast track across the Pacific has sparked new momentum—a willingness to reconsider the engineering challenge posed by the world’s longest mountain chain.

“The port is a magnet,” said Luis Fernandez, executive director of Wake Forest University’s Center for Amazonian Scientific Innovation. “They’ll find more efficient ways to get over the Andes, to plug into Chancay.”

But environmental scientists and forestry experts warn that the economic pull of the port will speed the destruction of the Amazon, the planet’s most critical, climate-stabilizing terrestrial ecosystem.

The port and its faster link to massive Asian economies, they warn, will deepen and expand an extractive network of roads, railways, and waterways that have already eaten into the rainforest, a web of arteries carrying oil, gold, timber, beef, and soy to markets around the world.

The operating landscape at the Chancay port, north of Lima, is China’s biggest port project in Latin America and one of the most technologically sophisticated and automated ports in the world. Credit: Georgina Gustin/Inside Climate News

The pressure could push the rainforest over the edge, transforming it from the world’s largest terrestrial carbon sink into a massive emitter of planet-warming gases. Some research suggests the forest is already at or near this potentially catastrophic tipping point.

“China wants everything in the Amazon,” said Julia Urrunaga, director of Peru programs for the Environmental Investigation Agency, an international nonprofit that investigates environmental crimes. “And in one way or another, all these routes are connected to the port.”

In July, seven months after the port’s inauguration, China and Brazil formally announced they would explore the possibility of a railway leading from Brazil’s Atlantic coast directly to Chancay. China has already committed $50 billion toward infrastructure in the region.

The massive undertaking would ultimately create a beeline for commodities to flow more directly from Brazil to China, already its biggest trading partner, and augment a notoriously troubled and underutilized highway, completed in 2011, that runs from Brazil’s western Amazon to the Peruvian coast.

Even if the newly proposed cross-continental railway is never built—and some analysts think it won’t be—the lure of China’s appetites and wealth will stress the Amazon ecosystem, simply because the port will spark investments in other road, rail, or waterway projects to serve it, whether China is directly involved or not.

“When you start talking about these big corridors, it creates incentive for a lot of small routes,” said David Salisbury, an associate professor of geography at the University of Richmond who has extensively studied the impact of infrastructure on deforestation in the Amazon. “In a world where carbon storage is absolutely necessary for sustaining a stable planet, increasing the axes of forest degradation—whether it’s a road or a railway—is a big mistake.”

A port is just a port until there are roads and railways leading to it, and China has made clear that access to its biggest South American infrastructure project is a priority. Although China is clearly the world’s clean energy leader, there’s little, if any, research into the climate impact of its infrastructure investments, including any kind of holistic analysis of the port and its potential impact on the Amazon or neighboring and equally vulnerable ecosystems, including Brazil’s Pantanal and Cerrado. Most of China’s infrastructure investments, meanwhile, are in the world’s equatorial midriff—in nations that are rich in resources and climatically critical, but with weak, often corrupt governments and few environmental safeguards.

When China wants to build something, countries—including Peru—are quick to ease or overlook environmental standards and requirements for public participation, critics say, even if that means destroying natural resources or communities.

“Unquestionably any infrastructure, and any attempts at development, will put a lot of pressure on the Amazon,” said Enrique Ortiz, a Peruvian tropical ecologist who runs the Washington, DC-based Andes Amazon Fund. “Are there safeguards? That’s where we’re so weak.”

In Chancay, residents say, the developers of the port tore their city apart. In their zeal to embrace its economic promise, city leaders ignored local complaints, residents told Inside Climate News. The project proceeded without the legally required public input and access to information, advocacy groups found, ruining lives and homes in the process.

Hundreds of miles to the east of Chancay, in a rainforest so lush and filled with species that scientists haven’t yet catalogued them all, new worries are percolating. Chinese investment is increasingly prominent, with Chinese machinery, trucks, and workers seemingly everywhere.

Chris Fagan runs the Peru- and US-based Upper Amazon Conservancy. His main objective right now is to stop a roadway from running through a pristine section of the Amazon, which would decimate Indigenous cultures and the rainforest itself.

“The influence of Chinese money on the Amazon can’t be overstated,” he said.

Roads and a revolution

When the Chinese shipping conglomerate COSCO signed the deal to buy a 60 percent stake in the Chancay port, most people guessed what would come next.

“They need the roads,” Urrunaga said. “We knew that from the beginning—that this would come with a road.”

What no one yet knows for sure is where exactly the new roads—or railways or waterways—might be. The port will likely beget many.

The Brazilian government last year announced its plans to build five major new routes through the Amazon to connect with Pacific ports, including Chancay. The roads are part of a larger project that includes modernizing or building 65 highways, 40 waterways, 35 airports, 21 ports and nine railways.

From the Brazilian town of Cruzeiro do Sul, in the western Amazon, a long-discussed 430-mile roadway could finally be paved westward to the city of Pucallpa, the heart of Peru’s timber industry. From there, a road already leads to Chancay.

The new road would cross the region where the Amazon begins—the famously disputed source of the massive arterial sprawl of coffee-colored waterways that form the Amazon basin and its namesake river. This region, which straddles parts of the Andes and the Amazon rainforest, also contains two national parks that are home to 10 Indigenous tribes, including some living in voluntary isolation.

“It’s this huge, intact roadless area and one of the most biodiverse landscapes in the world,” said Fagan, of the Upper Amazon Conservancy, which is headquartered in Pucallpa. “It’s a really important place for global conservation and climate goals.”

It is, according to Fagan, among the biggest, wildest places left in the world. And the road could transform it irrevocably, with its effects spreading far beyond the region itself. If the road is built—as local politicians are pushing for now—it will connect to a handful more major roadways that cut across the wider Amazon, and to yet more that are still in the planning stages.

Since the Brazilian military cut roadways into the Amazon to facilitate its exploitation in the 1960s, a growing body of research has tracked the effects of infrastructure on the rainforest. Deforestation here occurs in a “fishbone” pattern where a primary road leads to secondary roads spiking off it, fragmenting and weakening the forest. This pattern, clearly visible from satellite images, crosshatches across much of the region. Researchers say it’s even more destructive than clearcutting big swaths of forest.

Adding to the pile of research, a study earlier this year found that every one-kilometer (or roughly half-mile) stretch of primary road cut into the rainforest led to 50 kilometers (31 miles) of secondary road—and that the secondary roads triggered more than 300 times more forest degradation or loss.

“The area is experiencing this incredibly rapid expansion of secondary, or unofficial, roads,” the University of Richmond’s Salisbury said, referring to the region where the Pucallpa road would be completed.

This May, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing to discuss the new railway that would cut more than 3,000 miles across the continent, from the Atlantic port at Ilheus to Chancay.

“This represents a revolution,” Simone Tebet, Brazil’s minister of planning and budget, said at the time. “The plan is, in fact, to rip Brazil from east to west.”

In July, Brazil and China formally announced a five-year technical study to determine what route the railway would take—a sign that the countries are serious about making the project happen.

One of the possible routes, researchers say, is along the same stretch from Cruzeiro do Sul to Pucallpa where the road is again under discussion.

“If it comes through Pucallpa that’s going to be a huge disaster, ecologically and socially,” Salisbury said, noting the especially pristine nature of the area.

Another possible route is along an already problematic road, known as the Interoceanic Highway, that leads from the western Brazilian Amazon, over the Andes, to Lima. Road and railway ecologists say that while rail is seen as less damaging to forests, its potential impacts are underestimated.

“Are railways better than roads?” said Elizabeth Losos, an adjunct professor at Duke University who runs the ISLe Initiative, a network of educational efforts to make infrastructure more sustainable. “They take up the same amount of space, but for the most part, people get off at stations and can’t get off at multiple places in between. But when they build the railways they create service roads that serve them.”

Salisbury has considered the same question. “Railways are a lot less environmentally and culturally impactful than roads—and that’s crucial,” he said. “But how are you able to control that they remain purely railways? Once you make a linear clearing through the rainforest—how can you stop people from expanding beyond that?”

Automatic, electric, and huge

Jason Guillén Flores is the Chancay port’s safety and environment manager, an engaging evangelist for the state-of-the-art technology that will bring the continent’s raw materials to China and Chinese goods containing those raw materials, transformed, back to the continent.

One day this July, dozens of Chinese-made electric cars had just disembarked from a massive roll-on/roll-off ship and were awaiting distribution into the expanding Latin American market.

From the moment the ships arrive in the docks, their payloads are controlled from the fifth-floor command center. From a giant observation deck, visitors can watch as a fleet of 500 driverless electric trucks shuttle goods from the docks to waiting vehicles.

“All this port is electric—all the different equipment and trucks. All electric,” Guillén Flores said. “This is the fifth port in the world to be all automatic. The other four are in China.”

Guillén Flores walked from the Area de Centro de Control to the Area de Control Remoto where half a dozen women sat at desks, remotely maneuvering the massive cranes that hover in the wintry gray at the docks’ edges. Operating a crane from within its cockpit is exhausting work, Guillén Flores explained, leaning over to demonstrate the hunched position operators often sit in.

“Here there is air conditioning and coffee,” he said. “Six people control 50 cranes.”

Beyond the command center, the loading platforms, and the docks, a 1.7-mile breakwater curves through the ocean, creating a protected area for ships to enter the port. It stands nearly 30 feet high—enough to withstand a tsunami caused by a 10-degree quake. “No problem,” Guillén Flores said.

Constructing the port, he said, required dredging the approach to a depth of nearly 60 feet, moving 7.6 million cubic yards of dirt and rocks and digging a more than mile-long tunnel under the city. Altogether it took 438 explosive blasts.

Guillén Flores stressed that the goal of the port, at least initially, was to help turn Peru into an agricultural powerhouse, ready to supply hungry Asian markets with produce.

“It’s a general vision for Peru to improve ports and agriculture so we can position ourselves as a top country in exporting agricultural products,” he said. Now, he added, a refrigerated container full of Peruvian blueberries or asparagus can reach Shanghai in a mere 23 days.

But the port is designed to handle more than fruits and vegetables.

In 2007 a Peruvian ex-Navy admiral named Juan Ribaudo de la Torre launched an ambitious plan for turning this modest bump of oceanside land into a major port. With his deep connections in the military and government, he eventually found a strategic and willing partner—the Peruvian mining giant Volcan, the world’s fourth largest silver producer and Peru’s largest producer of zinc.

Already some local fishermen were concerned about the fate of their fishing grounds and Volcan’s long track record of environmental violations. In 2011, through a subsidiary, Volcan acquired 50 percent of the port project, from the company launched by Ribaudo, for $450 million. Around the same time, lawyers with connections to Volcan formed an offshore company, based in the British Virgin Islands, to secretly begin purchasing plots of land for the port.

Fishing boats sit anchored in Chancay’s harbor with the new port’s cranes. Credit: Rommel Gonzalez via Getty

When Ribaudo died in 2013, Volcan took full control of the project under the name Terminales Portuarios Chancay. That same year, Peruvian regulators approved an environmental impact study for the project, but residents in Chancay were not given adequate opportunities to access hearings or participate in the review process, advocates say.

“The study was approved in an irregular manner because the civil population didn’t take part as required,” said Alejandro Chirinos, a researcher with the Lima-based environmental and social justice group CooperAcción. “And why were the people not considered? Because people didn’t want Volcan.”

In 2019 officials from Volcan and the Peruvian government attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. By the end of the event, China’s COSCO Shipping Ports Ltd. had signed a deal to buy 60 percent of Terminales Portuarios Chancay.

As the scope of the project expanded with Chinese involvement, so did the price tag. New estimates put the cost of the project at $3.6 billion over three phases. Now, with the financial commitment, the pressure was on regulators to smooth over any potential bumps in the approval process and make sure opponents in the community didn’t stand in the way—though they tried.

Even though it’s a privately operated port, Peruvian government entities—the national police, immigration, health and various inspection services—are already in place here, to expedite inspections and speed shipping. Their presence suggests how deeply integrated the Peruvian government and China have become.

Eventually, the Chancay port could be encompassed by a special economic zone, giving tax breaks to companies with operations there. “Apple, GE, Samsung will move to Peru and establish hubs here for all of South America,” Guillén Flores said, explaining the broader plan.

But many people who live here believe too much has been given away already.

A city torn apart

Miriam Arce said the explosions just began one day in 2016, without any warning or explanation.

Then, quickly, the construction of the massive deepwater megaport disfigured her city. Over the course of the next two years explosions shook Chancay and its 60,000 residents several times a day. Entire hills and bluffs at the ocean’s edge were blasted away to accommodate the port’s facilities. Walls in peoples’ homes cracked. Foundations crumbled. Houses collapsed when workers blasted an access road that leads to a tunnel under the city. Some species of birds left the city’s oceanside wetlands and never came back.

“They were exploding the hills, the tunnels, at the port—all at the same time,” Arce said. “Can you imagine? It was crazy.”

At the edge of the Santa Rosa wetlands, a hill was blasted away to create room for the megaport. A barrier fence was erected to minimize construction sounds, but local advocates say it did little to dampen the noise. Credit: Georgina Gustin/Inside Climate News

Arce, an artist who runs a small general store out of her house, organized a community group—Frente de Defensa de Chancay (Chancay Defense Front)—in 2014, after learning about the plans for the port. She was particularly concerned about an environmental impact statement that advocates say the government approved in 2013 without releasing a summary to the public or getting adequate public input, as the law requires.

“I started to investigate the consequences—how it will impact people and the environment,” she said. “We discovered many irregularities with the authorizations and the lack of transparency.”

Petite and bespectacled, with a penchant for yellow Snoopy-festooned sneakers, Arce has become a feisty agitator, a persistent burr in the sides of local politicians.

She petitioned for access to public meetings. She pushed for documents. Amid the groundswell of protest Arce and others were stirring up, she became a target. She said she got death threats on the phone. Arce and other Chancay residents say that the then-builders of the port hired a subcontractor to harass and threaten them so the threats couldn’t be traced back to the developers. After she was roughed up during a protest and her phone was taken, Arce filed a complaint with police.

As Arce dug into the situation, she learned that she may have been clueless about the port owner’s plans before 2014, but not everyone was. Terminales Portuarios Chancay, anticipating concerns from local fishermen—a powerful, well-organized cohort in Chancay and Peru more broadly—had already contacted fishing unions, according to Chancay residents. They offered the members scholarships for their children’s education. Many took it.

“They paid to divide us,” Arce said. “We lived in peace for so many years, since we were children. But this project broke things.”

Standing outside the blue concrete box that houses the Association Sindicato de Pescadores Artesanales del Puerto de Chancay, one of several associations that represent fishermen here, Julio Perez said that fish populations near and off the coast of Chancay have plummeted because of the port’s construction and the ongoing flow of ship traffic. But he said he and most other members of the 300-plus member association have made peace with that.

Many of them got 12,000 Peruvian soles (about $3,400), earmarked to pay for tuition, he said. The developers also pay for the occasional party at the association’s headquarters.

“We’re happy,” he said, scanning the street in front of him.

Not everyone is, however.

In a square in the city of Huaral, north of Chancay, fisherman Antonio Luis sat on a curb, wearing the uniform of most local fishermen—a matching track suit and running shoes. He came equipped with data showing the decline in fish populations and the marine species on which those populations depend.

Luis, president of another association called the Artisanal Fishermen of the Small North, said whatever payments the developers offered were not worth the declines.

