According to Honor the new Magic7 Lite has a special, industry-first battery inside it, making it slightly more interesting than your average mid-range smartphone, but what is new about it? The Magic7 Lite has a silicon-carbon battery instead of the more common lithium-ion battery, which allows for a greater capacity without increasing physical size.The Magic7 Lites silicon-carbon battery has a whopping 6,600mAh capacity, and Honor estimates this will return nearly 26 hours of video playback on a single charge, plus it will reliably operate in both hot and cold environments. Using its AI technology, Honors software will squeeze a 50 minute call out of the remaining 2% of the battery, emphasizing its usefulness in emergency situations. Using silicon can also assist with efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels.Recommended VideosWhile interesting, dont read too much into the whole industry-first statement, as silicon-carbon batteries have been doing the rounds for a while, and what Honor appears to mean is its the industrys first silicon-carbon battery with such a large capacity. Honor itself has already put silicon-carbon batteries in phones, such as a 5,600mAh cell in the Honor Magic 6 Pro, while Vivo used a silicon anode in the battery inside the Vivo X200 series, and we expect the trend to continue in 2025.Please enable Javascript to view this contentWhat about the rest of the Magic7 Lite? It represents the first of Honors new Magic7 series to be announced in Europe (dont expect a U.S. release though), and the thin and light phone 189 grams and 7.98mm thick comes in two different finishes, Titanium Black and the eye-catching Titanium Purple. Honor claims the body is capable of withstanding drops from two meters, and theres IP65M dust and water resistance for further durability. The 6.78-inch AMOLED screen has a 120Hz refresh rate and 3840Hz Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) dimming.RelatedOn the back is a 108-megapixel main camera and a 5MP wide-angle camera, and inside is the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 processor with 8GB of RAM. The Snapdragon chip was also used in the Magic6 Lite, which also had the same camera system, making it unlikely to appeal to owners of its year-old predecessor. Its also arriving with Android 14 installed and not the latest Android 15 software.The Honor Magic7 Lite will be released in Europe and the U.K. on January 15 for 399 British pounds, or around $500.Editors Recommendations

Status-quo videos are still proliferating on the Chinese-owned app. Madison Avenue remains upbeat just weeks before potential U.S. ban.

Reverse-engineering the Stone Age Inside the hands-on lab of an experimental archaeologist Beyond flint-knapping and tossing spears with atlatls, Kent State University's Metin Eren has a vision for his field's future. Jennifer Ouellette Jan 2, 2025 7:00 am | 0 Metin Eren has spent more than 20 years honing his flint knapping skills. Credit: Jennifer Ouellette Metin Eren has spent more than 20 years honing his flint knapping skills. Credit: Jennifer Ouellette Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreBack in 2019, we told you about an intriguing experiment to test a famous anthropological legend about an elderly Inuit man in the 1950s who fashioned a knife out of his own frozen feces. He used it to kill and skin a dog, using its rib cage as a makeshift sled to venture off into the Arctic. Metin Eren, an archaeologist at Kent State University, fashioned rudimentary blades out of his own frozen feces to test whether they could cut through pig hide, muscle, and tendon.Sadly for the legend, the blades failed every test, but the study was colorful enough to snag Eren an Ig Nobel Prize the following year. And it's just one of the many fascinating projects routinely undertaken in his Experimental Archaeology Laboratory, where he and his team try to reverse-engineer all manner of ancient technologies, whether they involve stone tools, ceramics, metal, butchery, textiles, and so forth.Eren's lab is quite prolific, publishing 15 to 20 papers a year. The only thing were limited by is time, he said. Many have colorful or quirky elements and hence tend to garner media attention, but Eren emphasizes that what he does is very much serious science, not entertainment. I think sometimes people look at experimental archaeology and think its no different from LARPing, Eren told Ars. I have nothing against LARPers, but its very different. Its not playtime. Its hardcore science. Me making a stone tool is no different than a chemist pouring chemicals into a beaker. But that act alone is not the experiment. It might be the flashiest bit, but that's not the experimental process.It takes years to develop the practical hands-on skills required to do research in experimental archaeology, and this influences how Eren chooses his students. Eren himself is a master flint-knapper, deftly producing all manner of Stone Age blades from chert. One of his students was a musician who decided to study the pitches and octaves produced from the percussive aspects of flint-knapping."We look for people with unique skillsmusic, woodworking, tattooingbecause those are things we cant teach in a four-year undergrad or a two-year masters program," he said. "They come in with the