Enlarge/ This aerial picture taken on December 8, 2023, shows the US-Mexico border wall in Sasabe, Arizona.
In a vast stretch of the Sonoran Desert, between the towns of San Luis Río Colorado and Sonoyta in northern Mexico, sits a modest building of cement, galvanized sheet metal, and wood—the only stop along 125 miles of inhospitable landscape dominated by thorny ocotillo shrubs and towering saguaro cactuses up to 50 feet high. It’s a fonda—a small restaurant—called La Liebre del Desierto (The Desert Hare), and for more than 20 years, owner Elsa Ortiz Ramos has welcomed and nourished weary travelers taking a break from the adjacent highway that runs through the arid Pinacate and Grand Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve.
But the dedication and care of this petite woman go beyond her simple menu. Every two weeks, she pays out of pocket for a 5,000-gallon tank of water to distribute to a network of water troughs strategically placed in the area. By doing so, she relieves the thirst of bighorn sheep, ocelots, pronghorn, coyotes, deer, and even bats that have been deprived of access to their natural water sources.
“The crows come to the house and scream to warn us that there is no more water … it’s our alarm,” says Ortiz Ramos in her distinct northern Mexico accent. Her words sound straight from an Aesop’s fable, but they take on stark realism in this spot. Covering large parts of Arizona, California, and the Mexican states of Baja California and Sonora, the Sonoran Desert—along with the Lut Desert in Iran—was cataloged in 2023 as having the hottest surface temperature on the planet, at 80.8° Celsius (177° Fahrenheit).
Through narrow steel bollards 3.5 inches apart, I observe lush vegetation surrounding the Quitobaquito spring on the other side of the border. “This vital source supplies both humans and animals over an area of more than 1 million hectares,” Federico Godínez Leal, an agronomist from the University of Guadalajara, explains to me. But now this crucial water source is restricted to the US side due to the construction of the border wall, and I have come with him here to understand the consequences. Godínez Leal and his team have been documenting the stark difference between each side: Their poignant photographs show skeletons of wild boar, deer, and bighorn sheep lying on Mexican soil.
Between 2017 and 2021, the US government installed more than 450 miles of border barriers—steel structures between 18 and 29 feet high, spaced less than 4 inches apart—in the western end of the more than 1,900 miles of border between Mexico and the United States, stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Of these 450 miles, 81 percent were replacements of existing vehicular or pedestrian barriers—but which, due to their design, allowed some passage of animals across the border. The rest were new barriers.
Before its construction, scientists on both sides of the border had warned about the impact that the wall could have on the animals of the area, and they are now working to understand the consequences. In turn, villagers in some spots on the Mexican side of the border have organized to try to alleviate the thirst of many animals that have been left without access to water.
Cryptocurrency has always made a ripe target for theft—and not just hacking, but the old-fashioned, up-close-and-personal kind, too. Given that it can be irreversibly transferred in seconds with little more than a password, it’s perhaps no surprise that thieves have occasionally sought to steal crypto in home-invasion burglaries and even kidnappings. But rarely do those thieves leave a trail of violence in their wake as disturbing as that of one recent, ruthless, and particularly prolific gang of crypto extortionists.
The United States Justice Department earlier this week announced the conviction of Remy Ra St. Felix, a 24-year-old Florida man who led a group of men behind a violent crime spree designed to compel victims to hand over access to their cryptocurrency savings. That announcement and the criminal complaint laying out charges against St. Felix focused largely on a single theft of cryptocurrency from an elderly North Carolina couple, whose home St. Felix and one of his accomplices broke into before physically assaulting the two victims—both in their seventies—and forcing them to transfer more than $150,000 in bitcoin and ether to the thieves’ crypto wallets.
In fact, that six-figure sum appears to have been the gang’s only confirmed haul from its physical crypto thefts—although the burglars and their associates made millions in total, mostly through more traditional crypto hacking as well as stealing other assets. A deeper look into court documents from the St. Felix case, however, reveals that the relatively small profit St. Felix’s gang made from its burglaries doesn’t capture the full scope of the harm they inflicted: In total, those court filings and DOJ officials describe how more than a dozen convicted and alleged members of the crypto-focused gang broke into the homes of 11 victims, carrying out a brutal spree of armed robberies, death threats, beatings, torture sessions, and even one kidnapping in a campaign that spanned four US states.
In court documents, prosecutors say the men—working in pairs or small teams—threatened to cut toes or genitalia off of one victim, kidnapped and discussed killing another, and planned to threaten another victim’s child as leverage. Prosecutors also describe disturbing torture tactics: how the men inserted sharp objects under one victim’s fingernails and burned another with a hot iron, all in an effort to coerce their targets to hand over the devices and passwords necessary to transfer their crypto holdings.
“The victims in this case suffered a horrible, painful experience that no citizen should have to endure,” Sandra Hairston, a US attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina who prosecuted St. Felix’s case, wrote in the Justice Department’s announcement of St. Felix’s conviction. “The defendant and his coconspirators acted purely out of greed and callously terrorized those they targeted.”
The serial extortion spree is almost certainly the worst of its kind ever to be prosecuted in the US, says Jameson Lopp, the cofounder and chief security officer of Casa, a cryptocurrency-focused physical security firm, who has tracked physical attacks designed to steal cryptocurrency going back as far as 2014. “As far as I’m aware, this is the first case where it was confirmed that the same group of people went around and basically carried out home invasions on a variety of different victims,” Lopp says.
Lopp notes, nonetheless, that this kind of crime spree is more than a one-off. He has learned of other similar attempts at physical theft of cryptocurrency in just the past month that have escaped public reporting—he says the victims in those cases asked him not to share details—and suggests that in-person crypto extortion may be on the rise as thieves realize the attraction of crypto as a highly valuable and instantly transportable target for theft. “Crypto, as this highly liquid bearer asset, completely changes the incentives of doing something like a home invasion,” Lopp says, “or even kidnapping and extortion and ransom.”