“Before 2018, we put the net in and we fished enough in order to not fish for two or three days. Enough to live comfortably,” he said, adding that a typical day’s catch was 200 kilograms or more. “Nowadays you go to the beach and it’s nothing like that. I put in a net and if I’m lucky, I can get 15 to 20 kilograms a day. I catch enough to eat. Not enough to sell, which is what I need.”

The “luxury fish,” like corvina and sole that are prized for ceviche, the national culinary mainstay, are especially rare these days.

Luis said that the developers only consulted with a handful of the many fishing associations along this stretch of coast—not his or several others. He sees the payments offered to the other groups as bribes to shut up.

“I’m not opposed to investment,” Luis added. “I’ve just asked for development … between the city and the government without stepping all over the environment.”

Today, with the first phase of the port in full operation, this upended city seems to be in suspension as residents wait for the next wave of construction.

On a quiet July weekday, in the southern hemisphere’s winter, restaurant workers waved menus at passersby, trying to lure them into mostly empty seats. At the beach, dozens of colorfully painted wooden fishing boats were lodged on the sand. No one was out on the water. The fishermen milled around, staring out at an ocean that used to provide an abundant livelihood.

“Mining companies pay people for invading their land. We’d like to get paid for our ocean,” said one fisherman, who would only give his first name, Elias. “The Chinese are just like the US. They’re the big power. If they invest here, if they shared their profits, we’d be happy.”

Near the end of the beach, a handful of tourists climbed little footpaths that lead up a giant bluff to get a view of the sprawling port complex hidden on the other side.

Some fishermen have started a side hustle: Charging a few soles to guide visitors to the top.

On the November day last year when the port was lavishly inaugurated, Arce was not in attendance. Nor was Luis. In fact, Arce said, few of Chancay’s ordinary citizens were there because the celebration was cordoned off. Busloads of police were brought into town to enforce the perimeter of the port, which by then had been encircled with a tall fence.

The message was clear: The city’s new port did not belong to the city.

The perfect place

Wendy Ancieta, a lawyer with the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law, has deep expertise with the country’s environmental impact review process—and its loopholes. She remembers interviewing a gas station owner who was required to get an environmental review for his business. When she asked him who oversaw the review process, he admitted it was a cook at a nearby restaurant.

The country has an abundance of environmental laws, but they’re rarely enforced, according to Ancieta. If a company wants to sail through the environmental review process in pursuit of a massive project—with as little pushback as possible—Peru is a good choice.

China, she said, “came to the perfect place.”

The port’s developer—now called Cosco Shipping Ports Chancay Perú (CSPCP), 60 percent owned by COSCO and 40 percent by Volcan—hired a contractor to conduct the required environmental analysis. In theory, such a document gets thoroughly picked apart by SENACE, the government agency responsible for reviewing the environmental impacts of big projects.

But in practice, that rarely happens.

The Peruvian government allows developers of major construction projects to pick from a registered list of consulting companies that they can hire to conduct an environmental assessment. When the developer gets an assessment they don’t like—that might stand in the way of a project’s completion—they can withhold payment.

When the port’s developers were required by law to do a secondary environmental review, advocacy groups, including Arce’s, hired a researcher named Stefan Austermühle to analyze it for flaws and omissions.

Of the review process, Austermühle said, “You tell them: You will make a nice document for me, where there’s no impact, so I get this project approved. And if you don’t do that, I don’t pay you.”

Austermühle identified 50 problems with the environmental review’s findings. The groups then asked SENACE not to approve the project until these problems were corrected. Ultimately, fewer than half of them were addressed by COSCO—inadequately, according to the groups. The agency approved the project in 2020, two days before Christmas, when few people were looking.

In July of this year, the Peruvian media reported that six SENACE employees were charged with environmental crimes for approving parts of the project without COSCO addressing them first.

In a written response, SENACE said the agency held at least eight meetings and workshops with the public and with local fishing associations in 2019 and 2020, during the development and evaluation of the secondary environmental assessment. The agency recorded at least 1,800 individual attendances across the meetings. The agency also said it forwarded the problems that Austermühle identified in his analysis to the “project owner,” in accordance with federal laws.

In a written response, CSPCP said it had complied with all laws and that the approvals process “went well beyond regulatory requirements regarding public participation, both in the number and diversity of mechanisms implemented.”

The company said it categorically rejects “as completely false” the allegations that it hired a subcontractor to harass opponents of the port project. “At no time has the company hired or instructed subcontractors to harass, intimidate, or interfere with citizens’ participation during protests or demonstrations related to the Project. On the contrary, CSPCP maintains a permanent policy of respect for the right to free expression, peaceful coexistence, and open dialogue with all social stakeholders in the district of Chancay.”

Volcan and the Chinese embassy in Peru did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Climate News. The Peruvian Ministry of Transportation and Communications, which approved the first environmental assessment, before COSCO’s involvement in the port project, also did not respond to questions from Inside Climate News.

Juan Luis Dammert is a Lima-based researcher who studies government corruption and the evolution of infrastructure projects, including the Interoceanic Highway. Like most Peruvians, he is a keen observer of the country’s political ups and downs.

“There’s always corruption here, but we’re at a low point in Peruvian politics,” he said. “It’s corruption’s happy hour.”

The country has had seven presidents in the last decade, including two who are currently in jail for taking bribes from the Brazilian construction company that built the highway. In 2018, the country’s judiciary system was rocked by a corruption scandal. Former President Dina Boluarte, who presided over the port’s inauguration, was highly unpopular and accused of deadly anti-democratic crackdowns against protesters. She was impeached by the Peruvian Congress in October. Two other former Peruvian presidents were jailed on conspiracy and corruption charges in late November.

“We have, as a country, built a number of systems and structures for environmental protection, but now it basically doesn’t exist,” Dammert said. “Congress and the government—if they decide to do anything, they go ahead. They change the law. That’s the context in which this is happening: Now let’s build roads and railways through the Amazon!”

Chinese companies, Dammert said, aren’t necessarily worse or better than any others in their adherence to environmental laws. China’s position on environmental laws in other countries is, largely, not to meddle with them, in alignment with its “non-interference” policy. And, indeed, Chinese-backed companies have stopped a handful of projects, including a dredging project in Peru, over potential violations of environmental laws.

It just happens that Chinese companies are operating in parts of the world where those laws are weak. “There’s no difference between China and other countries in their concern for the environment,” Dammert said. “It very much depends on the host country. In this case, Peru.”

Or Brazil, where environmental safeguards are also collapsing.

The government is currently challenging the legality of a nearly 20-year-old pact, known as the Soy Moratorium, in which grain traders agreed to not buy soybeans grown on land deforested after 2008. The moratorium has been credited with slowing rates of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.

In July, the Brazilian Congress approved a new bill that would ease licensing requirements for infrastructure projects deemed to be national priorities. Environmental groups called it the “devastation bill” and said the damage to the rainforest and to broader climate goals would be irreversible.

“It would make it easier getting infrastructure, like railways, approved without requiring environmental studies,” said Meg Symington, vice president of global integrated programs at the World Wildlife Fund. “That’s unfortunate.”

Symington noted that Peru passed a similar law in 2024 that environmental groups say will weaken forest protections. The lowering of environmental standards comes amid a broader autocratic shift in Peru.

A recently passed law will prohibit advocacy groups from pursuing legal action against the government, including for human rights or environmental violations. The law has been widely condemned by international free speech advocates, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

“This makes it easy for China to operate as they want without any civil society groups complaining,” the Environmental Investigation Agency’s Urrunaga said. “It’s really crazy. … Not even China has a law like that.”

The erosion of democratic functions will usher in projects linked to the port that destroy parts of the rainforest without even the most rudimentary environmental review, environmental groups worry.

Leolino Dourado, a Lima-based researcher at the Center for China and Asia-Pacific Studies at Peru’s University of the Pacific says that shipping commodities through the Amazon and over the Andes to the Pacific makes no economic sense. It’s still cheaper, he said, to ship commodities out of Brazil.

“If you run the numbers, it’s more cost effective to export through the Atlantic, which is the traditional route,” he said. The Interoceanic Highway is a case in point, he added: “It’s really underutilized because it makes no sense economically.”

But infrastructure projects make perfect political sense. Roads, railways and waterways deliver infusions of cash for hard-up cities and regions, making these passages through the forest powerful forces, however destructive.

“Roads are a good way to get elected,” said Salisbury, with the University of Richmond. “It’s a good way to get politicians in Peru excited about China, even though it doesn’t make economic sense. And it allows the Chinese to have more impact on the Amazon—and Brazil and Peru—just by creating a corridor with a new form of transport, even if it’s not a gamechanger economically.”

Chirinos of CooperAcción authored a study that found a common thread in China’s Belt and Road projects: The countries that join in are a lot like Peru, with a high level of raw materials or other natural resources, but weak institutions and lax oversight. He and other researchers say that puts Peru at an economic disadvantage.

“The project will only take the raw materials and won’t allow us to develop,” Chirinos said.

César Gamboa is the executive director of the Peruvian organization Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Law, Environment and Natural Resources) and has written recently about his concerns that the country’s current political and economic environment will keep ordinary people from sharing in any financial gains from the transition to cleaner energies.

“Always, all the time, Peru underestimates the environmental and social impacts and overestimates the benefits,” Gamboa said. “This is the problem of the Chancay port. Everybody says this is a tool to get out of the political and economic crises, but it’s not. We are not prepared to identify the opportunities and we don’t see the challenges.”

Stepping into a vacuum

China and Peru have had ties going back nearly two centuries, when Chinese immigrants first came here. A very obvious legacy of this is chifa, a Chinese-Peruvian fusion cuisine that can be found in every corner of the country. But in recent years, China’s investments in Peru have soared. Ninety percent of the overall investment—about $28 billion in 2023—is linked to large, state-owned enterprises, according to a recent analysis from the University of the Pacific’s Center for China and Asia-Pacific Studies.

The port is the single biggest flag China has planted on a continent that the United States has long seen as its domain.

“China’s in our red zone,” said Laura Richardson, the now-retired US Army general who served as the commander of US Southern Command from 2021 to 2024.

As Chinese-backed investments expand, projecting Beijing’s power in the region, allegiances and sentiment across South America are shifting.

The Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs and harsh immigration policies that disproportionately impact Latin American countries are increasing anti-American bitterness across much of the region, making China seem like a friendlier, more stable alternative, economically and politically.

The administration’s dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) earlier this year has only amplified resentments. After Colombia, Peru was the continent’s second-largest recipient of USAID funding, much of it directed at curbing coca plantations. USAID funding to Brazil was largely aimed at programs to conserve the Amazon.

China is stepping into the diplomatic and economic vacuum. Trade between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States’ members and China rose from $450 billion in 2023 to $515 billion in 2024. Earlier this year, Xi announced $9 billion in credit to the region and visa-free entry to China for residents of some countries. And while Chinese direct investment in Latin America for big infrastructure projects has slowed, it remains strong for certain industries.

“Nobody else is offering money for these projects,” Richardson said. “China comes along offering billions—$3.6 billion, with four-and-a-half billion annual revenue profit for this—how can you turn that down? Nobody else is offering anything like that.”

But at the same time, China’s environmental track record, both in the construction of its big infrastructure projects and in the supply chains of its imports, is drawing more criticism from environmental groups, researchers, and residents.

China is the largest importer of commodities linked to deforestation, including soy, beef, and timber, and the second-largest importer of palm oil, which together are responsible for about 40 percent of global deforestation rates. This, critics say, means China has a huge potential exposure to illegal deforestation.

In 2021 China signed on to a global pact to reverse deforestation and land degradation by 2035, acknowledging the role of forests in stabilizing the atmosphere. But recent analyses suggest the country may not follow through. The authors of a 2024 study wrote, “China’s foreign policy stance of non-interference and concerns about its food security are key obstacles.”

The European Union Deforestation Regulation is the most ambitious effort to date to stop commodities that cause deforestation from being imported into European markets. China, one of the biggest exporters of timber products to the EU, recently refused to sign on, citing security concerns related to sharing geolocation data. In November, at the annual United Nations climate conference, held this year for the first time in the Amazon, countries agreed to a $5.5 billion rainforest conservation fund. China said it supports the fund but would not be pledging money to it.

Studies have demonstrated that Chinese imports of illegal timber have climbed along with its involvement in tropical forested regions, including Brazil and Peru.

One study, from the Environmental Investigation Agency in 2018, found that only one-third of tropical timber shipments from Peru to China were properly inspected, and of those that were inspected, 70 percent were found to be from illegally deforested land.

Another study published in May found that Chinese imports of products known to cause deforestation between 2013 and 2022 were linked to the loss of roughly 4 million hectares of tropical forest, nearly 70 percent of which was illegally deforested. The greenhouse gas emissions from these imports were roughly on par with the annual fossil fuel emissions of Spain.

“While China is a global leader in domestic reforestation and renewable energy, this report highlights a critical blind spot of the environmental cost of its imported agricultural and timber commodities,” said Kerstin Canby, a senior director with Forest Trends, in a press statement published along with the report.

In an interview, Canby noted that China has implemented robust reforestation programs within its borders, but that has had a direct impact on vulnerable forests elsewhere, including the Amazon.

“China has been a star, but that has ripple effects,” Canby said. “Everyone’s trying to protect their own forest, but all that does is push demand to those countries that have the least amount of governance, the ones that are not putting in place protections for their own forest.”

Coda

From the rooftop studio where Arce paints landscapes of her coastline view, she can almost touch the netted scaffolding erected outside the walls of her house to keep construction dust and debris from flying into the windows. (It did anyway.)

Every day now, trucks come rumbling, idling at the entrance to the port, which is about 100 feet from her back door. She doesn’t know exactly what’s in them, nor has she or anyone else calculated the damage caused by their payloads. She just knows that soon there will be more of them.

Arce, and many of her neighbors, worry the city’s troubles may get worse as the port expands into its second and third phases of construction over the next several years, and as more roads and railways are built to serve it.

“There is no space for the people who live here. We would have to leave. Who are they going to take out of their houses?” she said. “That’s the next fight.”

She worries that cracks will continue to creep across the walls in the house she’s lived in since she was a baby or that the foundation could crumble one day. Then someone joked that she should ask the Chinese for compensation. Maybe one of the newly delivered electric cars.

Arce cracked a wry smile and looked out at the ocean, which that night was flat and still. “Or a new house,” she said.

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Photo of Inside Climate News

A massive, Chinese-backed port could push the Amazon Rainforest over the edge Read More »

we-put-the-new-pocket-size-vinyl-format-to-the-test—with-mixed-results

We put the new pocket-size vinyl format to the test—with mixed results


is that a record in your pocket?

It’s a fun new format, but finding a place in the market may be challenging.

A 4-inch Tiny Vinyl record. Credit: Chris Foresman

A 4-inch Tiny Vinyl record. Credit: Chris Foresman

We recently looked at Tiny vinyl, a new miniature vinyl single format developed through a collaboration between a toy industry veteran and the world’s largest vinyl record manufacturer. The 4-inch singles are pressed in a process nearly identical to standard 12-inch LPs or 7-inch singles, except everything is smaller. They have a standard-size spindle hole and play at 33⅓ RPM, and they hold up to four minutes of music per side.

Several smaller bands, like The Band Loula and Rainbow Kitten Surprise, and some industry veterans like Blake Shelton and Melissa Etheridge, have already experimented with the format. But Tiny Vinyl partnered with US retail giant Target for its big coming-out party this fall, with 44 exclusive titles launching throughout the end of this year.