skills, we teach them the science. These students didnt think that their more utilitarian skills were academically valuable, and suddenly theyre publishing in the scientific literature. Metin Erens experimental archaeology lab features a ballistics range, stone-weapon creation, and pottery-making. Eren comes from a long line of medical professionals, but Im not a big fan of blood, he said. History and science were more his forte growing up in northeast Ohio, and in high school, he asked the curator of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Brian Redmond, if he could join Redmonds dig. This was usually reserved for grad students, but Redmond consented, and Eren racked up hours of practical fieldwork before college, where he naturally majored in archaeology. He joined the lab of the late Ofer Bar-Yosef as a freshman.He soon became interested in experimental archaeology. He would hear archaeologists describing how a given artifact probably worked or what it meant to the culture, and Eren would wonder how they knew that, given the dearth of evidence. This was the spark that ignited his interest in experimental archaeology. It was Bar-Yosef who encouraged Eren to learn flint-knapping skills. In the process, Eren figured out a new method by which to measure how stone tools were resharpened and tested his hypothesis. That work turned into his first published peer-reviewed paper while still a junior in college.For graduate studies, he chose Southern Methodist University near Dallas, Texas, specifically to work with David Meltzer. It was during his first post-doc at the University of Kent in Canterbury, England, that he met biological anthropologists Stephen Lycett and Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, who ignited his corresponding interest in evolutionary theory within the context of his archaeological pursuits. And he continued to refine his flint-knapping skills under mentors Bruce Bradley and the late Robert J. Patten.Flint-knapping is equal parts art and science, which I learned firsthand as Eren guided me while making a Stone Age hand axe out of the random chunks of chert Eren keeps in buckets in his lab. It requires striking very specific areas of the target chunk with a rock with just the right amount of force to chip off shards. These shards, in turn, can be used as sharp edges for cuttingand they are very sharp indeed. Goggles and a leather pad for one's lap are among the crucial safety implements when flint-knapping. Even so, injuries are common and can be severe, as detailed in a 2023 paper.Physicists have been studying how cracks propagate for decades; Eren's 25+ years of flint-knapping experience allows him to precisely predict which parts to strike to chip off what he needs so that the axe can take shape. The task becomes more challenging in the later stages, when one is trying to chip off smaller and smaller shards to refine the shape. Eren typically switches to using bone when it comes to fine-tuning the edges.I can make a knife out of a rock Using bone instead of a rock to fine-tune the edges. Jennifer Ouellette Using bone instead of a rock to fine-tune the edges. Jennifer Ouellette Voila! A replica Acheulean hand axe. Jennifer Ouellette Voila! A replica Acheulean hand axe. Jennifer Ouellette My first attempt at a Stone Age hand axe wasn't quite as impressive. But it worked! Jennifer Ouellette My first attempt at a Stone Age hand axe wasn't quite as impressive. But it worked! Jennifer Ouellette Voila! A replica Acheulean hand axe. Jennifer Ouellette My first attempt at a Stone Age hand axe wasn't quite as impressive. But it worked! Jennifer Ouellette Even the shards can be used as handheld cutting tools. Jennifer Ouellette Buckets of rocks, antlers, and chunks of chert for future flint-knapping. Jennifer Ouellette Achievement unlocked! Experimental archaeology is not without its challenges, particularly when one's area of expertise is the Stone Age. Theres so much that doesnt preserve, said Eren. Sure, he can make a stone blade and use it to cut things, but there are no surviving examples of, say, a wooden handle that may (or may not) have been attached.And if there was such a handle, How long was it? What wood was it? Did they finish it in any way? What adhesive did they use?" said Eren. "These are all variables that dont preserve but that influence the function of that knife. It's inherently difficult to determine precisely how accurate their experiments really are because of this, which he has dubbed the Poltergeist of the Unpreserved, because it haunts me as an experimental archaeologist.Another key concept is what Eren calls "the Prevalence of Equifinality." Say a Clovis point is found near a mammoth in a position in between the ribs. Many archaeologists would conclude that the Clovis point killed the mammoth; it serves as the proverbial smoking gun. That might seem like a reasonable interpretation, except now we know that Clovis points also functioned as knives, said Eren. So its also possible that the mammoth was already dead, and people just used the point to butcher the animal. Two processes, hunting and scavenging, are yielding the same archaeological results.In the 1980s, an archaeologist named George Frison famously went to Zimbabwe and threw spears tipped with Clovis points into (dead) elephants