Enlarge/ EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager said the bloc was looking into practices that could in effect lead to a company controlling a greater share of the AI market.
Brussels is preparing for an antitrust investigation into Microsoft’s $13 billion investment into OpenAI, after the European Union decided not to proceed with a merger review into the most powerful alliance in the artificial intelligence industry.
The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, began to explore a review under merger control rules in January, but on Friday announced that it would not proceed due to a lack of evidence that Microsoft controls OpenAI.
However, the commission said it was now exploring the possibility of a traditional antitrust investigation into whether the tie-up between the world’s most valuable listed company and the best-funded AI start-up was harming competition in the fast-growing market.
The commission has also made inquiries about Google’s deal with Samsung to install a modified version of its Gemini AI system in the South Korean manufacturer’s smartphones, it revealed on Friday.
Margrethe Vestager, the bloc’s competition chief, said in a speech on Friday: “The key question was whether Microsoft had acquired control on a lasting basis over OpenAI. After a thorough review we concluded that such was not the case. So we are closing this chapter, but the story is not over.”
She said the EU had sent a new set of questions to understand whether “certain exclusivity clauses” in the agreement between Microsoft and OpenAI “could have a negative effect on competitors.” The move is seen as a key step toward a formal antitrust probe.
The bloc had already sent questions to Microsoft and other tech companies in March to determine whether market concentration in AI could potentially block new companies from entering the market, Vestager said.
Microsoft said: “We appreciate the European Commission’s thorough review and its conclusion that Microsoft’s investment and partnership with OpenAI does not give Microsoft control over the company.”
Brussels began examining Microsoft’s relationship with the ChatGPT maker after OpenAI’s board abruptly dismissed its chief executive Sam Altman in November 2023, only to be rehired a few days later. He briefly joined Microsoft as the head of a new AI research unit, highlighting the close relationship between the two companies.
Regulators in the US and UK are also scrutinizing the alliance. Microsoft is the biggest backer of OpenAI, although its investment of up to $13 billion, which was expanded in January 2023, does not involve acquiring conventional equity due to the startup’s unusual corporate structure. Microsoft has a minority interest in OpenAI’s commercial subsidiary, which is owned by a not-for-profit organization.
Antitrust investigations tend to last years, compared with a much shorter period for merger reviews, and they focus on conduct that could be undermining rivals. Companies that are eventually found to be breaking the law, for example by bundling products or blocking competitors from access to key technology, risk hefty fines and legal obligations to change their behavior.
Vestager said the EU was looking into practices that could in effect lead to a company controlling a greater share of the AI market. She pointed to a practice called “acqui-hires,” where a company buys another one mainly to get its talent. For example, Microsoft recently struck a deal to hire most of the top team from AI start-up Inflection, in which it had previously invested. Inflection remains an independent company, however, complicating any traditional merger investigation.
The EU’s competition chief said regulators were also looking into the way big tech companies may be preventing smaller AI models from reaching users.
“This is why we are also sending requests for information to better understand the effects of Google’s arrangement with Samsung to pre-install its small model ‘Gemini nano’ on certain Samsung devices,” said Vestager.
Jonathan Kanter, the top US antitrust enforcer, told the Financial Times earlier this month that he was also examining “monopoly choke points and the competitive landscape” in AI. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority said in December that it had “decided to investigate” the Microsoft-OpenAI deal when it invited comments from customers and rivals.
YouTube is in talks with record labels to license their songs for artificial intelligence tools that clone popular artists’ music, hoping to win over a skeptical industry with upfront payments.
The Google-owned video site needs labels’ content to legally train AI song generators, as it prepares to launch new tools this year, according to three people familiar with the matter.
The company has recently offered lump sums of cash to the major labels—Sony, Warner, and Universal—to try to convince more artists to allow their music to be used in training AI software, according to several people briefed on the talks.
However, many artists remain fiercely opposed to AI music generation, fearing it could undermine the value of their work. Any move by a label to force their stars into such a scheme would be hugely controversial.
“The industry is wrestling with this. Technically the companies have the copyrights, but we have to think through how to play it,” said an executive at a large music company. “We don’t want to be seen as a Luddite.”
YouTube last year began testing a generative AI tool that lets people create short music clips by entering a text prompt. The product, initially named “Dream Track,” was designed to imitate the sound and lyrics of well-known singers.
But only 10 artists agreed to participate in the test phase, including Charli XCX, Troye Sivan and John Legend, and Dream Track was made available to just a small group of creators.
YouTube wants to sign up “dozens” of artists to roll out a new AI song generator this year, said two of the people.
YouTube said: “We’re not looking to expand Dream Track but are in conversations with labels about other experiments.”
Licenses or lawsuits
YouTube is seeking new deals at a time when AI companies such as OpenAI are striking licensing agreements with media groups to train large language models, the systems that power AI products such as the ChatGPT chatbot. Some of those deals are worth tens of millions of dollars to media companies, insiders say.
The deals being negotiated in music would be different. They would not be blanket licenses but rather would apply to a select group of artists, according to people briefed on the discussions.
It would be up to the labels to encourage their artists to participate in the new projects. That means the final amounts YouTube might be willing to pay the labels are at this stage undetermined.
The deals would look more like the one-off payments from social media companies such as Meta or Snap to entertainment groups for access to their music, rather than the royalty-based arrangements labels have with Spotify or Apple, these people said.
YouTube’s new AI tool, which is unlikely to carry the Dream Track brand, could form part of YouTube’s Shorts platform, which competes with TikTok. Talks continue and deal terms could still change, the people said.