Tiny Vinyl supplied a few promotional copies of releases from former America’s Got Talent finalist Grace VanderWaal, The Band Loula, country pop stars Florida Georgia Line, and jazz legends the Vince Guaraldi Trio so I could get a first-hand look at how the records actually play. I tested these titles as well as several others I picked up at retail, playing them on an Audio Technica LP-120 direct drive manual turntable connected to a Yamaha S-301 integrated amplifier and playing through a pair of vintage Klipsch kg4 speakers.

I also played them out on a Crosley portable suitcase-style turntable, and for fun, I tried to play them on the miniature RSD3 turntable made for 3-inch singles to try to see what’s possible with a variety of hardware.

Tiny Vinyl releases cover several genres, including hip-hop, rock, country, pop, indie, and show tunes. Credit: Chris Foresman

Automatic turntables need not apply

First and foremost, I’ll note that the 4-inch diameter is essentially the same size as the label on a standard 12-inch LP. So any sort of automatic turntable won’t really work for 4-inch vinyl; most aren’t equipped to set the stylus at anything other than 12 inches or 7 inches, and even if they could, the automatic return would kick in before reaching the grooves where the music starts. Some automatic turntables allow switching to a manual mode, but they otherwise cannot play Tiny Vinyl records.

But if you have a turntable with a fully manual tonearm—including a wide array from DJ-style direct drive turntables or audiophile belt-drive turntables like those from Fluance, U-turn, or Pro-ject—you’re in luck. The tonearm can be placed on these records, and they will track the grooves well.

Lining up the stylus can be a challenge with such small records, but once it’s in place, the stylus on my LP120—a nude elliptical—tracked well. I also tried a few listens with a standard conical stylus since that’s what would be most common across a variety of low- and mid-range turntables. The elliptical stylus tracked slightly better in our experience; higher-end styli may track the extremely fine grooves even better but would probably be overkill given that the physical limitations of the format introduce some distortion, which would likely be more apparent with such gear.

While Tiny Vinyl will probably appeal most to pop music fans, I played a variety of music styles, including rock, country, dance pop, hip-hop, jazz, and even showtunes. The main sonic difference I noted when a direct comparison was available was that the Tiny Vinyl version of a track tended to sound quieter than the same track playing on a 12-inch LP at the same volume setting on the amplifier.

This Kacey Musgraves Tiny Vinyl includes songs from her album Deeper Well. Credit: Chris Foresman

It’s not unusual for different records to be mastered at different volumes; making the overall sound quieter means smaller modulations in the groove so they can be placed closer together. This is true for any album that has a side running longer than about 22 minutes, but it’s especially important to maintain the four-minute runtime on Tiny Vinyl. (This is also why the last song or two on many LP slides tend to be quieter or slower songs; it’s easier for these songs to sound better at the center of the record, where linear tracking speed decreases.)

That said, most of the songs I listened to tended to have a slight but audible increase in distortion as the grooves approached the physical limits of alignment for the stylus. This was usually only perceptible in the last several seconds of a song, which more discerning listeners would likely find objectionable. But sound quality overall is still comparable to typical vinyl records. It won’t compare to the most exacting pressings from the likes of Mobile Fidelity Labs, for instance, but then again, the sort of audiophile who would pay for the equipment to get the most out of such records probably won’t buy Tiny Vinyl in the first place, except perhaps as a conversation piece.

I also tried playing our Tiny Vinyl on a Crosley suitcase-style turntable since it has a manual tone arm. The model I have on hand has an Audio Technica AT3600L cartridge and stereo speakers, so it’s a bit nicer than the entry-level Cruiser models you’ll typically find at malls or department stores. But these are extremely popular first turntables for a lot of young people, so it seemed reasonable to consider how Tiny Vinyl sounds on these devices.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t play Tiny Vinyl on this turntable. Despite having a manual tone arm and an option to turn off the auto-start and stop of the turntable platter, the Crosley platter is designed for 7-inch and 12-inch vinyl—the Tiny Vinyl we tried wouldn’t even spin on the turntable without the addition of a slipmat of some kind.

Once I got it spinning, though, the tone arm simply would not track beyond the first couple of grooves before hitting some physical limitation of its gimbal. Since many of the suitcase-style turntables often share designs and parts, I suspect this would be a problem for most of the Crosley, Victrola, or other brands you might find at a big-box retailer.

Some releases really take advantage of the extra real estate of the gatefold jacket and printed inner sleeve,  Chris Foresman

Additionally, I compared the classic track “Linus and Lucy” from A Charlie Brown Christmas with a 2012 pressing of the full album, as well as the 2019 3-inch version using an adapter, all on the LP-120, to give readers the best comparison across formats.

Again, the LP version of the seminal soundtrack from A Charlie Brown Christmas sounded bright and noticeably louder than its 4-inch counterpart. No major surprises here. And of course, the LP includes the entire soundtrack, so if you’re a big fan of the film or the kind of contemplative, piano-based jazz that Vince Guaraldi is famous for, you’ll probably spring for the full album.

The 3-inch version of “Linus and Lucy” unsurprisingly sounds fairly comparable to the Tiny Vinyl version, with a much quieter playback at the same amplifier settings. But it also sounds a lot noisier, likely due to the differences in materials used in manufacturing.

Though 3-inch records can play on standard turntables, as I did here, they’re designed to go hand-in-hand with one of the many Crosley RSD3 variants released in the last five years, or on the Crosley Mini Cruiser turntable. If you manage to pick up an original 8ban player, you could get the original lo-fi, “noisy analog” sound that Bandai had intended as well. That’s really part of the 3-inch vinyl aesthetic.

Newer 3-inch vinyl singles are coming with a standard spindle hole, which makes them easier to play on standard turntables. It also means there are now adapters for the tiny spindle to fit these holes, so you can technically put a 4-inch single on them. But due to the design of the tonearm and its rest, the stylus won’t swing out to the edge of Tiny Vinyl; instead, you can only play starting at grooves around the 3-inch mark. It’s a little unfortunate because it would otherwise be fun to play these miniature singles on hardware that is a little more right-sized ergonomically.

Big stack of tiny records. Credit: Chris Foresman

Four-inch Tiny Vinyl singles, on the other hand, are intended to be played on standard turntables, and they do that fairly well as long as you can manually place the tonearm and it’s not otherwise limited physically from tracking its grooves. The sound was not expected to compare to a quality 12-inch pressing, and it doesn’t. But it still sounds good. And especially if your available space is at a premium, you might consider a Tiny Vinyl with the most well-known and popular tracks from a certain album or artist (like these songs from A Charlie Brown Christmas) over a full album that may cost upward of $35.

Fun for casual listeners, not for audiophiles

Overall, Tiny Vinyl still offers much of the visceral experience of playing standard vinyl records—the cover art, the liner notes, handling the record as you place it on the turntable—just in miniature. The cost is less than a typical LP, and the weight is significantly less, so there are definite benefits for casual listeners. On the other hand, serious collectors will gravitate toward 12-inch albums and—perhaps less so—7-inch singles. Ironically, the casual listeners the format would most likely appeal to are the least likely to have the equipment to play it. That will limit Tiny Vinyl’s mass-market appeal outside of just being a cool thing to put on the shelf that technically could be played on a turntable.

The Good:

  • Small enough to easily fit in a jacket pocket or the like
  • Use less resources to make and ship
  • With the gatefold jacket, printed inner sleeve, and color vinyl options, these look as cool as most full-size albums
  • Plays fine on manual turntables

The Bad:

  • Sound quality is (unsurprisingly) compromised
  • Price isn’t lower than typical 7-inch singles

The Ugly:

  • Won’t work on automatic-only turntables, like the very popular AT-LP60 series or the very popular suitcase-style turntables that are often an inexpensive “first” turntable for many

We put the new pocket-size vinyl format to the test—with mixed results Read More »

vision-pro-m5-review:-it’s-time-for-apple-to-make-some-tough-choices

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


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.

Photo of Samuel Axon

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 »

“go-generate-a-bridge-and-jump-off-it”:-how-video-pros-are-navigating-ai

“Go generate a bridge and jump off it”: How video pros are navigating AI


I talked with nine creators about economic pressures and fan backlash.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

In 2016, the legendary Japanese filmmaker Hayao Miyazaki was shown a bizarre AI-generated video of a misshapen human body crawling across a floor.

Miyazaki declared himself “utterly disgusted” by the technology demo, which he considered an “insult to life itself.”

“If you really want to make creepy stuff, you can go ahead and do it,” Miyazaki said. “I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all.”

Many fans interpreted Miyazaki’s remarks as rejecting AI-generated video in general. So they didn’t like it when, in October 2024, filmmaker PJ Accetturo used AI tools to create a fake trailer for a live-action version of Miyazaki’s animated classic Princess Mononoke. The trailer earned him 22 million views on X. It also earned him hundreds of insults and death threats.

“Go generate a bridge and jump off of it,” said one of the funnier retorts. Another urged Accetturo to “throw your computer in a river and beg God’s forgiveness.”

Someone tweeted that Miyazaki “should be allowed to legally hunt and kill this man for sport.”

PJ Accetturo is a director and founder of Genre AI, an AI ad agency. Credit: PJ Accetturo

The development of AI image and video generation models has been controversial, to say the least. Artists have accused AI companies of stealing their work to build tools that put people out of a job. Using AI tools openly is stigmatized in many circles, as Accetturo learned the hard way.

But as these models have improved, they have sped up workflows and afforded new opportunities for artistic expression. Artists without AI expertise might soon find themselves losing work.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve spoken to nine actors, directors, and creators about how they are navigating these tricky waters. Here’s what they told me.

Actors have emerged as a powerful force against AI. In 2023, SAG-AFTRA, the Hollywood actors’ union, had its longest-ever strike, partly to establish more protections for actors against AI replicas.

Actors have lobbied to regulate AI in their industry and beyond. One actor I talked with, Erik Passoja, has testified before the California Legislature in favor of several bills, including for greater protections against pornographic deepfakes. SAG-AFTRA endorsed SB 1047, an AI safety bill regulating frontier models. The union also organized against the proposed moratorium on state AI bills.

A recent flashpoint came in September, when Deadline Hollywood reported that talent agencies were interested in signing “AI actress” Tilly Norwood.

Actors weren’t happy. Emily Blunt told Variety, “This is really, really scary. Come on agencies, don’t do that.”

Natasha Lyonne, star of Russian Doll, posted on an Instagram Story: “Any talent agency that engages in this should be boycotted by all guilds. Deeply misguided & totally disturbed.”

The backlash was partly specific to Tilly Norwood—Lyonne is no AI skeptic, having cofounded an AI studio—but it also reflects a set of concerns around AI common to many in Hollywood and beyond.

Here’s how SAG-AFTRA explained its position:

Tilly Norwood is not an actor, it’s a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers — without permission or compensation. It has no life experience to draw from, no emotion and, from what we’ve seen, audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience. It doesn’t solve any “problem” — it creates the problem of using stolen performances to put actors out of work, jeopardizing performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry.

This statement reflects three broad criticisms that come up over and over in discussions of AI art:

Content theft: Most leading AI video models have been trained on broad swathes of the Internet, including images and films made by artists. In many cases, companies have not asked artists for permission to use this content, nor compensated them. Courts are still working out whether this is fair use under copyright law. But many people I talked to consider AI companies’ training efforts to be theft of artists’ work.

Job loss:  If AI tools can make passable video quickly or drastically speed up editing tasks, that potentially takes jobs away from actors or film editors. While past technological advancements have also eliminated jobs—the adoption of digital cameras drastically reduced the number of people cutting physical film—AI could have an even broader impact.

Artistic quality:  A lot of people told me they just didn’t think AI-generated content could ever be good art. Tess Dinerstein stars in vertical dramas—episodic programs optimized for viewing on smartphones. She told me that AI is “missing that sort of human connection that you have when you go to a movie theater and you’re sobbing your eyes out because your favorite actor is talking about their dead mom.”

The concern about theft is potentially solvable by changing how models are trained. Around the time Accetturo released the “Princess Mononoke” trailer, he called for generative AI tools to be “ethically trained on licensed datasets.”

Some companies have moved in this direction. For instance, independent filmmaker Gille Klabin told me he “feels pretty good” using Adobe products because the company trains its AI models on stock images that it pays royalties for.

But the other two issues—job losses and artistic integrity—will be harder to finesse. Many creators—and fans—believe that AI-generated content misses the fundamental point of art, which is about creating an emotional connection between creators and viewers.

But while that point is compelling in theory, the details can be tricky.

Dinerstein, the vertical drama actress, told me that she’s “not fundamentally against AI”—she admits “it provides a lot of resources to filmmakers” in specialized editing tasks—but she takes a hard stance against it on social media.

“It’s hard to ever explain gray areas on social media,” she said, and she doesn’t want to “come off as hypocritical.”

Even though she doesn’t think that AI poses a risk to her job—“people want to see what I’m up to”—she does fear people (both fans and vertical drama studios) making an AI representation of her without her permission. And she has found it easiest to just say, “You know what? Don’t involve me in AI.”

Others see it as a much broader issue. Actress Susan Spano told me it was “an issue for humans, not just actors.”

“This is a world of humans and animals,” she said. “Interaction with humans is what makes it fun. I mean, do we want a world of robots?”

It’s relatively easy for actors to take a firm stance against AI because they inherently do their work in the physical world. But things are more complicated for other Hollywood creatives, such as directors, writers, and film editors. AI tools can genuinely make them more productive, and they’re at risk of losing work if they don’t stay on the cutting edge.

So the non-actors I talked to took a range of approaches to AI. Some still reject it. Others have used the tools reluctantly and tried to keep their heads down. Still others have openly embraced the technology.

Kavan Cardoza is a director and AI filmmaker. Credit: Phantom X

Take Kavan Cardoza, for example. He worked as a music video director and photographer for close to a decade before getting his break into filmmaking with AI.

After the image model Midjourney was first released in 2022, Cardoza started playing around with image generation and later video generation. Eventually, he “started making a bunch of fake movie trailers” for existing movies and franchises. In December 2024, he made a fan film in the Batman universe that “exploded on the Internet,” before Warner Bros. took it down for copyright infringement.

Cardoza acknowledges that he re-created actors in former Batman movies “without their permission.” But he insists he wasn’t “trying to be malicious or whatever. It was truly just a fan film.”

Whereas Accetturo received death threats, the response to Cardoza’s fan film was quite positive.

“Every other major studio started contacting me,” Cardoza said. He set up an AI studio, Phantom X, with several of his close friends. Phantom X started by making ads (where AI video is catching on quickest), but Cardoza wanted to focus back on films.

In June, Cardoza made a short film called Echo Hunter, a blend of Blade Runner and The Matrix. Some shots look clearly AI-generated, but Cardoza used motion-capture technology from Runway to put the faces of real actors into his AI-generated world. Overall, the piece pretty much hangs together.

Cardoza wanted to work with real actors because their artistic choices can help elevate the script he’s written: “There’s a lot more levels of creativity to it.” But he needed SAG-AFTRA’s approval to make a film that blends AI techniques with the likenesses of SAG-AFTRA actors. To get it, he had to promise not to reuse the actors’ likenesses in other films.

In Cardoza’s view, AI is “giving voices to creators that otherwise never would have had the voice.”

But Cardoza isn’t wedded to AI. When an interviewer asked him whether he’d make a non-AI film if required to, he responded, “Oh, 100 percent.” Cardoza added that if he had the budget to do it now, “I’d probably still shoot it all live action.”