to see where they penetrated. Not only were the points remarkably effective at penetrating the hides and rib cages of the elephants, but when he studied the resulting microscopic striations on the points, other Clovis points found at different sites also showed the same striations, suggesting that the points were definitely used for hunting purposes.Then a student from Zimbabwe came to Erens lab and wanted to test Frison's findings. So they made a batch of replica Clovis points attached to spears, but they threw them into the grass rather than into dead elephants. They ended up with the exact same microscopic striations. So maybe a point found near a mammoth had been used to kill the mammoth, or maybe it was used to skin an already dead mammoth or hunt a rabbit two weeks beforeit just happened to be there, lying in the grass, when the mammoth died and decayed on top of it. Butchering a Bison with Clovis points and tools. That said, Frison was correct that Clovis points are remarkably effective toolsnot just for hunting but for butchering. Eren's lab recently collaborated with five hunters affiliated with MeatEater (an outdoor lifestyle company). They have a popular podcast and YouTube channel, as well as a former Netflix series. Eren wanted to test how well Clovis points and large handheld shards worked for butchering, and the MeatEater crew obliged by using Eren's tools to butcher a bison, capturing the experience for their YouTube series (see video above).While the Clovis points needed frequent sharpening and broke easily, the hunters were surprised at how well they functioned as butchering tools. They gained a greater appreciation for the ingenuity of their Stone Age counterparts and were listed as co-authors on a paper published earlier this year describing the results of the experiment.Target practiceMost of Eren's students (and the occasional visiting journalist) get the chance at some point to throw point-tipped spears at a hunting target outside on campus, using an attached atlatl or spear-thrower. This ingenious handheld rod-shaped device employs leverage to launch a dart or spear. Versions have been developed by several different ancient cultures, including Aztec, Maya, Greek, Roman, and Australian aboriginal designs.And as Eren's colleague Michelle Bebberan expert in ceramics and pottery (who also participated in the frozen feces study)discovered in 2023, the atlatl is essentially the great equalizer between women and men. She noticed that her male students struggled more than female students to pick up the crucial whip action required because they were so accustomed to relying on strength and turned it into a blind test. She found that, unlike the javelin, the atlatl equalizes the velocity of female- and male-launched projectiles. It's not even exclusively a gender difference, according to Bebber, since children, older men, or injured men would also have benefited from its use.Although throws made with the atlatl are faster, the javelin has more kinetic energy because of its higher mass. Eren also experimented with throwing from different heights, renting a scissor lift for the purpose. "We wanted to understand how much more velocity and kinetic energy does gravity lend to these projectile weapons as you get higher," said Eren. Eren's lab regularly makes replica spears for target practice. Jennifer Ouellette Eren's lab regularly makes replica spears for target practice. Jennifer Ouellette A handy target. Jennifer Ouellette A handy target. Jennifer Ouellette Eren demonstrates proper form when throwing a spear with an atlatl. Jennifer Ouellette Eren demonstrates proper form when throwing a spear with an atlatl. Jennifer Ouellette A handy target. Jennifer Ouellette Eren demonstrates proper form when throwing a spear with an atlatl. Jennifer Ouellette Eren's shots are the ones that hit the mark. Mine? Not so much. Jennifer Ouellette Eren displays different kinds of tipped spears. Jennifer Ouellette A closer look at the different heads. Jennifer Ouellette Running a ballistics test with the spears. Jennifer Ouellette He found that the javelin increased not only in velocity but kinetic energyalmost a 200 percent increase in impact energy by 9 meters in height. But the atlatl decreased as the height increased. "If you are throwing down, the lever is deactivated," Eren explained. "And because the darts are so light, they have higher velocity when traveling horizontally, but once the lever is deactivated, the wind can make it go sideways, producing more drag. That had never occurred to us, that the atlatl actually has a major cost if you are firing downward.This might explain why Neanderthals, for example, never developed a version of the atlatl. They often hunted in hilly areas and would have gained more advantage from a thrown javelin. "They did the evolutionarily optimal thing," said Eren.Eren also conducts a variety of controlled ballistics tests in the lab. He has a crossbow apparatus set up in the lab designed to shoot short distances at a target. One such study was designed to test a 1970s hypothesis about whether some stone blades once had some sort of wood or bone backing on the flat, dulled edge (as opposed to the sharp cutting edge), which would have increased adhesion.Eren's lab members shot backed and unbacked specimens of