YouTube’s latest move comes as the leading record companies on Monday sued two AI start-ups, Suno and Udio, which they allege are illegally using copyrighted recordings to train their AI models. A music industry group is seeking “up to $150,000 per work infringed,” according to the filings.
After facing the threat of extinction following the rise of Napster in the 2000s, music companies are trying to get ahead of disruptive technology this time around. The labels are keen to get involved with licensed products that use AI to create songs using their music copyrights—and get paid for it.
Sony Music, which did not participate in the first phase of YouTube’s AI experiment, is in negotiations with the tech group to make available some of its music to the new tools, said a person familiar with the matter. Warner and Universal, whose artists participated in the test phase, are also in talks with YouTube about expanding the product, these people said.
In April, more than 200 musicians including Billie Eilish and the estate of Frank Sinatra signed an open letter.
“Unchecked, AI will set in motion a race to the bottom that will degrade the value of our work and prevent us from being fairly compensated for it,” the letter said.
YouTube added: “We are always testing new ideas and learning from our experiments; it’s an important part of our innovation process. We will continue on this path with AI and music as we build for the future.”
Artificial intelligence-generated “deepfakes” that impersonate politicians and celebrities are far more prevalent than efforts to use AI to assist cyber attacks, according to the first research by Google’s DeepMind division into the most common malicious uses of the cutting-edge technology.
The study said the creation of realistic but fake images, video, and audio of people was almost twice as common as the next highest misuse of generative AI tools: the falsifying of information using text-based tools, such as chatbots, to generate misinformation to post online.
The most common goal of actors misusing generative AI was to shape or influence public opinion, the analysis, conducted with the search group’s research and development unit Jigsaw, found. That accounted for 27 percent of uses, feeding into fears over how deepfakes might influence elections globally this year.
Deepfakes of UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, as well as other global leaders, have appeared on TikTok, X, and Instagram in recent months. UK voters go to the polls next week in a general election.
Concern is widespread that, despite social media platforms’ efforts to label or remove such content, audiences may not recognize these as fake, and dissemination of the content could sway voters.
Ardi Janjeva, research associate at The Alan Turing Institute, called “especially pertinent” the paper’s finding that the contamination of publicly accessible information with AI-generated content could “distort our collective understanding of sociopolitical reality.”
Janjeva added: “Even if we are uncertain about the impact that deepfakes have on voting behavior, this distortion may be harder to spot in the immediate term and poses long-term risks to our democracies.”
The study is the first of its kind by DeepMind, Google’s AI unit led by Sir Demis Hassabis, and is an attempt to quantify the risks from the use of generative AI tools, which the world’s biggest technology companies have rushed out to the public in search of huge profits.
As generative products such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini become more widely used, AI companies are beginning to monitor the flood of misinformation and other potentially harmful or unethical content created by their tools.
In May, OpenAI released research revealing operations linked to Russia, China, Iran, and Israel had been using its tools to create and spread disinformation.
“There had been a lot of understandable concern around quite sophisticated cyber attacks facilitated by these tools,” said Nahema Marchal, lead author of the study and researcher at Google DeepMind. “Whereas what we saw were fairly common misuses of GenAI [such as deepfakes that] might go under the radar a little bit more.”
Google DeepMind and Jigsaw’s researchers analyzed around 200 observed incidents of misuse between January 2023 and March 2024, taken from social media platforms X and Reddit, as well as online blogs and media reports of misuse.
Ars Technica
The second most common motivation behind misuse was to make money, whether offering services to create deepfakes, including generating naked depictions of real people, or using generative AI to create swaths of content, such as fake news articles.
The research found that most incidents use easily accessible tools, “requiring minimal technical expertise,” meaning more bad actors can misuse generative AI.
Google DeepMind’s research will influence how it improves its evaluations to test models for safety, and it hopes it will also affect how its competitors and other stakeholders view how “harms are manifesting.”
For more than a decade, in blog posts and scientific papers and public talks, the psychologist Hal Herzog has questioned whether owning pets makes people happier and healthier.
It is a lonely quest, convincing people that puppies and kittens may not actually be terrific for their physical and mental health. “When I talk to people about this,” Herzog recently said, “nobody believes me.” A prominent professor at a major public university once described him as “a super curmudgeon” who is, in effect, “trying to prove that apple pie causes cancer.”
As a teenager in New Jersey in the 1960s, Herzog kept dogs and cats, as well as an iguana, a duck, and a boa constrictor named Boa. Now a professor emeritus at Western Carolina University, he insists he’s not out to smear anyone’s furry friends. In a blog post questioning the so-called pet effect, in 2012, Herzog included a photo of his cat, Tilly. “She makes my life better,” he wrote. “Please Don’t Blame The Messenger!”
Plenty of people believe there’s something salubrious about caring for a pet, similar to eating veggies or exercising regularly. But, Herzog argues, the scientific evidence that pets can consistently make people healthier is, at best, inconclusive—and, at worst, has been used to mislead the American public.
Few, if any, experts say Herzog is exactly wrong—at least about the science. Over the past 30 or so years, researchers have published hundreds of studies exploring a link between pet ownership and a range of hypothesized benefits, including improved heart health, longer lifespans, and lower rates of anxiety and depression.
The results have been mixed. Studies often fail to find any robust link between pets and human well-being; some even find evidence of harms. In many cases, the studies simply can’t determine whether pets cause the observed effect or are simply correlated with it.
Where Herzog and some other experts have concerns is with the way those mixed results have been packaged and sold to the public. Tied up in that critique are pointed questions about the role of industry money on the development of a small field—a trend that happens across scientific endeavors, particularly those that don’t garner much attention from federal agencies, philanthropies, and other funding sources.