He acknowledged to me that there will be losers in the transition—“there’s always going to be changes”—but he compares the rise of AI with past technological developments in filmmaking, like the rise of visual effects. This created new jobs making visual effects digitally, but reduced jobs making elaborate physical sets.

Cardoza expressed interest in reducing the amount of job loss. In another interview, Cardoza said that for his film project, “we want to make sure we include as many people as possible,” not just actors, but sound designers, script editors, and other specialized roles.

But he believes that eventually, AI will get good enough to do everyone’s job. “Like I say with tech, it’s never about if, it’s just when.”

Accetturo’s entry into AI was similar. He told me that he worked for 15 years as a filmmaker, “mostly as a commercial director and former documentary director.” During the pandemic, he “raised millions” for an animated TV series, but it got caught up in development hell.

AI gave him a new chance at success. Over the summer of 2024, he started playing around with AI video tools. He realized that he was in the sweet spot to take advantage of AI: experienced enough to make something good, but not so established that he was risking his reputation. After Google released Veo 3 in May, Accetturo released a fake medicine ad that went viral. His studio now produces ads for prominent companies like Oracle and Popeyes.

Accetturo says the backlash against him has subsided: “It truly is nothing compared to what it was.” And he says he’s committed to working on AI: “Everyone understands that it’s the future.”

Between the anti- and pro-AI extremes, there are a lot of editors and artists quietly using AI tools without disclosing it. Unsurprisingly, it’s difficult to find people who will speak about this on the record.

“A lot of people want plausible deniability right now,” according to Ryan Hayden, a Hollywood talent agent. “There is backlash about it.”

But if editors don’t use AI tools, they risk becoming obsolete. Hayden says that he knows a lot of people in the editing field trying to master AI because “there’s gonna be a massive cut” in the total number of editors. Those who know AI might survive.

As one comedy writer involved in an AI project told Wired, “We wanted to be at the table and not on the menu.”

Clandestine AI usage extends into the upper reaches of the industry. Hayden knows an editor who works with a major director who has directed $100 million films. “He’s already using AI, sometimes without people knowing.”

Some artists feel morally conflicted but don’t think they can effectively resist. Vinny Dellay, a storyboard artist who has worked on Marvel films and Super Bowl ads, released a video detailing his views on the ethics of using AI as a working artist. Dellay said that he agrees that “AI being trained off of art found on the Internet without getting permission from the artist, it may not be fair, it may not be honest.” But refusing to use AI products won’t stop their general adoption. Believing otherwise is “just being delusional.”

Instead, Dellay said that the right course is to “adapt like cockroaches after a nuclear war.” If they’re lucky, using AI in storyboarding workflows might even “let a storyboard artist pump out twice the boards in half the time without questioning all your life’s choices at 3 am.”

Gille Klabin is an independent writer, director, and visual effects artist. Credit: Gille Klabin

Gille Klabin is an indie director and filmmaker currently working on a feature called Weekend at the End of the World.

As an independent filmmaker, Klabin can’t afford to hire many people. There are many labor-intensive tasks—like making a pitch deck for his film—that he’d otherwise have to do himself. An AI tool “essentially just liberates us to get more done and have more time back in our life.”

But he’s careful to stick to his own moral lines. Any time he mentioned using an AI tool during our interview, he’d explain why he thought that was an appropriate choice. He said he was fine with AI use “as long as you’re using it ethically in the sense that you’re not copying somebody’s work and using it for your own.”

Drawing these lines can be difficult, however. Hayden, the talent agent, told me that as AI tools make low-budget films look better, it gets harder to make high-budget films, which employ the most people at the highest wage levels.

If anything, Klabin’s AI uptake is limited more by the current capabilities of AI models. Klabin is an experienced visual effects artist, and he finds AI products to generally be “not really good enough to be used in a final project.”

He gave me a concrete example. Rotoscoping is a process in which you trace out the subject of the shot so you can edit the background independently. It’s very labor-intensive—one has to edit every frame individually—so Klabin has tried using Runway’s AI-driven rotoscoping. While it can make for a decent first pass, the result is just too messy to use as a final project.

Klabin sent me this GIF of a series of rotoscoped frames from his upcoming movie. While the model does a decent job of identifying the people in the frame, its boundaries aren’t consistent from frame to frame. The result is noisy.

Current AI tools are full of these small glitches, so Klabin only uses them for tasks that audiences don’t see (like creating a movie pitch deck) or in contexts where he can clean up the result afterward.

Stephen Robles reviews Apple products on YouTube and other platforms. He uses AI in some parts of the editing process, such as removing silences or transcribing audio, but doesn’t see it as disruptive to his career.

Stephen Robles is a YouTuber, podcaster, and creator covering tech, particularly Apple. Credit: Stephen Robles

“I am betting on the audience wanting to trust creators, wanting to see authenticity,” he told me. AI video tools don’t really help him with that and can’t replace the reputation he’s sought to build.

Recently, he experimented with using ChatGPT to edit a video thumbnail (the image used to advertise a video). He got a couple of negative reactions about his use of AI, so he said he “might slow down a little bit” with that experimentation.

Robles didn’t seem as concerned about AI models stealing from creators like him. When I asked him about how he felt about Google training on his data, he told me that “YouTube provides me enough benefit that I don’t think too much about that.”

Professional thumbnail artist Antioch Hwang has a similarly pragmatic view toward using AI. Some channels he works with have audiences that are “very sensitive to AI images.” Even using “an AI upscaler to fix up the edges” can provoke strong negative reactions. For those channels, he’s “very wary” about using AI.

Antioch Hwang is a YouTube thumbnail artist. Credit: Antioch Creative

But for most channels he works for, he’s fine using AI, at least for technical tasks. “I think there’s now been a big shift in the public perception of these AI image generation tools,” he told me. “People are now welcoming them into their workflow.”

He’s still careful with his AI use, though, because he thinks that having human artistry helps in the YouTube ecosystem. “If everyone has all the [AI] tools, then how do you really stand out?” he said.

Recently, top creators have started using more rough-looking thumbnails for their videos. AI has made polished thumbnails too easy to create, so top creators are using what Hwang would call “poorly made thumbnails” to help videos stand out.

Hwang told me something surprising: even as AI makes it easier for creators to make thumbnails themselves, business has never been better for thumbnail artists, even at the lower end. He said that demand has soared because “AI as a whole has lowered the barriers for content creation, and now there’s more creators flooding in.”

Still, Hwang doesn’t expect the good times to last forever. “I don’t see AI completely taking over for the next three-ish years. That’s my estimated timeline.”

Everyone I talked to had different answers to when—if ever—AI would meaningfully disrupt their part of the industry.

Some, like Hwang, were pessimistic. Actor Erik Passoja told me he thought the big movie studios—like Warner Bros. or Paramount—would be gone in three to five years.

But others were more optimistic. Tess Dinerstein, the vertical drama actor, said, “I don’t think that verticals are ever going to go fully AI.” Even if it becomes technologically feasible, she argued, “that just doesn’t seem to be what the people want.”

Gille Klabin, the independent filmmaker, thought there would always be a place for high-quality human films. If someone’s work is “fundamentally derivative,” then they are at risk. But he thinks the best human-created work will still stand out. “I don’t know how AI could possibly replace the borderline divine element of consciousness,” he said.

The people who were most bullish on AI were, if anything, the least optimistic about their own career prospects. “I think at a certain point it won’t matter,” Kavan Cardoza told me. “It’ll be that anyone on the planet can just type in some sentences” to generate full, high-quality videos.

This might explain why Accetturo has become something of an AI evangelist; his newsletter tries to teach other filmmakers how to adapt to the coming AI revolution.

AI “is a tsunami that is gonna wipe out everyone” he told me. “So I’m handing out surfboards—teaching people how to surf. Do with it what you will.”

Kai Williams is a reporter for Understanding AI, a Substack newsletter founded by Ars Technica alum Timothy B. Lee. His work is supported by a Tarbell FellowshipSubscribe to Understanding AI to get more from Tim and Kai.

“Go generate a bridge and jump off it”: How video pros are navigating AI Read More »

stoke-space-goes-for-broke-to-solve-the-only-launch-problem-that-“moves-the-needle”

Stoke Space goes for broke to solve the only launch problem that “moves the needle”


“Does the world really need a 151st rocket company?”

Stoke Space’s full-flow staged combustion is tested in Central Washington in 2024. Credit: Stoke Space

Stoke Space’s full-flow staged combustion is tested in Central Washington in 2024. Credit: Stoke Space

LAUNCH COMPLEX 14, Cape Canaveral, Fla.—The platform atop the hulking steel tower offered a sweeping view of Florida’s rich, sandy coastline and brilliant blue waves beyond. Yet as captivating as the vista might be for an aspiring rocket magnate like Andy Lapsa, it also had to be a little intimidating.

To his right, at Launch Complex 13 next door, a recently returned Falcon 9 booster stood on a landing pad. SpaceX has landed more than 500 large orbital rockets. And next to SpaceX sprawled the launch site operated by Blue Origin. Its massive New Glenn rocket is also reusable, and founder Jeff Bezos has invested tens of billions of dollars into the venture.

Looking to the left, Lapsa saw a graveyard of sorts for commercial startups. Launch Complex 15 was leased to a promising startup, ABL Space, two years ago. After two failed launches, ABL Space pivoted away from commercial launch. Just beyond lies Launch Complex 16, where Relativity Space aims to launch from. The company has already burned through $1.7 billion in its efforts to reach orbit. Had billionaire Eric Schmidt not stepped in earlier this year, Relativity would have gone bankrupt.

Andy Lapsa may be a brainy rocket scientist, but he is not a billionaire. Far from it.

“When you start a company like this, you have no idea how far you’re going to be able to make it, you know?” he admitted.

Lapsa and another aerospace engineer, Tom Feldman, founded Stoke Space a little more than five years ago. Both had worked the better part of a decade at Blue Origin and decided they wanted to make their mark on the industry. It was not an easy choice to start a rocket company at a time when there were dozens of other entrants in the field.

Andy Lapsa speaks at the Space Economy Summit in November 2025.

Credit: The Economist Group

Andy Lapsa speaks at the Space Economy Summit in November 2025. Credit: The Economist Group

“It was a huge question in my head: Does the world really need a 151st rocket company?” he said. “And in order for me to say yes to that question, I had to very systematically go through all the other players, thinking about the economics of launch, about the business plan, about the evolution of these companies over time. It was very non-intuitive to me to start another launch company.”

So why did he do it?

I traveled to Florida in November to answer this question and to see if the world’s 151st rocket company had any chance of success.

Launch Complex 14

It takes a long time to build a launch site. Probably longer than you might think.

Lapsa and Feldman spent much of 2020 working on the basic design of a rocket that would eventually be named Nova and deciding whether they could build a business around it. In December of that year, they closed their seed round of funding, raising $9.1 million. After this, finding somewhere to launch from became a priority.

They zeroed in on Cape Canaveral because it’s where the majority of US launch companies and customers are, as well as the talent to assemble and launch rockets. They learned in 2021 that the US Space Force was planning to lease an old pad, Space Launch Complex 14, to a commercial company. This was not just a good location to launch from; it was truly a historic location—John Glenn launched into orbit from here in 1962 aboard the Friendship 7 spacecraft. It was retired in 1967 and designated a National Historic Landmark.

But in recent years, the Space Force has sought to support the flourishing US commercial space industry, and it has offered Launch Complex 14. After the competition opened in 2021, Stoke Space won the lease a year later. Then began the long and arduous process of conducting an Environmental Assessment. It took nearly two years, and it was not until October 20, 2024, that Stoke was allowed to break ground.

None of the structures on the site were usable, and aside from the historic blockhouse dating to the Mercury program, everything else had to be demolished and cleared before work could begin.

As we walked the large ring encompassing the site, Lapsa explained that all of the tanks and major hardware needed to support a Nova launch were now on site. There is a large launch tower, as well as a launch mount upon which the rocket will be stood up. The company has mostly turned toward integrating all of the ground infrastructure and wiring up the site. A nearby building to assemble rockets and process payloads is well underway.

Lapsa seemed mostly relieved. “A year ago, this was my biggest concern,” he said.

He need not have worried. A few months before the company completed its environmental permitting, a tall, lanky, thickly bearded engineer named Jonathan Lund hired on. A Stanford graduate who got his start with the US Army Corps of Engineers, Lund worked at SpaceX during the second half of the 2010s, helping to lead the reconstruction of one launch pad, the crew tower project at Launch Complex 39A, and a pad at Vandenberg Space Force Base. He also worked on multiple landing sites for the Falcon 9 rocket. Lund arrived to lead the development of Stoke’s site.

This is Lund’s fifth launch pad. Each one presents different challenges. In Florida, for example, the water table lies only a few feet below the ground. But for most rockets, including Nova, a large trench must be dug to allow flames from the rocket engines to be carried away from the vehicle at ignition and liftoff. As we stood in this massive flame diverter, there were a few indications of water seeping in.

Still, the company recently completed a major milestone by testing the water suppression system, which dampens the energy of a rocket at liftoff to protect the launch pad. Essentially, the plume from the rocket’s engines flows downward where it meets a sheet of water, turning it into steam. This creates an insulating barrier of sorts.

Water suppression test at LC-14 complete. ✅ Flowed the diverter and rain birds in a “launch like” scenario. pic.twitter.com/rs1lEloPul

— Stoke Space (@stoke_space) October 21, 2025

The water comes from large pipes running down the flame diverter, each of which has hundreds of holes not unlike a garden sprinkler hose. Lund said the pipes and the frame they rest on were built near where we stood.

“We fabricated these pieces on site, at the north end of the flame trench,” Lund explained. “Then we built this frame in Cocoa Beach and shipped it in four different sections and assembled it on site. Then we set the frame on the ramp, put together this surface (with the pipes), and then Egyptian-style we slide it down the ramp right into position. We used some old-school methods, but simple sometimes works best. Nothing fancy.”

At this point, Lapsa interrupted. “I was pretty nervous,” he said. “The way you’re describing this sounded good on a PowerPoint. But I wasn’t sure it actually would work.”

But it did.

Waiting on Nova

So if the pad is rounding into shape, how’s that rocket coming?

It sounds like Stoke Space is doing the right things. Earlier this year, the company shipped a full-scale version of its second stage to its test site at Moses Lake in central Washington. There, it underwent qualification testing, during which the vehicle is loaded with cryogenic fuels on multiple occasions, pressurized, and put through other exercises. Lapsa said that testing went well.

The company also built a stubby version of its first stage. The tanks and domes had full-size diameters, but the stage was not its full height. That vehicle also underwent qualification testing and passed.

The company has begun building flight hardware for the first Nova rocket. The vehicle’s software is maturing. Work is well underway on the development of an automated flight termination system. “Having a team that’s been through this cycle many times, it’s something we started putting attention on very early,” Lapsa said. “It’s on a good path as well.”

And yet the final, frenetic months leading to a debut launch are crunch time for any rocket company: first assembly of the full vehicle, first time test-firing it all. Things will inevitably go wrong. The question is how bad will the problems be?

For as long as I’ve known Lapsa, he has been cagey about launch dates for Stoke. This is smart because in reality, no one knows. And seasoned industry people (and journalists) know that projected launch dates for new rockets are squishy. The most precise thing Lapsa will say is that Stoke is targeting “next year” for Nova’s debut.

The company has a customer for the first flight. If all goes well, its first mission will sail to the asteroid belt. Asteroid mining startup AstroForge has signed on for Nova 1.