this stone tool hacked into wooden shafts with the crossbow and measured how well they stuck together. It didnt quite go as planned. The backed specimens, which were supposed to stick better, all blew off, like stone rain, said Eren. That experiment, plus a second round of tests, clearly demonstrated that backing does not increase adhesion relative to non-backing.More recently, Eren has ventured into forensics, publishing his first paper on bullet ricochet marks earlier this year. He was inspired by ancient fossilized footprints at White Sands National Park that date back to 22,000 to 24,000 years old. There is an ongoing debate as to whether the footprints were made by humans. (Eren falls on the skeptical side of the debate.) He was pondering those footprints while practicing at the shooting range and noticed all the ricochet marks on the wall and floor from less skilled shooters. He found himself wondering what caliber of gun had produced them and soon realized there hadnt been any forensic studies on whether one could distinguish between bullet ricochet marks. Colleague Michelle Bebber specializes in ceramics and pottery, complete with an in-lab kiln. Jennifer Ouellette Colleague Michelle Bebber specializes in ceramics and pottery, complete with an in-lab kiln. Jennifer Ouellette Pottery projects in the works. YouTube/Kent State Pottery projects in the works. YouTube/Kent State Colleague Michelle Bebber specializes in ceramics and pottery, complete with an in-lab kiln. Jennifer Ouellette Pottery projects in the works. YouTube/Kent State A few replicas of ancient pottery. Jennifer Ouellette A few replicas of ancient pottery. Jennifer Ouellette Bebber's replica Jomon vase. Jennifer Ouellette Bebber's replica Jomon vase. Jennifer Ouellette A few replicas of ancient pottery. Jennifer Ouellette Bebber's replica Jomon vase. Jennifer Ouellette Most criminals are terrible shots," said Eren. "They dont practice. And ricochet marks are present at crime scenes quite often while the casings arent. So he conducted a controlled ballistics experiment with large sample sizes of five different calibers and shot the guns at different angles and distances into cement (a common urban material). He then used digital software to determine the outlines of the ricochet marks, followed by machine learning to see if one could distinguish between calibers. The answer was clear: You cant. Or at least Eren couldnt, and his conclusion ably demonstrated the scientific value of null results.The bigger pictureThese aren't just isolated academic questions for Eren. While archaeology has its roots in discovery-based science, Eren firmly believes the field needs a theoretical framework to transform it into a question-based science. He's particularly interested in cultural evolution, particularly how technology and culture evolve. "Culture is operationally defined as socially transmitted information," he said. "Chimps have culture, birds have culture. This isnt a unique thing to humans, but were very egotistical, and we like to think were special."In fact, most of the books in Eren's office concern evolutionary theory. Over the last 20 years, weve been undergoing a synthesis of culture and evolutionary theory," Eren said. "Its been shown time and again that culture evolves via Darwinian evolutionabsent the gene. For that, you only need three ingredients: variation, inheritance, and some kind of sorting mechanism.Experimental archaeology is well suited to testing such a theoretical framework. Its very difficult to talk about evolution and how phenomena evolve if you dont understand how stuff works, said Eren. If you dont understand whether this change in this variant is functional or not, you cant distinguish between drift and selection, which is the basis of evolutionary theory."This, for Eren, is the central conflict. "Any evolutionary science that deals with the past will always remain inference," he said. "Archaeologists have this tendency to pick their one pet thing and then impose it on all the variation that we see. What we really need to do is lean completely into evolution and biology and realize there could be multiple sources of variation that are influencing the things that we dig up out of the ground. And our job is to figure out how they interact to create that phenotype of the artifacts.Eren also sees a great need for more replication studies in his chosen field, even for that infamous frozen feces paper, which was primarily meant to bring the question out of the world of myth and legend and into the realm of science. "Imagine if youre a geneticist studying fruit flies and you do one study and nobody repeats it," he said. "There is a tradition in archaeology and anthropology where something is published and then its just gone, when really that should be the beginning.In my opinion, experimental archaeology is the future of the field," said Eren. "The archaeological record itself is a finite resource. We already have 200 years of excavated data in museums. So what do we do when all the sites are gone? Its this: experimental archaeology. Weve been digging stuff up for 200 years, and we barely have an understanding of how any of it works.Jennifer OuelletteSenior WriterJennifer OuelletteSenior Writer Jennifer is a senior reporter 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. 0 Comments