The pet care industry has invested millions of dollars in human-animal interaction research, mostly since the late 2000s. Feel-good findings have been trumpeted by industry press releases and, in turn, dominated news coverage, with headlines like “How Dogs Help Us Lead Longer, Healthier Lives.”
At times, industry figures have even framed pet ownership as a kind of public health intervention. “Everybody should quit smoking. Everybody should go to the gym. Everybody should eat more fruits and vegetables. And everyone should own a pet,” said Steven Feldman, president of the industry-funded Human Animal Bond Research Institute, in a 2015 podcast interview.
The problem with that kind of argument, Herzog and other experts say, is that it gets out ahead of the evidence (and that not every person is equipped to care for a pet). “Most studies,” said Herzog, “do not show the pattern of results that the pet products industry claims.”
Clint and Rachel Wells had reasons to consider buying an electric vehicle when it came to replacing one of their cars. But they had even more reasons to stick with petrol.
The couple live in Normal, Illinois, which has enjoyed an economic boost from the electric vehicle assembly plant opened there by upstart electric-car maker Rivian. EVs are a step forward from “using dead dinosaurs” to power cars, Clint Wells says, and he wants to support that.
But the couple decided to “get what was affordable”—in their case, a petrol-engined Honda Accord costing $19,000 after trade-in.
An EV priced at $25,000 would have been tempting, but only five new electric models costing less than $40,000 have come on to the US market in 2024. The hometown champion’s focus on luxury vehicles—its cheapest model is currently the $69,000 R1T—made it a non-starter.
“It’s just not accessible to us at this point in our life,” Rachel Wells says.
The Wells are among the millions of Americans opting to continue buying combustion-engine cars over electric vehicles, despite President Joe Biden’s ambitious target of having EVs make up half of all new cars sold in the US by 2030. Last year, the proportion was 9.5 percent.
High sticker prices for cars on the forecourt, and high interest rates that are pushing up monthly lease payments, have combined with concerns over driving range and charging infrastructure to chill buyers’ enthusiasm—even among those who consider themselves green.
Financial Times
While EV technology is still improving and the popularity of electric cars is still increasing, sales growth has slowed. Many carmakers are rethinking manufacturing plans, cutting the numbers of EVs they had planned to produce for the US market in favor of combustion-engined and hybrid cars.
Electric vehicles have also found themselves at the intersection of two competing Biden administration priorities: tackling climate change and protecting American jobs.
Biden has pledged to lower US greenhouse gas emissions to 50-52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, with widespread EV adoption a significant part of that ambition.
But he wants to achieve it without recourse to imports from China, the world’s biggest producer of EVs and a dominant player in many of the raw materials that go into them. Washington has set out an industrial policy that hits Chinese manufacturers of cars, batteries and other components with punitive tariffs and restricts federal tax incentives for consumers buying their products.
The idea is to allow the US to develop its own supply chains, but analysts say such protectionism will result in higher EV prices for US consumers in the meantime. That could stall sales and result in the US remaining behind China and Europe in adoption of EVs, putting at risk not only the Biden administration’s targets but also the global uptake of EVs. The World Resources Institute says between 75 and 95 percent of new passenger vehicles sold by 2030 need to be electric if Paris agreement goals are to be met.
Enlarge/ Rivian electric vehicles on the assembly line at the carmaker’s plant in Normal, Illinois. Its focus on luxury vehicles means many families cannot afford its cars.
Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune/Getty Images
“There is no question that this slows down EV adoption in the US,” says Everett Eissenstat, a former senior US Trade Representative official who served both Republican and Democratic administrations.
“We are just not producing the EVs the consumers want at a price point they want.”
Incenting consumers
The administration is attempting to reconcile its industrial and climate policies by offering tax incentives to consumers to buy EVs and by encouraging manufacturers to develop US-dominated supply chains.
Tax credits of up to $7,500 are available to buyers of electric cars. But the full amount is only available on cars that are made in the US with critical minerals and battery components also largely sourced in the US.
That means few cars qualify for the maximum credit. Two years on from the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which set out Biden’s ambitious green transition strategy, there are only 12 models that can actually score buyers the full $7,500.
The act also offered hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and other incentives to companies building a domestic clean energy industry. The automotive sector has been one of the beneficiaries of that largesse.
Last month, the Biden administration went a step further, adding steep new tariffs on billions of dollars of goods imported from China. These included a quadrupling of the tariffs on imported electric vehicles, a tripling of the rate on Chinese lithium-ion batteries to 25 percent and the introduction of a 25 percent tariff on graphite, which is used to make batteries.
The levies were an extension of a package first imposed by then president Donald Trump as part of his trade war with Beijing in 2018, and have been under review by the Biden administration as it figures out how to respond to what it says are Beijing’s unfair subsidies to strategic industries.
Enlarge/ Joe Biden with union members last month as the president approved a rise in tariffs on Chinese-made goods, including a quadrupling of the levies imposed on imported EVs.
Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
Few Chinese EVs are available for sale in the US. Polestar is the only Chinese-owned carmaker currently active in the country and it sold a mere 2,210 cars in the first quarter—out of nearly 269,000 new EV sales. (The company plans to add manufacturing in the US this year.)
Wendy Cutler, a former trade official and vice-president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, describes the pre-emptive levying of tariffs as a new development in global trade policy.
“This sends a clear signal to China: don’t even think about exporting your cars to the United States,” she says.
More significant than the tariffs on Chinese electric cars are the levies on lithium-ion batteries and the materials and components used to make them.
China is a key player in the supply chain for EV batteries, with companies such as BYD and CATL developing the country’s capacity over more than a decade. It dominates the processing of the minerals contained in lithium-ion batteries as well as the manufacture of battery components such as cathodes and anodes.