Stoke Space isn’t shooting for the Moon. It’s shooting for something 1 million times farther.

Too good to believe it’s true?

Stoke Space is far from the first company to start with grand ambitions. And when rocket startups think too big, it can be their undoing.

A little more than a decade ago, Firefly Space Systems in Texas based the design of its Alpha rocket on an aerospike engine, a technology that had never been flown to space before. Although this was theoretically a more efficient engine design, it also brought more technical risk and proved a bridge too far. By 2017, the company was bankrupt. When Ukrainian investor Max Polyakov rescued Firefly later that year, he demanded that Alpha have a more conventional rocket engine design.

Around the same time that Firefly struggled with its aerospike engine, another launch company, Relativity Space, announced its intent to 3D-print the entirety of its rockets. The company finally launched its Terran 1 rocket after eight years. But it struggled with additively manufacturing rockets. Relativity was on the brink of bankruptcy before a former Google executive, Eric Schmidt, stepped in to rescue the company financially. Relativity is now focused on a traditionally manufactured rocket, the Terran R.

Stoke Space’s Hopper 2 takes to the skies in September 2023 in Moses Lake, Washington.

Credit: Stoke Space

Stoke Space’s Hopper 2 takes to the skies in September 2023 in Moses Lake, Washington. Credit: Stoke Space

So what to make of Stoke Space, which has an utterly novel design for its second stage? The stage is powered by a ring of 24 thrusters, an engine collectively named Andromeda. Stoke has also eschewed a tile-based heat shield to protect the vehicle during atmospheric reentry in favor of a regeneratively cooled design.

In this, there are echoes of Firefly, Relativity, and other companies with grand plans that had to be abandoned in favor of simpler designs to avoid financial ruin. After all, it’s hard enough to reach orbit with a conventional rocket.

But the company has already done a lot of testing of this design. Its first iteration of Andromeda even completed a hop test back in 2023.

“Andromeda is wildly new,” Lapsa said. “But the question of can it work, in my opinion, is a resounding yes.”

The engineering team had all manner of questions when designing Andromeda several years ago. How will all of those thrusters and their plumbing interact with one another? Will there be feedback? Is the heat shield idea practical?

“Those are the kind of unknowns that we knew we were walking into from an engineering perspective,” Lapsa said. “We knew there should be an answer in there, but we didn’t know exactly what it would be. It’s very hard to model all that stuff in the transient. So you just had to get after it, and do it, and we were able to do that. So can it work? Absolutely yes. Will it work out of the box? That’s a different question.”

First stage, too

Stoke’s ambitions did not stop with the upper stage. Early on, Lapsa, Feldman, and the small engineering team also decided to develop a full-flow staged combustion engine. This, Lapsa acknowledges, was a “risky” decision for the company. But it was a necessary one, he believes.

Full-flow staged combustion engines had been tested before this decade but were never flown. From an engineering standpoint, they are significantly more complex than a traditional staged combustion engine in that the oxidizer and propellant—which began as cryogenic liquids—arrive in the combustion chamber in a fully gaseous state. This interaction between two gases is more efficient and produces less wear and tear on turbines within the engine.

“You want to get the highest efficiency you can without driving the turbine temperature to a place where you have a short lifetime,” Lapsa said. “Full-flow is the right answer for that. If you do anything else, it’s a distraction.”

Stoke Space successfully tests its advanced full-flow staged combustion rocket engine, designed to power the Nova launch vehicle’s first stage.

Credit: Stoke Space

Stoke Space successfully tests its advanced full-flow staged combustion rocket engine, designed to power the Nova launch vehicle’s first stage. Credit: Stoke Space

It was also massively unproven. When Stoke Space was founded in 2020, no full-flow staged combustion engine had ever gotten close to space. SpaceX was developing the Raptor engine using the technology, but it would not make its first “spaceflight” until the spring of 2023 on the Super Heavy rocket that powers Starship. Multiple Raptors failed shortly after ignition.

But for a company choosing full reusability of its rocket, as SpaceX sought to do with Starship, there ultimately is no choice.

“Anything you build for full and rapid reuse needs to find margin somewhere in the system,” Lapsa said. “And really that’s fuel efficiency. It makes fuel efficiency a very strong, very important driver.”

In June 2024, Stoke Space announced it had just completed a successful hot fire test of its full-flow, staged combustion engine for Nova’s first stage. The propulsion team had, Lapsa said at the time, “worked tirelessly” to reach that point.

Not just another launch company?

Stoke Space got to the party late. After SpaceX’s success with the first Falcon 9 in 2010, a wave of new entrants entered the field over the next decade. They were drawing down billions in venture capital funding, and some were starting to go public at huge valuations as special purpose acquisition companies. But by 2020, the market seemed saturated. The gold rush for new launch companies was nearing the cops-arrive-to-bust-up-the-festivities stage.

Every new company seemed to have its own spin on how to conquer low-Earth orbit.

“There were a lot of other business plans being proposed and tried,” Lapsa said. “There were low-cost, mass-produced disposable rockets. There were rockets under the wings of aircraft. There were rocket engine companies that were going to sell to 150 launch companies. All of those ideas raised big money and deserve to be considered. The question is, which one is the winner in the end?”

And that’s the question he was trying to answer in his own mind. He was in his 30s. He had a family. And he was looking to commit his best years, professionally, to solving a major launch problem.

“What’s the thing that fundamentally moves the needle on what’s out there already today?” he said. “The only thing, in my opinion, is rapid reuse. And once you get it, the economics are so powerful that nothing else matters. That’s the thing I couldn’t get out of my head. That’s the only problem I wanted to work on, and so we started a company in order to work on it.”

Stoke was one of many launch companies five years ago. But in the years since, the field has narrowed considerably. Some promising companies, such as Virgin Orbit and ABL Space, launched a few times and folded. Others never made it to the launch pad. Today, by my count, there are fewer than 10 serious commercial launch companies in the United States, Stoke among them. The capital markets seem convinced. In October, Stoke announced a massive $510 million Series D funding round. That was a lot of money in a challenging time to raise launch firm funding.

So Stoke has the money it needs. It has a team of sharp engineers and capable technicians. It has a launch pad and qualified hardware. That’s all good because this is the point in the journey for a launch startup where things start to get very, very difficult.

Photo of Eric Berger

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

Stoke Space goes for broke to solve the only launch problem that “moves the needle” Read More »

us-spy-satellites-built-by-spacex-send-signals-in-the-“wrong-direction”

US spy satellites built by SpaceX send signals in the “wrong direction”


Spy satellites emit surprising signals

It seems US didn’t coordinate Starshield’s unusual spectrum use with other countries.

Image of a satellite in space and the Earth in the background.

Image of a Starshield satellite from SpaceX’s website. Credit: SpaceX

Image of a Starshield satellite from SpaceX’s website. Credit: SpaceX

About 170 Starshield satellites built by SpaceX for the US government’s National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) have been sending signals in the wrong direction, a satellite researcher found.

The SpaceX-built spy satellites are helping the NRO greatly expand its satellite surveillance capabilities, but the purpose of these signals is unknown. The signals are sent from space to Earth in a frequency band that’s allocated internationally for Earth-to-space and space-to-space transmissions.

There have been no public complaints of interference caused by the surprising Starshield emissions. But the researcher who found them says they highlight a troubling lack of transparency in how the US government manages the use of spectrum and a failure to coordinate spectrum usage with other countries.

Scott Tilley, an engineering technologist and amateur radio astronomer in British Columbia, discovered the signals in late September or early October while working on another project. He found them in various parts of the 2025–2110 MHz band, and from his location, he was able to confirm that 170 satellites were emitting the signals over Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Given the global nature of the Starshield constellation, the signals may be emitted over other countries as well.

“This particular band is allocated by the ITU [International Telecommunication Union], the United States, and Canada primarily as an uplink band to spacecraft on orbit—in other words, things in space, so satellite receivers will be listening on these frequencies,” Tilley told Ars. “If you’ve got a loud constellation of signals blasting away on the same frequencies, it has the potential to interfere with the reception of ground station signals being directed at satellites on orbit.”

In the US, users of the 2025–2110 MHz portion of the S-Band include NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as nongovernmental users like TV news broadcasters that have vehicles equipped with satellite dishes to broadcast from remote locations.

Experts told Ars that the NRO likely coordinated with the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to ensure that signals wouldn’t interfere with other spectrum users. A decision to allow the emissions wouldn’t necessarily be made public, they said. But conflicts with other governments are still possible, especially if the signals are found to interfere with users of the frequencies in other countries.

Surprising signals

A man standing outdoors in front of two large antennas.

Scott Tilley and his antennas.

Credit: Scott Tilley

Scott Tilley and his antennas. Credit: Scott Tilley

Tilley previously made headlines in 2018 when he located a satellite that NASA had lost contact with in 2005. For his new discovery, Tilley published data and a technical paper describing the “strong wideband S-band emissions,” and his work was featured by NPR on October 17.

Tilley’s technical paper said emissions were detected from 170 satellites out of the 193 known Starshield satellites. Emissions have since been detected from one more satellite, making it 171 out of 193, he told Ars. “The apparent downlink use of an uplink-allocated band, if confirmed by authorities, warrants prompt technical and regulatory review to assess interference risk and ensure compliance” with ITU regulations, Tilley’s paper said.

Tilley said he uses a mix of omnidirectional antennas and dish antennas at his home to receive signals, along with “software-defined radios and quite a bit of proprietary software I’ve written or open source software that I use for analysis work.” The signals did not stop when the paper was published. Tilley said the emissions are powerful enough to be received by “relatively small ground stations.”

Tilley’s paper said that Starshield satellites emit signals with a width of 9 MHz and signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios of 10 to 15 decibels. “A 10 dB SNR means the received signal power is ten times greater than the noise power in the same bandwidth,” while “20 dB means one hundred times,” Tilley told Ars.

Other Starshield signals that were 4 or 5 MHz wide “have been observed to change frequency from day to day with SNR exceeding 20dB,” his paper said. “Also observed from time to time are other weaker wide signals from 2025–2110 MHz what may be artifacts or actual intentional emissions.”

The 2025–2110 MHz band is used by NASA for science missions and by other countries for similar missions, Tilley noted. “Any other radio activity that’s occurring on this band is intentionally limited to avoid causing disruption to its primary purpose,” he said.

The band is used for some fully terrestrial, non-space purposes. Mobile service is allowed in 2025–2110 MHz, but ITU rules say that “administrations shall not introduce high-density mobile systems” in these frequencies. The band is also licensed in the US for non-federal terrestrial services, including the Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Cable Television Relay Service, and Local Television Transmission Service.

While Earth-based systems using the band, such as TV links from mobile studios, have legal protection against interference, Tilley noted that “they normally use highly directional and local signals to link a field crew with a studio… they’re not aimed into space but at a terrestrial target with a very directional antenna.” A trade group representing the US broadcast industry told Ars that it hasn’t observed any interference from Starshield satellites.

“There without anybody knowing it”

Spectrum consultant Rick Reaser told Ars that Starshield’s space-to-Earth transmissions likely haven’t caused any interference problems. “You would not see this unless you were looking for it, or if it turns out that your receiver looks for everything, which most receivers aren’t going to do,” he said.

Reaser said it appears that “whatever they’re doing, they’ve come up with a way to sort of be there without anybody knowing it,” or at least until Tilley noticed the signals.

“But then the question is, can somebody prove that that’s caused a problem?” Reaser said. Other systems using the same spectrum in the correct direction probably aren’t pointed directly at the Starshield satellites, he said.

Reaser’s extensive government experience includes managing spectrum for the Defense Department, negotiating a spectrum-sharing agreement with the European Union, and overseeing the development of new signals for GPS. Reaser said that Tilley’s findings are interesting because the signals would be hard to discover.

“It is being used in the wrong direction, if they’re coming in downlink, that’s supposed to be an uplink,” Reaser said. As for what the signals are being used for, Reaser said he doesn’t know. “It could be communication, it could be all sorts of things,” he said.

Tilley’s paper said the “results raise questions about frequency-allocation compliance and the broader need for transparent coordination among governmental, commercial, and scientific stakeholders.” He argues that international coordination is becoming more important because of the ongoing deployment of large constellations of satellites that could cause harmful interference.

“Cooperative disclosure—without compromising legitimate security interests—will be essential to balance national capability with the shared responsibility of preserving an orderly and predictable radio environment,” his paper said. “The findings presented here are offered in that spirit: not as accusation, but as a public-interest disclosure grounded in reproducible measurement and open analysis. The data, techniques, and references provided enable independent verification by qualified parties without requiring access to proprietary or classified information.”

While Tilley doesn’t know exactly what the emissions are for, his paper said the “signal characteristics—strong, coherent, and highly predictable carriers from a large constellation—create the technical conditions under which opportunistic or deliberate PNT exploitation could occur.”

PNT refers to Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) applications. “While it is not suggested that the system was designed for that role, the combination of wideband data channels and persistent carrier tones in a globally distributed or even regionally operated network represents a practical foundation for such use, either by friendly forces in contested environments or by third parties seeking situational awareness,” the paper said.

Emissions may have been approved in secret

Tilley told us that a few Starshield satellites launched just recently, in late September, have not emitted signals while moving toward their final orbits. He said this suggests the emissions are for an “operational payload” and not merely for telemetry, tracking, and control (TT&C).

“This could mean that [the newest satellites] don’t have this payload or that the emissions are not part of TT&C and may begin once these satellites achieve their place within the constellation,” Tilley told Ars. “If these emissions are TT&C, you would expect them to be active especially during the early phases of the mission, when the satellites are actively being tested and moved into position within the constellation.”

Whatever they’re for, Reaser said the emissions were likely approved by the NTIA and that the agency would likely have consulted with the Federal Communications Commission. For federal spectrum use, these kinds of decisions aren’t necessarily made public, he said.

“NRO would have to coordinate that through the NTIA to make sure they didn’t have an interference problem,” Reaser said. “And by the way, this happens a lot. People figure out a way [to transmit] on what they call a non-interference basis, and that’s probably how they got this approved. They say, ‘listen, if somebody reports interference, then you have to shut down.’”

Tilley said it’s clear that “persistent S-band emissions are occurring in the 2025–2110 MHz range without formal ITU coordination.” Claims that the downlink use was approved by the NTIA in a non-public decision “underscore, rather than resolve, the transparency problem,” he told Ars.

An NTIA spokesperson declined to comment. The NRO and FCC did not provide any comment in response to requests from Ars.

SpaceX just “a contractor for the US government”

Randall Berry, a Northwestern University professor of electrical and computer engineering, agreed with Reaser that it’s likely the NTIA approved the downlink use of the band and that this decision was not made public. Getting NTIA clearance is “the proper way this should be done,” he said.

“It would be surprising if NTIA was not aware, as Starshield is a government-operated system,” Berry told Ars. While NASA and other agencies use the band for Earth-to-space transmissions, “they may have been able to show that the Starshield space-to-Earth signals do not create harmful interference with these Earth-to-space signals,” he said.

There is another potential explanation that is less likely but more sinister. Berry said it’s possible that “SpaceX did not make this known to NTIA when the system was cleared for federal use.” Berry said this would be “surprising and potentially problematic.”

Digital rendering of a satellite in space.

SpaceX rendering of a Starshield satellite.

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX rendering of a Starshield satellite. Credit: SpaceX

Tilley doesn’t think SpaceX is responsible for the emissions. While Starshield relies on technology built for the commercial Starlink broadband system of low Earth orbit satellites, Elon Musk’s space company made the Starshield satellites in its role as a contractor for the US government.