Water, power, sewage, banking, education, you name it -- all these life essentials have something in common: they rely on information technology. Increasingly complex andinsecuretechnology. Meanwhile, threat actors have the means to launch ever-rising numbers of attacks on critical applications. The revelation this past August of the huge data breach at National Public Data of Americans Social Security numbers, and other personal data, is a stunning Exhibit A.The number of reported vulnerabilities has skyrocketed over the last 10 years. In fact, the number of new software vulnerabilities cataloged in the federal National Vulnerability Database has increased an average of 29% per year over the last seven years.Every year sets a record high, and with the introduction of malicious code-writing and security hole-finding AI models, theres no reason to think that trend will reverse.The federal government's contribution to cybersecurity has thus far been through guidance and influence or by wielding its purchasing power as a huge IT consumer. Those have some value but clearly aren't having much impact.The public is quite unaware of how low the bar is presently set in software security. Modern software is never written entirely from scratch. Instead, developers use an assembly approach that pulls together existing code packages, often using open-source software built and maintained by developers not beholden in any way to the company making the final product.Related:As security vulnerabilities and active malware become increasingly common, all companies find themselves shouldering increasing security risk. Such government organizations as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have spent a great deal of time, money, and effort over the last few years trying to convince software vendors to adopt basic security practices and Software Bills of Materials (SBOMs).A vendor's SBOM tells the customerwhatis in the software -- but not whether the contents are secure.CISAs actions have not moved the needle at stopping breaches. US cybercrime costs reached an estimated $320 billion as of last year.Between 2017 and 2023, costs grew by over $300 billion.Companiessaythey're doing more about cybersecurity, but breaches continue, and the private market is not correcting poor behavior. Stock charts barely register a blip when companies report breaches now. Congress has not yet stepped in, hampered, perhaps, by an inadequate understanding of the issue.Related:Urgent action is, consequently, needed.Government stepped in to protect our food and medicine by establishing the Food and Drug Administration, intervened to make our automobiles safer by establishing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and acted to ensure job safety by establishing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.When new technology or industrial development has threatened public health and safety, the government has created new regulatory bodies to protect that health and safety.And according to public polling, while Americans may be largely dissatisfied with the federal government in broad terms, they still desire it to help keep the populace safe, including providing protection from unsafe products.The upshot is that Congress should establish a new regulatory body to evolve the guidance currently provided by CISA and presidential executive orders, coupled with oversight powers based on an expanded definition of critical software and hardware. What specifically defines critical here will of course need to be determined, but the current definition in use by CISA simply does not provide a sufficient scope to ensure Americas cybersecurity. The current patchwork of industry self-regulation -- with each federal department doing their best to oversee their respective industry areas -- leaves too many gaps and will not even scale to the challenges we already face.The new regulatory bodys charter should establish enforceable minimum standard security practices for private companies that are deemed critical to the nation. Those standards should go beyond CISAs currently used definition of critical infrastructure, which doesnotinclude companies essential to our everyday lives, such as Microsoft, Google, payment providers, and cybersecurity firms like CrowdStrike. Related:This new regulator will also need the power to audit companies against those standards, selectively publish findings publicly, share findings with other regulators such as the SEC, establish fines, and in egregious cases, be able to pull products from the market. These powers follow the established scope of current agencies, such as the FDA and NHTSA. Without these powers of regulation over essential software, any new agency will be reduced to providing guidance and our nation will continue to be at risk.As CISA is already under the Department of Homeland Security, the above could be accomplished either through expanding their jurisdiction and giving them the above powers and responsibilities, or through the establishment of a new agency.The need for robust cybersecurity regulation and oversight has become essential if we are to protect American citizens, companies, and governments from cyberattacks. Our unpredictable technological and geopolitical environments will demand no less.