According to data analyzed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think-tank, US-based carmakers have been importing a growing share of their batteries from China. In the first quarter of 2024, more than 70 percent of imported car batteries came from the country.
The tariffs will drive up manufacturing costs for carmakers in the US and that cost is likely to be passed on to consumers because battery materials and components are not currently available in large quantities from any supply chain that excludes China.
US trade officials draw parallels with the solar industry. The cost of photovoltaic panels fell worldwide as Chinese manufacturers, benefiting from subsidies, lower labor costs and growing scale, came to dominate the industry.
That has been a boon for consumers, but resulted in production and jobs shifting from the US to China. Washington does not want a rerun of this process in the automotive sector.
“The idea that we should just open our gates and have a bunch of systematic Chinese economic abuses . . . and that that’s the answer to climate change is incredibly naive and short-sighted,” says Jennifer Harris, a former economic adviser to Biden.
In an election year, the issue is politically charged too. Michigan and Ohio, both home to large numbers of auto workers, are swing states in the presidential election. Both Biden and Republican nominee Donald Trump are trying to appeal to working-class voters there.
Preserving jobs in the US auto industry as it moves towards green technology is largely about the supply chain. More than half the 995,000 people employed in the auto industry across the US are making parts, rather than assembling vehicles, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
EVs already threaten these jobs because their powertrains comprise fewer components than cars with traditional engines and transmission systems. The United Auto Workers union, arguing for a “just transition” to clean energy, fought during its six-week long strike last autumn to have battery plants in the US covered by the same contracts that protect workers at plants making petrol-powered vehicles, winning an agreement with General Motors.
Financial Times
Ilaria Mazzocco, chair in Chinese business and economics at CSIS, says the reduced competition and rising cost of imported battery components could delay price decreases for US consumers.
“It’s not just that the same car costs less in China, it’s that in China you have a wider variety,” says Mazzocco. “US automakers will have the leisure of not having competition, and they’ll be able to focus on making these high-cost trucks”—a reference to larger sedans and SUVs, which have bigger profit margins.
“That’s just what the Biden administration feels they need to do on the political front, because they need to prioritize jobs,” she adds.
Price and infrastructure
Electric vehicles face other barriers to mass adoption. Affordability, lack of charging infrastructure and range anxiety all remain concerns for mainstream US car buyers.
The price for a new EV averaged just less than $57,000 in May, compared with an average of a little more than $48,000 for a car or truck with a traditional engine.
The starting price for a Tesla Model Y, by far the most popular electric vehicle in the US, was just less than $43,000 during the first quarter. The Ford F-150 Lightning, the electrified version of the best-selling pick-up truck in the US, was teased at $42,000 when it went on sale in May 2022 but now starts at $55,000—more than $11,000 above the petrol-powered F-150.
Used EVs are cheaper, with a vehicle less than five years old costing about $34,000, according to Cox Automotive. But they remain more expensive than used cars with traditional engines, which average about $32,100—and they make up just 2 to 3 percent of used vehicle sales.
Enlarge/ esla Model Y vehicles at a dealership in Austin, Texas. Elon Musk has suggested that the carmaker would launch ‘more affordable’ models in the coming year or so.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
Ford and Stellantis, which owns brands such as Dodge, Ram and Jeep, are promising $25,000 EVs for the US market in the next few years. General Motors plans to revive the Chevrolet Bolt as “the most affordable” EV on the market. Tesla chief Elon Musk also told investors in April that Tesla would launch “more affordable models” this year or early in 2025.
But these models will still face obstacles like a dearth of charging infrastructure. Overnight charging at home is the preferred method of replenishing an EV, but this is only really an option for those who can install a charger on their property. Those living in apartment complexes in states like California, where a greater share of people drive EVs, are more reliant on public charging facilities.
While there are about 120,000 petrol stations nationwide, according to the US Department of Energy, there are only 64,000 public charging stations in the US—and only 10,000 of them are direct current chargers, which can replenish a battery in 30 minutes rather than several hours. Charging stations also can be inoperative or have long lines when drivers arrive, forcing them to go elsewhere.
Potential buyers also worry their EV may not travel as far on a single charge as they require. While electric vehicles are well suited to the short trips that make up most driving, many Americans also use their cars and trucks for longer distances and worry that charging en route may add to their driving time, or even leave them stranded. Cold weather and towing a load can both diminish an EV’s range.
“What we’re seeing is the pace of EV growth is faster than the rate of publicly available charger growth,” says John Bozzella, chief executive of US auto trade group the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.
Two strategies
Many global carmakers are making big investments in US manufacturing plants, in response to the government’s incentives. But in the light of slowing EV sales growth they are shifting that investment towards hybrid vehicles, which use battery power alongside a traditional engine.
Last month, executives from GM, Nissan, Hyundai, Volkswagen and Ford all said that tapping into demand for hybrids was a priority. Ford chief executive Jim Farley told investors at a conference “we should stop talking about [hybrids] as a transitional technology,” viewing it instead as a viable long-term option.
Hyundai said it was considering making hybrids at its new $7.6 billion plant in Georgia. US competitor GM said in January that it would reintroduce plug-in hybrid technology to its range, though chief executive Mary Barra recently affirmed she still saw EVs as the future.
Bozzella says that even with the tariff protection measures and US subsidies in place, he was unsure how long it would take for the US auto industry to produce EVs that could compete with heavily subsidized Chinese vehicles on pricing.
“There is no question that EVs built in the US now, and built by American companies now, are absolutely competitive with EVs around the world,” he says, citing Tesla.
“If what you mean is competitive at price points . . . well that’s a different matter entirely, and my answer to that is: I’m not sure.”