“I think [SpaceX is] just operating as a contractor for the US government,” Tilley said. “They built a satellite to the government specs provided for them and launched it for them. And from what I understand, the National Reconnaissance Office is the operator.”

SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.

TV broadcasters conduct interference analysis

TV broadcasters with news trucks that use the same frequencies “protect their band vigorously” and would have reported interference if it was affecting their transmissions, Reaser said. This type of spectrum use is known as Electronic News Gathering (ENG).

The National Association of Broadcasters told Ars that it “has been closely tracking recent reports concerning satellite downlink operation in the 2025–2110 MHz frequency band… While it’s not clear that satellite downlink operations are authorized by international treaty in this range, such operations are uncommon, and we are not aware of any interference complaints related to downlink use.”

The NAB investigated after Tilley’s report. “When the Tilley report first surfaced, NAB conducted an interference analysis—based on some assumptions given that Starshield’s operating parameters have not been publicly disclosed,” the group told us. “That analysis found that interference with ENG systems is unlikely. We believe the proposed downlink operations are likely compatible with broadcaster use of the band, though coordination issues with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) could still arise.”

Tilley said that a finding of interference being unlikely “addresses only performance, not legality… coordination conducted only within US domestic channels does not meet international requirements under the ITU Radio Regulations. This deployment is not one or two satellites, it is a distributed constellation of hundreds of objects with potential global implications.”

Canada agency: No coordination with ITU or US

When contacted by Ars, an ITU spokesperson said the agency is “unable to provide any comment or additional information on the specific matter referenced.” The ITU said that interference concerns “can be formally raised by national administrations” and that the ITU’s Radio Regulations Board “carefully examines the specifics of the case and determines the most appropriate course of action to address it in line with ITU procedures.”

The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) told Ars that its “missions operating within the frequency band have not yet identified any instances of interference that negatively impact their operations and can be attributed to the referenced emissions.” The CSA indicated that there hasn’t been any coordination with the ITU or the US over the new emissions.

“To date, no coordination process has been initiated for the satellite network in question,” the CSA told Ars. “Coordination of satellite networks is carried out through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulation, with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) serving as the responsible national authority.”

The European Space Agency also uses the 2025–2100 band for TT&C. We contacted the agency but did not receive any comment.

The lack of coordination “remains the central issue,” Tilley told Ars. “This band is globally allocated for Earth-to-space uplinks and limited space-to-space use, not continuous space-to-Earth transmissions.”

NASA needs protection from interference

An NTIA spectrum-use report updated in 2015 said NASA “operates earth stations in this band for tracking and command of manned and unmanned Earth-orbiting satellites and space vehicles either for Earth-to-space links for satellites in all types of orbits or through space-to-space links using the Tracking Data and Relay Satellite System (TDRSS). These earth stations control ninety domestic and international space missions including the Space Shuttle, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the International Space Station.”

Additionally, the NOAA “operates earth stations in this band to control the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) and Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) meteorological satellite systems,” which collect data used by the National Weather Service. We contacted NASA and NOAA, but neither agency provided comment to Ars.

NASA’s use of the band has increased in recent years. The NTIA told the FCC in 2021 that 2025–2110 MHz is “heavily used today and require[s] extensive coordination even among federal users.” The band “has seen dramatically increased demand for federal use as federal operations have shifted from federal bands that were repurposed to accommodate new commercial wireless broadband operations.”

A 2021 NASA memo included in the filing said that NASA would only support commercial launch providers using the band if their use was limited to sending commands to launch vehicles for recovery and retrieval purposes. Even with that limit, commercial launch providers would cause “significant interference” for existing federal operations in the band if the commercial use isn’t coordinated through the NTIA, the memo said.

“NASA makes extensive use of this band (i.e., currently 382 assignments) for both transmissions from earth stations supporting NASA spacecraft (Earth-to-space) and transmissions from NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) to user spacecraft (space-to-space), both of which are critical to NASA operations,” the memo said.

In 2024, the FCC issued an order allowing non-federal space launch operations to use the 2025–2110 MHz band on a secondary basis. The allocation is “limited to space launch telecommand transmissions and will require commercial space launch providers to coordinate with non-Federal terrestrial licensees… and NTIA,” the FCC order said.

International non-interference rules

While US agencies may not object to the Starshield emissions, that doesn’t guarantee there will be no trouble with other countries. Article 4.4 of ITU regulations says that member nations may not assign frequencies that conflict with the Table of Frequency Allocations “except on the express condition that such a station, when using such a frequency assignment, shall not cause harmful interference to, and shall not claim protection from harmful interference caused by, a station operating in accordance with the provisions.”

Reaser said that under Article 4.4, entities that are caught interfering with other spectrum users are “supposed to shut down.” But if the Starshield users were accused of interference, they would probably “open negotiations with the offended party” instead of immediately stopping the emissions, he said.

“My guess is they were allowed to operate on a non-interference basis and if there is an interference issue, they’d have to go figure a way to resolve them,” he said.

Tilley told Ars that Article 4.4 allows for non-interference use domestically but “is not a blank check for continuous, global downlinks from a constellation.” In that case, “international coordination duties still apply,” he said.

Tilley pointed out that under the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, states must report the general function of a space object. “Objects believed to be part of the Starshield constellation have been registered with UNOOSA [United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs] under the broad description: ‘Spacecraft engaged in practical applications and uses of space technology such as weather or communications,’” his paper said.

Tilley told Ars that a vague description such as this “may satisfy the letter of filing requirements, but it contradicts the spirit” of international agreements. He contends that filings should at least state whether a satellite is for military purposes.

“The real risk is that we are no longer dealing with one or two satellites but with massive constellations that, by their very design, are global in scope,” he told Ars. “Unilateral use of space and spectrum affects every nation. As the examples of US and Chinese behavior illustrate, we are beginning from uncertain ground when it comes to large, militarily oriented mega-constellations, and, at the very least, this trend distorts the intent and spirit of international law.”

China’s constellation

Tilley said he has tracked China’s Guowang constellation and its use of “spectrum within the 1250–1300 MHz range, which is not allocated for space-to-Earth communications.” China, he said, “filed advance notice and coordination requests with the ITU for this spectrum but was not granted protection for its non-compliant use. As a result, later Chinese filings notifying and completing due diligence with the ITU omit this spectrum, yet the satellites are using it over other nations. This shows that the Chinese government consulted internationally and proceeded anyway, while the US government simply did not consult at all.”

By contrast, Canada submitted “an unusual level of detail” to the ITU for its military satellite Sapphire and coordinated fully with the ITU, he said.

Tilley said he reported his findings on Starshield emissions “directly to various western space agencies and the Canadian government’s spectrum management regulators” at the ISED.

“The Canadian government has acknowledged my report, and it has been disseminated within their departments, according to a senior ISED director’s response to me,” Tilley said, adding that he is continuing to collaborate “with other researchers to assist in the gathering of more data on the scope and impact of these emissions.”

The ISED told Ars that it “takes any reports of interference seriously and is not aware of any instances or complaints in these bands. As a general practice, complaints of potential interference are investigated to determine both the cause and possible resolutions. If it is determined that the source of interference is not Canadian, ISED works with its regulatory counterparts in the relevant administration to resolve the issue. ISED has well-established working arrangements with counterparts in other countries to address frequency coordination or interference matters.”

Accidental discovery

Two pictures of large antennas set up outdoors.

Antennas used by Scott Tilley.

Credit: Scott Tilley

Antennas used by Scott Tilley. Credit: Scott Tilley

Tilley’s discovery of Starshield signals happened because of “a clumsy move at the keyboard,” he told NPR. “I was resetting some stuff, and then all of a sudden, I’m looking at the wrong antenna, the wrong band,” he said.

People using the spectrum for Earth-to-space transmissions generally wouldn’t have any reason to listen for transmissions on the same frequencies, Tilley told Ars. Satellites using 2025–2100 MHz for Earth-to-space transmissions have their downlink operations on other frequencies, he said.

“The whole reason why I publicly revealed this rather than just quietly sit on it is to alert spacecraft operators that don’t normally listen on this band… that they should perform risk assessments and assess whether their missions have suffered any interference or could suffer interference and be prepared to deal with that,” he said.

A spacecraft operator may not know “a satellite is receiving interference unless the satellite is refusing to communicate with them or asking for the ground station to repeat the message over and over again,” Tilley said. “Unless they specifically have a reason to look or it becomes particularly onerous for them, they may not immediately realize what’s going on. It’s not like they’re sitting there watching the spectrum to see unusual signals that could interfere with the spacecraft.”

While NPR paraphrased Tilley as saying that the transmissions could be “designed to hide Starshield’s operations,” he told Ars that this characterization is “maybe a bit strongly worded.”

“It’s certainly an unusual place to put something. I don’t want to speculate about what the real intentions are, but it certainly could raise a question in one’s mind as to why they would choose to emit there. We really don’t know and probably never will know,” Tilley told us.

How amateurs track Starshield

After finding the signals, Tilley determined they were being sent by Starshield satellites by consulting data collected by amateurs on the constellation. SpaceX launches the satellites into what Tilley called classified orbits, but the space company distributes some information that can be used to track their locations.

For safety reasons, SpaceX publishes “a notice to airmen and sailors that they’re going to be dropping boosters and debris in hazard areas… amateurs use those to determine the orbital plane the launch is going to go into,” Tilley said. “Once we know that, we just basically wait for optical windows when the lighting is good, and then we’re able to pick up the objects and start tracking them and then start cataloguing them and generating orbits. A group of us around the world do that. And over the last year and a half or so since they started launching the bulk of this constellation, the amateurs have amassed considerable body of orbital data on this constellation.”

After accidentally discovering the emissions, Tilley said he used open source software to “compare the Doppler signal I was receiving to the orbital elements… and immediately started coming back with hits to Starshield and nothing else.” He said this means that “the tens of thousands of other objects in orbit didn’t match the radio Doppler characteristics that these objects have.”

Tilley is still keeping an eye on the transmissions. He told us that “I’m continuing to hear the signals, record them, and monitor developments within the constellation.”

Photo of Jon Brodkin

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

US spy satellites built by SpaceX send signals in the “wrong direction” Read More »

what-if-the-aliens-come-and-we-just-can’t-communicate?

What if the aliens come and we just can’t communicate?


Ars chats with particle physicist Daniel Whiteson about his new book Do Aliens Speak Physics?

Science fiction has long speculated about the possibility of first contact with an alien species from a distant world and how we might be able to communicate with them. But what if we simply don’t have enough common ground for that to even be possible? An alien species is bound to be biologically very different, and their language will be shaped by their home environment, broader culture, and even how they perceive the universe. They might not even share the same math and physics. These and other fascinating questions are the focus of an entertaining new book, Do Aliens Speak Physics? And Other Questions About Science and the Nature of Reality.

Co-author Daniel Whiteson is a particle physicist at the University of California, Irvine, who has worked on the ATLAS collaboration at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. He’s also a gifted science communicator who previously co-authored two books with cartoonist Jorge Cham of PhD Comics fame: 2018’s We Have No Idea and 2021’s Frequently Asked Questions About the Universe. (The pair also co-hosted a podcast from 2018 to 2024, Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe.) This time around, cartoonist Andy Warner provided the illustrations, and Whiteson and Warner charmingly dedicate their book to “all the alien scientists we have yet to meet.”

Whiteson has long been interested in the philosophy of physics. “I’m not the kind of physicist who’s like, ‘whatever, let’s just measure stuff,’” he told Ars. “The thing that always excited me about physics was this implicit promise that we were doing something universal, that we were learning things that were true on other planets. But the more I learned, the more concerned I became that this might have been oversold. None are fundamental, and we don’t understand why anything emerges. Can we separate the human lens from the thing we’re looking at? We don’t know in the end how much that lens is distorting what we see or defining what we’re looking at. So that was the fundamental question I always wanted to explore.”

Whiteson initially pitched his book idea to his 14-year-old son, who inherited his father’s interest in science. But his son thought Whiteson’s planned discussion of how physics might not be universal was, well, boring. “When you ask for notes, you’ve got to listen to them,” said Whiteson. “So I came back and said, ‘Well, what about a book about when aliens arrive? Will their science be similar to ours? Can we collaborate together?’” That pitch won the teen’s enthusiastic approval: same ideas, but couched in the context of alien contact to make them more concrete.

As for Warner’s involvement as illustrator, “I cold-emailed him and said, ‘Want to write a book about aliens? You get to draw lots of weird aliens,’” said Whiteson. Who could resist that offer?

Ars caught up with Whiteson to learn more.

cartoon exploring possible outcomes of first alien contact

Credit: Andy Warner

Ars Technica: You open each chapter with fictional hypothetical scenarios. Why?

Daniel Whiteson: I sent an early version of the book to my friend, [biologist] Matt Giorgianni, who appears in cartoon form in the book. He said, “The book is great, but it’s abstract. Why don’t you write out a hypothetical concrete scenario for each chapter to show us what it would be like and how we would stumble.”

All great ideas seem obvious once you hear them. I’ve always been a huge science fiction fan. It’s thoughtful and creative and exploratory about the way the universe could be and might be. So I jumped at the opportunity to write a little bit of science fiction. Each one was challenging because you have to come up with a specific example that illustrates the concepts in that chapter, the issues that you might run into, but also be believable and interesting. We went through a lot of drafts. But I had a lot of fun writing them.

Ars Technica: The Voyager Golden Record is perhaps the best known example of humans attempting to communicate with an alien species, spearheaded by the late Carl Sagan, among others. But what are the odds that, despite our best efforts, any aliens will ever be able to decipher our “message in a bottle”?

Daniel Whiteson: I did an informal experiment where I printed out a picture of the Pioneer plaque and showed it to a bunch of grad students who were young enough to not have seen it before. This is Sagan’s audience: biological humans, same brain, same culture, physics grad students—none of them had any idea what any of that was supposed to refer to. NASA gave him two weeks to come up with that design. I don’t know that I would’ve done any better. It’s easy to criticize.

Those folks, they were doing their best. They were trying to step away from our culture. They didn’t use English, they didn’t even use mathematical symbols. They understood that those things are arbitrary, and they were reaching for something they hoped was going to be universal. But in the end, nothing can be universal because language is always symbols, and the choice of those symbols is arbitrary and cultural. It’s impossible to choose a symbol that can only be interpreted in one way.

Fundamentally, the book is trying to poke at our assumptions. It’s so inspiring to me that the history of physics is littered with times when we have had to abandon an assumption that we clung to desperately, until we were shown otherwise with enough data. So we’ve got to be really open-minded about whether these assumptions hold true, whether it’s required to do science, to be technological, or whether there is even a single explanation for reality. We could be very well surprised by what we discover.

Ars Technica: It’s often assumed that math and physics are the closest thing we have to a universal language. You challenge that assumption, probing such questions as “what does it even mean to ‘count’”? 

Daniel Whiteson: At an initial glance, you’re like, well, of course mathematics is required, and of course numbers are universal. But then you dig into it and you start to realize there are fuzzy issues here. So many of the assumptions that underlie our interpretation of what we learned about physics are that way. I had this experience that’s probably very common among physics undergrads in quantum mechanics, learning about those calculations where you see nine decimal places in the theory and nine decimal places in the experiment, and you go, “Whoa, this isn’t just some calculational tool. This is how the universe decides what happens to a particle.”