Inhabitants of the Marshall Islandsa chain of coral atolls in the center of the Pacific Oceanrely on sea transportation for almost everything: moving people from one island to another, importing daily necessities from faraway nations, and exporting their local produce. For millennia they sailed largely in canoes, but much of their seafaring movement today involves big, bulky, diesel-fueled cargo ships that are heavy polluters. Theyre not alone, of course. Cargo shipping is responsible for about 3% of the worlds annual greenhouse-gas emissions, and at the current rate of growth, the global industry could account for 10% of emissions by 2050. Marshallese shipping represents just a drop in the ocean of global greenhouse-gas pollution; larger, more industrially developed countries are responsible for far more. But the islands have been disproportionately experiencing the consequences of human-made climate change: warming waters, more frequent extreme weather, and rising sea levels. All this has created a sense of urgency for people like Alson Kelen, who lives and works in Majuro, the islands capital. Hes the founder of Waan Ael, a Marshallese canoeing organization that is focused on keeping the regions ancient and more environmentally sustainable maritime traditions alive. In doing so, he hopes to help his nation fully decarbonize its fleets. Efforts include training local youths to build traditional Marshallese canoes (to replace small, motor-powered speedboats) and larger sailboats fitted with solar panels (to replace medium-size cargo ships). He was also an advisor on construction of the Juren Ae, a cargo sailboat (shown at right) inspired by traditional Marshallese vessels, which made its maiden voyage in 2024 and can carry 300 metric tons of cargo. The Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation hopes it offers a blueprint for cleaner cargo transportation across the Pacific; relative to a fuel-powered cargo ship, the vessel could decrease emissions by up to 80%. Its a beautiful big sister of our little canoes, says Kelen. Though hyperlocal, Kelens work is part of a global project from the International Maritime Organization to reduce emissions associated with cargo shipping to net zero by 2050. Beyond these tiny islands, much of the effort to meet the IMOs goals focuses on replacing gasoline with alternatives such as ammonia, methane, nuclear power, and hydrogen. And theres also what the Marshallese people have long relied on: wind power. Its just one option on the table, but the industry cannot decarbonize quickly enough to meet the IMOs goals without a role for wind propulsion, says Christiaan De Beukelaer, a political anthropologist and author of Trade Winds: A Voyage to a Sustainable Future for Shipping. If you take time into consideration, wind is indispensable, he says. Studies show that deploying wind power on vessels could lower the shipping industrys carbon dioxide emissions by 20%. What wind does is it effectively cuts out a few uncertainties, says De Beukelaervariables such as the fluctuation of fuel prices and the costs from any carbon pricing scheme the industry may adopt. The IMO is technology agnostic, meaning it sets the goals and safety standards but lets the market find the best ways to attain them. A spokesperson from the organization says wind propulsion is one of many avenues being explored. Sails can be used either to fully power a vessel or to supplement the motors as a way of reducing fuel consumption for large bulk carriers, oil tankers, and the roll-on/roll-off vessels used to transport airplanes and cars worldwide. Modern cargo sails come in several shapes, sizes, and styles, including wings, rotors, suction sails, and kites. If weve got five and a half thousand years of experience, isnt this just a no-brainer? says Gavin Allwright, secretary-general of the International Windship Association. Older cargo boats with new sails can use propulsive energy from the wind for up to 30% of their power, while cargo vessels designed specifically for wind could rely on it for up to 80% of their needs, says Allwright, who is still working on standardized measurement criteria to figure out which combination of ship and sail model is most efficient. There are so many variables involved, he saysfrom the size of the ship to the captain steering it. The 50th large vessel fitted with wind-harnessing tech set sail in October 2024, and he predicts that maritime wind power is set to boom by the beginning of 2026. COURTESY OF OCEANBIRD Hard wings One of the more popular designs for cargo ships is a rigid saila hard, winglike structure that is placed vertically on top of the vessel. Its very much like an airplane wing, says Niclas Dahl, managing director of Oceanbird, a Swedish company that develops these sails. Each one has a main and a