Van Jackson, previously an official in the Obama administration and now a senior lecturer in international relations at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, says electric cars still need to fall in price if the market is to grow substantially.
“How do you bring workers along and increase their wages, and have a growth market for these products, given how expensive they are?” he asks. “I’m an upper-middle-class person and I cannot afford an EV.”
He is skeptical about whether shutting the world’s dominant producer of EVs and related componentry out of the US market will reduce the price of the cars and encourage uptake.
“The tariffs are buying time,” he says. “But towards no particular end.”
About 165 customer accounts were potentially affected in the recent hacking campaign targeting Snowflake’s customers, but only a few of these have been identified so far. In addition to Ticketmaster, the banking firm Santander has also acknowledged that their data was stolen but declined to identify the account from which it was stolen. Wired, however, has independently confirmed that it was a Snowflake account; the stolen data included bank account details for 30 million customers, including 6 million account numbers and balances, 28 million credit card numbers, and human resources information about staff, according to a post published by the hackers. Lending Tree and Advance Auto Parts have also said they might be victims as well.
Snowflake has not revealed details about how the hackers accessed the accounts, saying only that the intruders did not directly breach Snowflake’s network. This week, Google-owned security firm Mandiant, one of the companies engaged by Snowflake to investigate the breaches, revealed in a blog post that in some cases the hackers first obtained access through third-party contractors, without identifying the contractors or stating how this access aided the hackers in breaching the Snowflake accounts.
But according to one of the hackers who spoke with WIRED through a text chat, one of those firms was EPAM Systems, a publicly traded software engineering and digital services firm, founded by Belarus-born Arkadiy Dobkin, with current revenue of around $4.8 billion. The hacker says his group, which calls themselves ShinyHunters, used data found on an EPAM employee system to gain access to some of the Snowflake accounts.
EPAM told WIRED that it does not believe that it played a role in the breaches and suggested the hacker had fabricated the tale. ShinyHunters has been around since 2020 and has been responsible for numerous breaches since then that involve stealing large troves of data and leaking or selling it online.
Snowflake is a large data storage and analysis firm that provides tools for companies to derive intelligence and insight from customer data. EPAM develops software and provides various managed services for customers worldwide, primarily in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia, according to its web site, with about 60 percent of its revenue coming from customers in North America. Among the services EPAM provides customers is assistance with using and managing their Snowflake accounts to store and analyze their data. EPAM claims it has some 300 workers who are experienced in using Snowflake’s data analytics tools and services, and announced in 2022 that it had attained “Elite Tier Partner” status with Snowflake to leverage the latter’s analytics platform for its customers.
EPAM’s founder emigrated from Belarus to the US in the ’90s before founding his company in 1993 from his New Jersey apartment. Nearly two-thirds of EPAM’s 55,000 employees resided in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia until Russia invaded Ukraine, at which point the company says it closed its Russia operationsand moved some of its Ukrainian workers to locations outside of that country.
The hacker who spoke with WIRED says that a computer belonging to one of EPAM’s employees in Ukraine was infected with info-stealer malware through a spear-phishing attack. It’s unclear if someone from ShinyHunters conducted this initial breach or just purchased access to the infected system from someone else who hacked the worker and installed the infostealer. The hacker says that once on the EPAM worker’s system, they installed a remote-access Trojan, giving them complete access to everything on the worker’s computer.
Using this access, they say, they found unencrypted usernames and passwords that the worker used to access and manage EPAM customers’ Snowflake accounts, including an account for Ticketmaster. The hacker says the credentials were stored on the worker’s machine in a project management tool called Jira. The hackers were able to use those credentials, they say, to access the Snowflake accounts because the Snowflake accounts didn’t require multifactor authentication (MFA) to access them. (MFA requires that users type in a one-time temporary code in addition to a username and password, making accounts that use MFA more secure.)
While EPAM denies it was involved in the breach, hackers did steal data from Snowflake accounts including Ticketmaster’s, and have extorted the owners of the data by demanding hundreds of thousands, and in some cases more than a million, dollars to destroy the data or risk having the hackers sell it elsewhere.
Enlarge/ TDK says its new ceramic materials for batteries will improve the performance of small consumer electronics devices such as smartwatches and wireless headphones
Japan’s TDK is claiming a breakthrough in materials used in its small solid-state batteries, with the Apple supplier predicting significant performance increases for devices from wireless headphones to smartwatches.
The new material provides an energy density—the amount that can be squeezed into a given space—of 1,000 watt-hours per liter, which is about 100 times greater than TDK’s current battery in mass production. Since TDK introduced it in 2020, competitors have moved forward, developing small solid-state batteries that offer 50 Wh/l, while rechargeable coin batteries using traditional liquid electrolytes offer about 400 Wh/l, according to the group.
“We believe that our newly developed material for solid-state batteries can make a significant contribution to the energy transformation of society. We will continue the development towards early commercialisation,” said TDK’s chief executive Noboru Saito.
The batteries set to be produced will be made of an all-ceramic material, with oxide-based solid electrolyte and lithium alloy anodes. The high capability of the battery to store electrical charge, TDK said, would allow for smaller device sizes and longer operating times, while the oxide offered a high degree of stability and thus safety. The battery technology is designed to be used in smaller-sized cells, replacing existing coin-shaped batteries found in watches and other small electronics.
The breakthrough is the latest step forward for a technology industry experts think can revolutionize energy storage, but which faces significant obstacles on the path to mass production, particularly at larger battery sizes.
Solid-state batteries are safer, lighter and potentially cheaper and offer longer performance and faster charging than current batteries relying on liquid electrolytes. Breakthroughs in consumer electronics have filtered through to electric vehicles, although the dominant battery chemistries for the two categories now differ substantially.