I literally had that moment. I’m not a religious person, but it was almost spiritual. For many years, I believed that deeply, and I thought it was obvious. But to research this book, I read Science Without Numbers by Hartry Field. I was lucky—here at Irvine, we happen to have an amazing logic and philosophy of science department, and those folks really helped me digest [his ideas] and understand how you can pull yourself away from things like having a number line. It turns out you don’t need numbers; you can just think about relationships. It was really eye-opening, both how essential mathematics seems to human science and how obvious it is that we’re making a bunch of assumptions that we don’t know how to justify.

There are dotted lines humans have drawn because they make sense to us. You don’t have to go to plasma swirls and atmospheres to imagine a scenario where aliens might not have the same differentiation between their identities, me and you, here’s where I end, and here’s where you begin. That’s complicated for aliens that are plasma swirls, but also it’s not even very well-defined for us. How do I define the edge of my body? Is it where my skin ends? What about the dead skin, the hair, my personal space? There’s no obvious definition. We just have a cultural sense for “this is me, this is not me.” In the end, that’s a philosophical choice.

Cartoon of an alien emerging from a spaceship and a human saying

Credit: Andy Warner

Ars Technica: You raise another interesting question in the book: Would aliens even need physics theory or a deeper understanding of how the universe works? Perhaps they could invent, say, warp drive through trial and error. You suggest that our theory is more like a narrative framework. It’s the story we tell, and that is very much prone to bias.

Daniel Whiteson: Absolutely. And not just bias, but emotion and curiosity. We put energy into certain things because we think they’re important. Physicists spend our lives on this because we think, among the many things we could spend our time on, this is an important question. That’s an emotional choice. That’s a personal subjective thing.

Other people find my work dead boring and would hate to have my life, and I would feel the same way about theirs. And that’s awesome. I’m glad that not everybody wants to be a particle physicist or a biologist or an economist. We have a diversity of curiosity, which we all benefit from. People have an intuitive feel for certain things. There’s something in their minds that naturally understands how the system works and reflects it, and they probably can’t explain it. They might not be able to design a better car, but they can drive the heck out of it.

This is maybe the biggest stumbling block for people who are just starting to think about this for the first time. “Obviously aliens are scientific.” Well, how do we know? What do we mean by scientific? That concept has evolved over time, and is it really required? I felt that that was a big-picture thing that people could wrap their minds around but also a shock to the system. They were already a little bit off-kilter and might realize that some things they assumed must be true maybe not have to be.

Ars Technica: You cite the 2016 film Arrival as an example of first contact and the challenge of figuring out how to communicate with an alien species. They had to learn each other’s cultural context before they had any chance of figuring out what their respective symbols meant. 

Daniel Whiteson:  I think that is really crucial. Again, how you choose to represent your ideas is, in a sense, arbitrary. So if you’re on the other side of that, and you have to go from symbols to ideas, you have to know something about how they made those choices in order to reverse-engineer a message, in order to figure out what it means. How do you know if you’ve done it correctly? Say we get a message from aliens and we spend years of supercomputer time cranking on it. Something we rely on for decoding human messages is that you can tell when you’ve done it right because you have something that makes sense.

cartoon about the

Credit: Andy Warner

How do we know when we’ve done that for an alien text? How do you know the difference between nonsense and things that don’t yet make sense to you? It’s essentially impossible. I spoke to some philosophers of language who convinced me that if we get a message from aliens, it might be literally impossible to decode it without their help, without their context. There aren’t enough examples of messages from aliens. We have the “Wow!” signal—who knows what that means? Maybe it’s a great example of getting a message and having no idea how to decode it.

As in many places in the book, I turned to human history because it’s the one example we have. I was shocked to discover how many human languages we haven’t decoded. Not to mention, we haven’t decoded whale. We know whales are talking to each other. Maybe they’re talking to us and we can’t decode it. The lesson, again and again, is culture.

With the Egyptians, the only reason we were able to decode hieroglyphics is because we had the Rosetta Stone, but that still took 20 years there. How does it take 20 years when you have examples and you know what it’s supposed to say? And the answer is that we made cultural assumptions. We assumed pictograms reflected the ideas in the pictures. If there’s a bird in it, it’s about birds. And we were just wrong. That’s maybe why we’ve been struggling with Etruscan and other languages we’ve never decoded.

Even when we do have a lot of culture in common, it’s very, very tricky. So the idea that we would get a message from space and have no cultural clues at all and somehow be able to decode it—I think that only works in the scenario where aliens have been listening to us for a long time and they’re essentially writing to us in something like our language. I’m a big fan of SETI. They host these conferences where they listen to philosophers and linguists and anthropologists. I don’t mean to say that they’ve thought too narrowly, but I think it’s not widely enough appreciated how difficult it is to decode another language with no culture in common.

Ars Technica: You devote a chapter to the possibility that aliens might be able to, say, “taste” electrons. That drives home your point that physiologically, they will probably be different, biologically they will be different, and their experiences are likely to be different. So their notion of culture will also be different.

Daniel Whiteson: Something I really wanted to get across was that perception determines your sense of intuition, which defines in many ways the answers you find acceptable. I read Ed Yong’s amazing book, An Immense World, about animal perception, the diversity of animal experience or animal interaction with the environment. What is it like to be an octopus with a distributed mind? What is it like to be a bird that senses magnetic fields? If you’re an alien and you have very different perceptions, you could also have a different intuitive language in which to understand the universe. What is a photon? Is it a particle? Is it a wave?  Maybe we just struggle with the concept because our intuitive language is limited.

For an alien that can see photons in superposition, this is boring. They could be bored by things we’re fascinated by, or we could explain our theories to them and they could be unsatisfied because to them, it doesn’t translate into their intuitive language. So even though we’ve transcended our biological limitations in many ways, we can detect gravitational waves and infrared photons, we’re still, I think, shaped by those original biological senses that frame our experience, the models we build. What it’s like to be a human in the world could be very, very different from what it’s like to be an alien in the world.

Ars Technica:  Your very last line reads, “Our theories may reveal the patterns of our thoughts as much as the patterns of nature.” Why did you choose to end your book on that note?

Daniel Whiteson: That’s a message to myself. When I started this journey, I thought physics is universal. That’s what makes it beautiful. That implies that if the aliens show up and they do physics in a very different way, it would be a crushing disappointment. Not only is what we’ve learned just another human science, but also it means maybe we can’t benefit from their work or we can’t have that fantasy of a galactic scientific conference. But that actually might be the best-case scenario.

I mean, the reason that you want to meet aliens is the reason you go traveling. You want to expand your horizons and learn new things. Imagine how boring it would be if you traveled around the world to some new country and they just had all the same food. It might be comforting in some way, but also boring. It’s so much more interesting to find out that they have spicy fish soup for breakfast. That’s the moment when you learn not just about what to have for breakfast but about yourself and your boundaries.

So if aliens show up and they’re so weirdly different in a way we can’t possibly imagine—that would be deeply revealing. It’ll give us a chance to separate the reality from the human lens. It’s not just questions of the universe. We are interesting, and we should learn about our own biases. I anticipate that when the aliens do come, their culture and their minds and their science will be so alien, it’ll be a real challenge to make any kind of connection. But if we do, I think we’ll learn a lot, not just about the universe but about ourselves.

Photo of Jennifer Ouellette

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

What if the aliens come and we just can’t communicate? Read More »

you-won’t-believe-the-excuses-lawyers-have-after-getting-busted-for-using-ai

You won’t believe the excuses lawyers have after getting busted for using AI


I got hacked; I lost my login; it was a rough draft; toggling windows is hard.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Amid what one judge called an “epidemic” of fake AI-generated case citations bogging down courts, some common excuses are emerging from lawyers hoping to dodge the most severe sanctions for filings deemed misleading.

Using a database compiled by French lawyer and AI researcher Damien Charlotin, Ars reviewed 23 cases where lawyers were sanctioned for AI hallucinations. In many, judges noted that the simplest path to avoid or diminish sanctions was to admit that AI was used as soon as it’s detected, act humble, self-report the error to relevant legal associations, and voluntarily take classes on AI and law. But not every lawyer takes the path of least resistance, Ars’ review found, with many instead offering excuses that no judge found credible. Some even lie about their AI use, judges concluded.

Since 2023—when fake AI citations started being publicized—the most popular excuse has been that the lawyer didn’t know AI was used to draft a filing.

Sometimes that means arguing that you didn’t realize you were using AI, as in the case of a California lawyer who got stung by Google’s AI Overviews, which he claimed he took for typical Google search results. Most often, lawyers using this excuse tend to blame an underling, but clients have been blamed, too. A Texas lawyer this month was sanctioned after deflecting so much that the court had to eventually put his client on the stand after he revealed she played a significant role in drafting the aberrant filing.

“Is your client an attorney?” the court asked.

“No, not at all your Honor, just was essentially helping me with the theories of the case,” the lawyer said.

Another popular dodge comes from lawyers who feign ignorance that chatbots are prone to hallucinating facts.

Recent cases suggest this excuse may be mutating into variants. Last month, a sanctioned Oklahoma lawyer admitted that he didn’t expect ChatGPT to add new citations when all he asked the bot to do was “make his writing more persuasive.” And in September, a California lawyer got in a similar bind—and was sanctioned a whopping $10,000, a fine the judge called “conservative.” That lawyer had asked ChatGPT to “enhance” his briefs, “then ran the ‘enhanced’ briefs through other AI platforms to check for errors,” neglecting to ever read the “enhanced” briefs.

Neither of those tired old excuses hold much weight today, especially in courts that have drawn up guidance to address AI hallucinations. But rather than quickly acknowledge their missteps, as courts are begging lawyers to do, several lawyers appear to have gotten desperate. Ars found a bunch citing common tech issues as the reason for citing fake cases.

When in doubt, blame hackers?

For an extreme case, look to a New York City civil court, where a lawyer, Innocent Chinweze, first admitted to using Microsoft Copilot to draft an errant filing, then bizarrely pivoted to claim that the AI citations were due to malware found on his computer.

Chinweze said he had created a draft with correct citations but then got hacked, allowing bad actors “unauthorized remote access” to supposedly add the errors in his filing.

The judge was skeptical, describing the excuse as an “incredible and unsupported statement,” particularly since there was no evidence of the prior draft existing. Instead, Chinweze asked to bring in an expert to testify that the hack had occurred, requesting to end the proceedings on sanctions until after the court weighed the expert’s analysis.

The judge, Kimon C. Thermos, didn’t have to weigh this argument, however, because after the court broke for lunch, the lawyer once again “dramatically” changed his position.

“He no longer wished to adjourn for an expert to testify regarding malware or unauthorized access to his computer,” Thermos wrote in an order issuing sanctions. “He retreated” to “his original position that he used Copilot to aid in his research and didn’t realize that it could generate fake cases.”

Possibly more galling to Thermos than the lawyer’s weird malware argument, though, was a document that Chinweze filed on the day of his sanctions hearing. That document included multiple summaries preceded by this text, the judge noted:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

Thermos admonished Chinweze for continuing to use AI recklessly. He blasted the filing as “an incoherent document that is eighty-eight pages long, has no structure, contains the full text of most of the cases cited,” and “shows distinct indications that parts of the discussion/analysis of the cited cases were written by artificial intelligence.”

Ultimately, Thermos ordered Chinweze to pay $1,000, the most typical fine lawyers received in the cases Ars reviewed. The judge then took an extra non-monetary step to sanction Chinweze, referring the lawyer to a grievance committee, “given that his misconduct was substantial and seriously implicated his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to practice law.”

Ars could not immediately reach Chinweze for comment.

Toggling windows on a laptop is hard

In Alabama, an attorney named James A. Johnson made an “embarrassing mistake,” he said, primarily because toggling windows on a laptop is hard, US District Judge Terry F. Moorer noted in an October order on sanctions.

Johnson explained that he had accidentally used an AI tool that he didn’t realize could hallucinate. It happened while he was “at an out-of-state hospital attending to the care of a family member recovering from surgery.” He rushed to draft the filing, he said, because he got a notice that his client’s conference had suddenly been “moved up on the court’s schedule.”

“Under time pressure and difficult personal circumstance,” Johnson explained, he decided against using Fastcase, a research tool provided by the Alabama State Bar, to research the filing. Working on his laptop, he opted instead to use “a Microsoft Word plug-in called Ghostwriter Legal” because “it appeared automatically in the sidebar of Word while Fastcase required opening a separate browser to access through the Alabama State Bar website.”

To Johnson, it felt “tedious to toggle back and forth between programs on [his] laptop with the touchpad,” and that meant he “unfortunately fell victim to the allure of a new program that was open and available.”

Moorer seemed unimpressed by Johnson’s claim that he understood tools like ChatGPT were unreliable but didn’t expect the same from other AI legal tools—particularly since “information from Ghostwriter Legal made it clear that it used ChatGPT as its default AI program,” Moorer wrote.

The lawyer’s client was similarly put off, deciding to drop Johnson on the spot, even though that risked “a significant delay of trial.” Moorer noted that Johnson seemed shaken by his client’s abrupt decision, evidenced by “his look of shock, dismay, and display of emotion.”

And switching to a new lawyer could eat up more of that money. Moorer further noted that Johnson seemingly let AI do his homework while working on behalf of the government. But as the judge noted, “public funds for appointed counsel are not a bottomless well and are limited resource.”

“It has become clear that basic reprimands and small fines are not sufficient to deter this type of misconduct because if it were, we would not be here,” Moorer concluded.

Ruling that Johnson’s reliance on AI was “tantamount to bad faith,” Moorer imposed a $5,000 fine. The judge also would have “considered potential disqualification, but that was rendered moot” since Johnson’s client had already dismissed him.

Asked for comment, Johnson told Ars that “the court made plainly erroneous findings of fact and the sanctions are on appeal.”

Plagued by login issues

As a lawyer in Georgia tells it, sometimes fake AI citations may be filed because a lawyer accidentally filed a rough draft instead of the final version.

Other lawyers claim they turn to AI as needed when they have trouble accessing legal tools like Westlaw or LexisNexis.

For example, in Iowa, a lawyer told an appeals court that she regretted relying on “secondary AI-driven research tools” after experiencing “login issues her with her Westlaw subscription.” Although the court was “sympathetic to issues with technology, such as login issues,” the lawyer was sanctioned, primarily because she only admitted to using AI after the court ordered her to explain her mistakes. In her case, however, she got to choose between paying a minimal $150 fine or attending “two hours of legal ethics training particular to AI.”

Less sympathetic was a lawyer who got caught lying about the AI tool she blamed for inaccuracies, a Louisiana case suggested. In that case, a judge demanded to see the research history after a lawyer claimed that AI hallucinations came from “using Westlaw Precision, an AI-assisted research tool, rather than Westlaw’s standalone legal database.”

It turned out that the lawyer had outsourced the research, relying on a “currently suspended” lawyer’s AI citations, and had only “assumed” the lawyer’s mistakes were from Westlaw’s AI tool. It’s unclear what tool was actually used by the suspended lawyer, who likely lost access to a Westlaw login, but the judge ordered a $1,000 penalty after the lawyer who signed the filing “agreed that Westlaw did not generate the fabricated citations.”

Judge warned of “serial hallucinators”

Another lawyer, William T. Panichi in Illinois, has been sanctioned at least three times, Ars’ review found.

In response to his initial penalties ordered in July, he admitted to being tempted by AI while he was “between research software.”

In that case, the court was frustrated to find that the lawyer had contradicted himself, and it ordered more severe sanctions as a result.