The ceramic material used by TDK means that larger-sized batteries would be more fragile, meaning the technical challenge of making batteries for cars or even smartphones will not be surmounted in the foreseeable future, according to the company.
Kevin Shang, senior research analyst at Wood Mackenzie, a data and analytics firm, said that “unfavorable mechanical properties,” as well as the difficulty and cost of mass production, are challenges for moving the application of solid-state oxide-based batteries into smartphones.
Industry experts believe the most significant use case for solid-state batteries could be in electric cars by enabling greater driving range. Japanese companies are in the vanguard of a push to commercialize the technology: Toyota is aiming for as early as 2027, Nissan the year after and Honda by the end of the decade.
Car manufacturers are focused on developing sulfide-based electrolytes for long-range electric vehicles, an alternative kind of material to the oxide-based material that TDK has developed.
However, there is still skepticism about how quickly the much-hyped technology can be realized, particularly the larger batteries needed for electric vehicles.
Robin Zeng, founder and chief executive of CATL, the world’s biggest electric vehicle battery manufacturer, told the Financial Times in March that solid-state batteries did not work well enough, lacked durability and still had safety problems. Zeng’s CATL originated as a spin-off from Amperex Technology, or ATL, which is a subsidiary of TDK and is the world’s leading producer of lithium-ion batteries.
TDK, which was founded in 1935 and became a household name as a top cassette tape brand in the 1960s and 1970s, has lengthy experience in battery materials and technology.
It has 50 to 60 percent global market share in the small-capacity batteries that power smartphones and is targeting leadership in the medium-capacity market, which includes energy storage devices and larger electronics such as drones.
The group plans to start shipping samples of its new battery prototype to clients from next year and hopes to be able to move into mass production after that.
Enlarge/ Map from drone mission search for the Encephalartos Woodii in the Ngoye Forest in South Africa.
“Surely this is the most solitary organism in the world,” wrote paleontologist Richard Fortey in his book about the evolution of life.
He was talking about Encephalartos woodii (E. woodii), a plant from South Africa. E. woodii is a member of the cycad family, heavy plants with thick trunks and large stiff leaves that form a majestic crown. These resilient survivors have outlasted dinosaurs and multiple mass extinctions. Once widespread, they are today one of the most threatened species on the planet.
The only known wild E. Woodii was discovered in 1895 by the botanist John Medley Wood while he was on a botanical expedition in the Ngoye Forest in South Africa. He searched the vicinity for others, but none could be found. Over the next couple of decades, botanists removed stems and offshoots and cultivated them in gardens.
Fearing that the final stem would be destroyed, the Forestry Department removed it from the wild in 1916 for safekeeping in a protective enclosure in Pretoria, South Africa, making it extinct in the wild. The plant has since been propagated worldwide. However, the E. woodii faces an existential crisis. All the plants are clones from the Ngoye specimen. They are all males, and without a female, natural reproduction is impossible. E. woodii’s story is one of both survival and solitude.
My team’s research was inspired by the dilemma of the lonely plant and the possibility that a female may still be out there. Our research involves using remote sensing technologies and artificial intelligence to assist in our search for a female in the Ngoye Forest.
The evolutionary journey of cycads
Cycads are the oldest surviving plant groups alive today and are often referred to as “living fossils” or “dinosaur plants” due to their evolutionary history dating back to the Carboniferous period, approximately 300 million years ago. During the Mesozoic era (250-66 million years ago), also known as the Age of Cycads, these plants were ubiquitous, thriving in the warm, humid climates that characterised the period.
Although they resemble ferns or palms, cycads are not related to either. Cycads are gymnosperms, a group that includes conifers and ginkgos. Unlike flowering plants (angiosperms), cycads reproduce using cones. It is impossible to tell male and female apart until they mature and produce their magnificent cones.
Female cones are typically wide and round, and male cones appear elongated and narrower. The male cones produce pollen, which is carried by insects (weevils) to the female cones. This ancient method of reproduction has remained largely unchanged for millions of years.
Despite their longevity, today cycads are ranked as the most endangered living organisms on Earth with the majority of the species considered threatened with extinction. This is because of their slow growth and reproductive cycles, typically taking ten to 20 years to mature, and habitat loss due to deforestation, grazing, and over-collection. Cycads have become symbols of botanical rarity.
Their striking appearance and ancient lineage make them popular in exotic ornamental horticulture and that has led to illegal trade. Rare cycads can command exorbitant prices from $620 (495 pounds) per cm with some specimens selling for millions of pounds each. The poaching of cycads is a threat to their survival.
Among the most valuable species is the E. woodii. It is protected in botanical gardens with security measures such as alarmed cages designed to deter poachers.
AI in the sky
In our search to find a female E.woodii we have used innovative technologies to explore areas of the forest from a vertical vantage point. In 2022 and 2024, our drone surveys covered an area of 195 acres or 148 football fields, creating detailed maps from thousands of photos taken by the drones. It’s still a small portion of the Ngoye Forest, which covers 10,000 acres.
Enlarge/ An example of the still images used to train the AI software.
Our AI system enhanced the efficiency and accuracy of these searches. As E. woodii is considered extinct in the wild, synthetic images were used in the AI model’s training to improve its ability, via an image recognition algorithm, to recognise cycads by shape in different ecological contexts.
Plant species globally are disappearing at an alarming rate. Since all existing E. woodii specimens are clones, their potential for genetic diversity in the face of environmental change and disease is limited.
Notable examples include the Great Famine in 1840s Ireland, where the uniformity of cloned potatoes worsened the crisis, and the vulnerability of clonal Cavendish bananas to Panama disease, which threatens their production as it did with the Gros Michel banana in the 1950s.
Finding a female would mean E. woodii is no longer at the brink of extinction and could revive the species. A female would allow for sexual reproduction, bring in genetic diversity, and signify a breakthrough in conservation efforts.