Panichi “simultaneously admitted to using AI to generate the briefs, not doing any of his own independent research, and even that he ‘barely did any personal work [him]self on this appeal,’” the court order said, while also defending charging a higher fee—supposedly because this case “was out of the ordinary in terms of time spent” and his office “did some exceptional work” getting information.

The court deemed this AI misuse so bad that Panichi was ordered to disgorge a “payment of $6,925.62 that he received” in addition to a $1,000 penalty.

“If I’m lucky enough to be able to continue practicing before the appellate court, I’m not going to do it again,” Panichi told the court in July, just before getting hit with two more rounds of sanctions in August.

Panichi did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

When AI-generated hallucinations are found, penalties are often paid to the court, the other parties’ lawyers, or both, depending on whose time and resources were wasted fact-checking fake cases.

Lawyers seem more likely to argue against paying sanctions to the other parties’ attorneys, hoping to keep sanctions as low as possible. One lawyer even argued that “it only takes 7.6 seconds, not hours, to type citations into LexisNexis or Westlaw,” while seemingly neglecting the fact that she did not take those precious seconds to check her own citations.

The judge in the case, Nancy Miller, was clear that “such statements display an astounding lack of awareness of counsel’s obligations,” noting that “the responsibility for correcting erroneous and fake citations never shifts to opposing counsel or the court, even if they are the first to notice the errors.”

“The duty to mitigate the harms caused by such errors remains with the signor,” Miller said. “The sooner such errors are properly corrected, either by withdrawing or amending and supplementing the offending pleadings, the less time is wasted by everyone involved, and fewer costs are incurred.”

Texas US District Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo agreed, explaining that even more time is wasted determining how other judges have responded to fake AI-generated citations.

“At one of the busiest court dockets in the nation, there are scant resources to spare ferreting out erroneous AI citations in the first place, let alone surveying the burgeoning caselaw on this subject,” she said.

At least one Florida court was “shocked, shocked” to find that a lawyer was refusing to pay what the other party’s attorneys said they were owed after misusing AI. The lawyer in that case, James Martin Paul, asked to pay less than a quarter of the fees and costs owed, arguing that Charlotin’s database showed he might otherwise owe penalties that “would be the largest sanctions paid out for the use of AI generative case law to date.”

But caving to Paul’s arguments “would only benefit serial hallucinators,” the Florida court found. Ultimately, Paul was sanctioned more than $85,000 for what the court said was “far more egregious” conduct than other offenders in the database, chastising him for “repeated, abusive, bad-faith conduct that cannot be recognized as legitimate legal practice and must be deterred.”

Paul did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Michael B. Slade, a US bankruptcy judge in Illinois, seems to be done weighing excuses, calling on all lawyers to stop taking AI shortcuts that are burdening courts.

“At this point, to be blunt, any lawyer unaware that using generative AI platforms to do legal research is playing with fire is living in a cloud,” Slade wrote.

This story was updated on November 11 to clarify a judge’s comments on misuse of public funds.

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.

You won’t believe the excuses lawyers have after getting busted for using AI Read More »

nasa-is-kind-of-a-mess:-here-are-the-top-priorities-for-a-new-administrator

NASA is kind of a mess: Here are the top priorities for a new administrator


“He inevitably will have to make tough calls.”

Jared Isaacman, right, led the crew of Polaris Dawn, which performed the first private spacewalk. Credit: Polaris Dawn

Jared Isaacman, right, led the crew of Polaris Dawn, which performed the first private spacewalk. Credit: Polaris Dawn

After a long summer and fall of uncertainty, private astronaut Jared Isaacman has been renominated to lead NASA, and there appears to be momentum behind getting him confirmed quickly as the space agency’s 15th administrator. It is possible, although far from a lock, the Senate could finalize his nomination before the end of this year.

It cannot happen soon enough.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is, to put it bluntly, kind of a mess. This is not meant to disparage the many fine people who work at NASA. But years of neglect, changing priorities, mismanagement, creeping bureaucracy, meeting bloat, and other factors have taken their toll. NASA is still capable of doing great things. It still inspires. But it needs a fresh start.

“Jared has already garnered tremendous support from nearly everyone in the space community,” said Lori Garver, who served as NASA’s deputy administrator under President Obama. “This should give him a tail wind as he inevitably will have to make tough calls.”

Garver worked for a Democratic administration, and it’s notable that Isaacman has admirers from across the political spectrum, from left-leaning space advocates to right-wing influencers. A decade and a half ago, Garver led efforts to get NASA to more fully embrace commercial space. In some ways, Isaacman will seek to further this legacy, and Garver knows all too well how difficult it is to change the sprawling space agency and beat back entrenched contractors.

“Expectations are high, yet the challenge of marrying outsized goals to greatly reduced budget guidance from his administration remains,” Garver said. “It will be difficult to deliver on accelerating Artemis, transitioning to commercial LEO destinations, starting a serious nuclear electric propulsion program for Mars transportation, and attracting non-government funding for science missions. He’s coming in with a lot of support, which he will need in the current divisive political environment.”

Here’s a rundown of some of the challenges Isaacman must overcome to be a successful administrator.

A shrunken NASA

At the beginning of this year, the civil servant workforce at the space agency numbered about 18,000 people. NASA said that about 3,870 employees exited this year under various deferred resignation, early retirement, or buyout programs. After subtracting another 500 employees who left through normal attrition, NASA’s headcount will be down by 20 to 25 percent by the end of this year.

The question is how impactful these losses are. A number of the departures were from senior positions, leaving important divisions—such as Astrophysics—with acting directors and interim people in key positions. Some people who left were nearing retirement, and this may ultimately benefit the space agency by allowing younger people to bring new energy to the mission.

Yet there are very real concerns about NASA’s ability to retain its best people. As the commercial space industry grows around some of its key centers, including Alabama, Florida, and Texas, these companies cherry-pick the best NASA engineers by offering higher salaries and stock options. These engineers, in turn, know who to hire at the local field centers who are most promising.

This brain drain diminishes the engineering excellence at NASA. Can Isaacman do more with less?

Very low morale

Isaacman also arrives after what has essentially been a lost year for NASA.

Imagine you’re a NASA employee. You came to the agency to lead exploration of the Solar System and beyond. Then the second Trump administration shows up and demands widespread workforce cuts. The White House subsequently also proposes a 25 percent hit to the space agency’s budget and draconian cuts for NASA’s science programs.

Then, to cap off the spring of 2025, Isaacman’s nomination was pulled for purely political reasons. Not everyone at NASA liked Isaacman. There was genuine concern that he would shake things up and rattle cages. But Isaacman was also perceived as young, dynamic, and well-liked by the broader space community. He genuinely wanted to see NASA succeed. And then—poof—he’s gone. This only exacerbated uncertainty about the agency’s future.

Interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy provides remarks at a briefing prior to the Crew 11 launch in August.

Credit: NASA

Interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy provides remarks at a briefing prior to the Crew 11 launch in August. Credit: NASA

Isaacman’s de-nomination was followed by the appointment of Sean Duffy, a former reality TV star serving as the Secretary of Transportation, to lead NASA on an interim basis. Duffy was a wild card, but it soon became clear he saw NASA as a vehicle to further his political career. And even if Duffy had been focused on solutions, he knew little about space and already had a full-time job leading the Department of Transportation. NASA employees are not fools. They saw this and understood this move’s implications.

Finally, in a coup de grâce, the government shut down on October 1. The majority of NASA’s civil servant workforce has been sitting at home for six weeks, not getting paid, not exploring, and wondering just what the hell they’re doing working for NASA.

Arte-miss?

As NASA has struggled this year, China has made demonstrable progress in its lunar program. It is now probable that China’s Lanyue lander will put humans on the lunar surface by or before the year 2030, likely beating NASA in its return to the Moon with the Artemis Program.

NASA’s lunar program was created during the first Trump administration, but then NASA leader Jim Bridenstine was unable to secure enough funding (remember the whole Pell Grant fiasco?) before he left office in early 2021. This left NASA without the resources it needed to build a management team to lead the program and support key elements, including a lander and lunar spacesuits.

These problems more or less persisted under President Joe Biden and his NASA Administrator, Bill Nelson. From 2021 to 2024, the leaders of NASA essentially said everything was fine and that a lunar landing by 2026 was on track. When reporters, including myself, would ask the leaders of the Artemis Program, we were effectively shouted down.

For example, in January 2024, I pressed NASA’s chief of deep space exploration, Jim Free, about the non-viability of a 2026 human landing date.

“It’s interesting because we have 11 people in industry on here that have signed contracts to meet those dates,” Free replied during a teleconference, which included representatives from SpaceX, Axiom, and the other companies. “So from my perspective, the people in industry are here today saying we support it. We’ve signed contracts to those dates on the government side based on the technical details that they’ve given us, that our technical teams have come forward with.”

A shorter version of that might be: “Shut up, we know what we’re doing.”

NASA has already delayed the lunar landing officially to 2027. And no one believes that date is real. One of Isaacman’s first jobs will be to conduct an honest assessment of where the Artemis Program truly is and to rapidly take steps to get it on track. I think we can be confident he will do so with eyes wide open.

Human Landing System

So what will he do about this? The biggest challenge involves the Human Landing System (HLS), a necessary component to get humans to the surface from lunar orbit and back.

Ars explored how NASA found itself in this predicament in a long article published in early October. As for what to do now, NASA basically has two realistic options going forward. It can light a fire under SpaceX to prioritize the HLS component of its Starship program, and possibly adopt a simplified architecture. Or it can work with Blue Origin to develop to a human system using its Blue Moon Mk. 1 lander (originally intended for cargo) and a modified Mk. 1 lander for ascent purposes. (Blue says it is game). Beyond that, there is no hardware in work that could possibly accommodate a landing before 2030.

Duffy initially blustered about American capabilities. Repeatedly, he said, “We are going to beat the Chinese to the Moon.” It sounded good, but it underlined his inexperience with spaceflight because it was just not true.

Less than a month ago, Duffy changed his tune. He blamed SpaceX and its Starship vehicle for delays to Artemis, and he said he was “opening up” the lander competition. The problem is that Duffy’s solution was to raise the prospect of a “government option” lunar lander. He had been having discussions with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and others about the possibility of issuing a cost-plus contract to build a smaller lunar lander in 30 months.

An artist’s illustration of multiple Starships on the lunar surface, with a Moon base in the background.

Credit: SpaceX

An artist’s illustration of multiple Starships on the lunar surface, with a Moon base in the background. Credit: SpaceX

Duffy should have known that this timeline was completely unrealistic. Moreover, a rapidly built lunar lander (think five years, at a bare minimum) would likely cost on the order of $20 billion, which NASA did not have. But no one in his inner circle, including Amit Kshatriya, NASA’s associate administrator, was telling him that. They were encouraging him.

Isaacman is not going to be snowed under by this kind of (preposterous) proposal. Most likely, he will push SpaceX to prioritize HLS and be eager to work with Blue Origin to develop a human lander based on Mk. 1 technology.

His first call as administrator may well be to Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos.

Commercial LEO Destinations

Another looming problem involves commercial space stations in low-Earth orbit, which are supposed to be flying before the end of 2030 when the International Space Station is due to be retired.

There is much uncertainty over whether the primary companies involved in this effort—be it for financial, technical, regulatory, or other reasons—will be able to launch and test space stations by 2030 in order to allow NASA to maintain a continuous presence in low-Earth orbit. The main contractors are Axiom Space, Voyager Technologies, Blue Origin, and Vast Space.

This is one area in which Duffy took action. In August, he signed a document that implemented major changes to the Commercial LEO Destinations program. One of the biggest shifts was a lowering of the minimum requirements. Instead of fully operational stations, the new directive required only the capability to support four astronauts for 1-month increments in low-Earth orbit.

However, it is unclear that Duffy fully understood what he was signing, because there was an immediate pushback. Moreover, prior to the government shutdown, there was a lot of discussion about ripping up the directive and reverting to the old rules for commercial space stations. Everyone in the industry is scratching their heads about what comes next.

In the meantime, the space station companies are trying to raise funds, design stations for uncertain requirements, and prepare for competition for the next phase of NASA awards. This program needs more funding, clarity, and urgency for it to be successful.

Earth science

In recent days, there has been some excellent reporting about the fate of Earth science at NASA, which is part of the space agency’s core mission. Space.com published a long feature article about the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine Maryland’s Goddard Space Flight Center, which is NASA’s oldest field center.

Goddard houses the largest Earth science workforce at the agency, and its study of climate change is at odds with the policy positions of the Trump administration and many members of a Republican-controlled Congress. The result has been steep funding cuts, canceled missions, and closed buildings.

One of Isaacman’s most challenging jobs will be to balance support for Earth science while also placating an administration that frankly does not want to publish reports about how human activity is warming the planet.

In remarks on the social media site X, Isaacman recently said he wanted to expand commercial partnerships to science missions. “Better to have 10 x $100 million missions and a few fail than a single overdue and costly $1B+ mission,” he wrote. Isaacman said NASA should also buy more Earth data from providers like Planet and BlackSky, which already have satellites in orbit.

“Why build bespoke satellites at greater cost and delay when you could pay for the data as needed from existing providers?” he asked.

Planetary science

Another area of concern is planetary science. When one picks apart Trump’s budget priorities, there are two clear and disturbing trends.

The first is that there are no significant planetary science missions in the pipeline after the ambitious Dragonfly mission, which is scheduled to launch to Titan in July 2028. It becomes difficult to escape the reality that this administration is not prioritizing any mission that launches after Trump leaves office in January 2029. As a result, after Dragonfly, the planetary pipeline is running low.

Another major concern is the fate of the famed Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. The lab laid off 550 people last month, which followed previous cuts. The center director, Laurie Leshin, stepped down on June 1. With the Mars Sample Return mission on hold, and quite possibly canceled, the future of NASA’s premier planetary science mission center is cloudy.

A view of the control room at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.

Credit: NASA

A view of the control room at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. Credit: NASA

Isaacman has said he has never “remotely suggested” that NASA could do without the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

“Personally, I have publicly defended programs like the Chandra X-ray Observatory, offered to fund a Hubble reboost mission, and anything suggesting that I am anti-science or want to outsource that responsibility is simply untrue,” he wrote on X.

That is likely true, but charting a bright course for the future of planetary science, on a limited budget, will be a major challenge for the new administrator.

New initiatives

All of the above concerns NASA’s existing challenges. But Isaacman will certainly want to make his own mark. This is likely to involve a spaceflight technology he considers to be the missing link in charting a course for humans to explore the Solar System beyond the Moon: nuclear electric propulsion.

As he explained to Ars earlier this year, Isaacman’s signature issue was going to be a full-bore push into nuclear electric propulsion.

“We would have gone right to a 100-kilowatt test vehicle that we would send somewhere inspiring with some great cameras,” he said. “Then we are going right to megawatt class, inside of four years, something you could dock a human-rated spaceship to, or drag a telescope to a Lagrange point and then return, big stuff like that. The goal was to get America underway in space on nuclear power.”

Another key element of this plan is that it would give some of NASA’s field centers, including Marshall Space Flight Center, important work to do after the seemingly inevitable cancellation of the Space Launch System rocket.

Standing up new programs, and battling against existing programs that have strong backing in Congress and industry, will require all of the diplomatic skill and force of personality Isaacman can muster.

We will soon find out if he has the right stuff.

Photo of Eric Berger

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

NASA is kind of a mess: Here are the top priorities for a new administrator Read More »