E. woodii is a sobering reminder of the fragility of life on Earth. But our quest to discover a female E. woodii shows there is hope even for the most endangered species if we act fast enough.
A hammerhead shark less than one meter long swims frantically in a plastic container aboard a boat in the Sanquianga National Natural Park, off Colombia’s Pacific coast. It is a delicate female Sphyrna corona, the world’s smallest hammerhead species, and goes by the local name cornuda amarilla—yellow hammerhead—because of the color of its fins and the edges of its splendid curved head, which is full of sensors to perceive the movement of its prey.
Marine biologist Diego Cardeñosa of Florida International University, along with local fishermen, has just captured the shark and implanted it with an acoustic marker before quickly returning it to the murky waters. A series of receivers will help to track its movements for a year, to map the coordinates of its habitat—valuable information for its protection.
That hammerhead is far from the only shark species that keeps the Colombian biologist busy. Cardeñosa’s mission is to build scientific knowledge to support shark conservation, either by locating the areas where the creatures live or by identifying, with genetic tests, the species that are traded in the world’s main shark markets.
Sharks are under threat for several reasons. The demand for their fins to supply the mainly Asian market (see box) is a very lucrative business: Between 2012 and 2019, it generated $1.5 billion. This, plus their inclusion in bycatch—fish caught unintentionally in the fishing industry—as well as the growing market for shark meat, leads to the death of millions every year. In 2019 alone the estimated total killed was at least 80 million sharks, 25 million of which were endangered species. In fact, in the Hong Kong market alone, a major trading spot for shark fins, two-thirds of the shark species sold there are at risk of extinction, according to a 2022 study led by Cardeñosa and molecular ecologist Demian Chapman, director of the shark and ray conservation program at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida.
Sharks continue to face a complicated future despite decades of legislation designed to protect them. In 2000, the US Congress passed the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, and in 2011 the Shark Conservation Act. These laws require that sharks brought ashore by fishermen have all their fins naturally attached and aim to end the practice of stripping the creatures of their fins and returning them, mutilated, to the water to die on the seafloor. Ninety-four other countries have implemented similar regulations.
Perhaps the main political and diplomatic tool for shark conservation is in the hands of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), composed of 183 member countries plus the European Union. The treaty offers three degrees of protection, or appendices, to more than 40,000 species of animals and plants, imposing prohibitions and restrictions on their trade according to their threat status.
Sharks were included in CITES Appendix II—which includes species that are not endangered but could become so if trade is not controlled—in February 2003, with the addition of two species: the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and the whale shark (Rhincodon typus). Following that, the list of protected species grew to 12 and then increased significantly in November 2023 with the inclusion of 60 more species of sharks in CITES Appendix II.
But do these tools actually protect sharks? To seek out answers, over the past decade researchers have worked to develop tests that can easily identify which species of sharks are being traded—and determine whether protected species continue to be exploited. They have also focused on studying shark populations around the world in order to provide information for the establishment of protected areas that can help safeguard these animals.
Brussels is set to charge Apple over allegedly stifling competition on its mobile app store, the first time EU regulators have used new digital rules to target a Big Tech group.
The European Commission has determined that the iPhone maker is not complying with obligations to allow app developers to “steer” users to offers outside its App Store without imposing fees on them, according to three people with close knowledge of its investigation.
The charges would be the first brought against a tech company under the Digital Markets Act, landmark legislation designed to force powerful “online gatekeepers” to open up their businesses to competition in the EU.
The commission, the EU’s executive arm, said in March it was investigating Apple, as well as Alphabet and Meta, under powers granted by the DMA. An announcement over the charges against Apple was expected in the coming weeks, said two people with knowledge of the case.
These people said regulators have only made preliminary findings, and Apple could still take actions to correct its practices, which could then lead regulators to reassess any final decision. They added the timing of any announcement could also shift.
The EU could also decide to announce charges against other tech groups, with regulators still investigating whether Google parent Alphabet is favoring its own app store and Facebook owner Meta’s use of personal data for advertising.
If found to be breaking the DMA, Apple faces daily penalties for non-compliance of up to 5 percent of its average daily worldwide turnover, which is currently just over $1 billion.
The move comes as competition watchdogs around the world increase their scrutiny of Big Tech companies and their market dominance. In March, the US brought an antitrust case against Apple for allegedly using its power in the smartphone sector to squash rivals and limit consumer choice.
Epic Games, which sued Apple over the App Store in 2020, is also awaiting a decision from a California federal judge on whether Apple failed to comply with a US injunction prohibiting its steering rules, following a series of court hearings over recent weeks.
In January, Apple announced historic changes to its iOS mobile software, App Store, and Safari browser in the EU.
The changes were an effort to placate regulators in Brussels and meant Apple would allow users to access rival app stores and download apps from other sources. The changes also included slashing the fee paid by companies using the App Store to sell digital goods and services from 30 percent to 17 percent.
However, the EU is also looking at whether these fee changes properly adhere to its new digital rules. Apple introduced new charges in Europe, including a “core technology fee” of 50 cents on developers with apps that have more than 1 million users for every first installment by a user. Apple will also charge an additional 3 percent fee to app developers that use its payment processor.
Some developers have argued they could face higher charges as a result of the fee changes. The EU could also announce initial charges over these developer fees, people familiar with the commission’s thinking said.
According to analysis by Sensor Tower, consumer spending on Apple’s App Store throughout the second quarter of 2024 was “relatively flat,” suggesting the EU rules have yet to affect the company’s bottom line.
Apple declined to comment but pointed to an earlier statement that said: “We’re confident our plan complies with the DMA, and we’ll continue to constructively engage with the European Commission as they conduct their investigations.”