flap, which creates a chamber where the wind speed is faster on the outside than the inside. In an aircraft, that discrepancy generates lift force, but in this case, says Dahl, it propels the ship forward. The wings are rigid, but they can be swiveled around and adjusted to capture the wind depending on where its coming from, and they can be folded and retracted close to the deck of the ship when it is nearing a dock. One of Oceanbirds sailsthe 40-meter-high, 14-meter-wide Wing 560, made of high-strength steel, glass fiber, and recycled polyethylene terephthalatecould help cargo ships reduce fuel use by up to 10% per trip, according to the companys calculations. Oceanbird is installing its first set of wings on a cargo vessel that transports cars, which was scheduled to be ready by the end of 2024. Oceanbird, though, is just one manufacturer; by late 2024, eight cargo vessels propelled by hard wings were cruising around the world, most of them generalized bulk carriers and oil tankers. COURTESY OF CARGOKITE Kites Other engineers and scientists are working to power cargo vessels with kites like those that propel paragliders. These kites are made from mixtures of UV-resistant polyester, and they are tethered to the ships bow and fly up to 200 to 300 meters above the ship, where they can make the best use of the constant winds at that altitude to basically tug the boat forward. To maximize lift, the kites are controlled by computers to operate in the sweet spot where wind is most constant. Studies show that a 400-square-meter kite can produce fuel savings of 9% to 15%. The main reason for us believing in kites is high-altitude winds, says Tim Linnenweber, cofounder of CargoKite, which designs micro cargo ships that can be powered this way. You basically have an increasing wind speed the higher you go, and so more consistent, more reliable, more steady winds. COURTESY OF BOUND4BLUE Suction sails Initially used for airplanes in the 1930s, suction sails were designed and tested on boats in the 1980s by the oceanographer and diving pioneer Jacques Cousteau. Suction sails are chubby metal sails that look something like rotors but more oval, with a pointed side. And instead of making the whole sail spin around, the motor turns on a fan on the inside of the sail that sucks in wind from the outside. Cristina Aleixendri, cofounder of Bound4Blue, a Spanish company building suction sails, explains that the vent pulls air in through lots of little holes in the shell of the sail and creates what physicists call a boundary layera thin layer of air blanketing the sail and thrusting it forward. Bound4Blues modern model generates 20% more thrust per square meter of sail than Cousteaus original design, says Aleixendri, and up to seven times more thrust than a conventional sail. Twelve ships fitted with a total of 26 suction sails are currently operating, ranging from fishing boats and oil tankers to roll-on/roll-off vessels. Bound4Blue is working on fitting six ships and has fitted four alreadyincluding one with the largest suction sail ever installed, at 22 meters tall. COURTESY OF NORSEPOWER Rotor sails In the 1920s, the German engineer Anton Flettner had a vision for a wind-powered ship that used vertical, revolving metal cylinders in place of traditional sails. In 1926, a vessel using his novel design, known as the Flettner rotor, crossed the Atlantic for the first time. Flettner rotors work thanks to the Magnus effect, a phenomenon that occurs when a spinning object moves through a fluid, causing a lift force that can deflect the objects path. With Flettners design, motors spin the cylinders around, and the pressure difference between the sides of the spinning object generates thrust forward, much like a soccer player bending the trajectory of a ball. In a modern upgrade of the rotor sail, designed by the Finnish company Norsepower, the cylinders can spin up to 300 times per minute. This produces 10 times more thrust power than a conventional sail. Norsepower has fitted 27 rotor sails on 14 ships out at sea so far, and six more ships equipped with rotor sails from other companies set sail in 2024. According to our calculations, the rotor sail is, at the moment, the most efficient wind-assistive power when you look at eurocent per kilowatt-hour, says Heikki Pntynen, Norsepowers CEO. Results from their vessels currently out at sea suggest that fuel savings are anywhere between 5% to 30% on the whole voyage. Sofia Quaglia is a freelance science journalist whose work has appeared in the New York Times, National Geographic, and New Scientist.

Elon Musk used his fortune and influence to help Donald Trump win reelection in November.The Tesla and SpaceX boss is now championing right-wing insurgents in Europe.He's called for a UK far-right agitator to be freed from prison and condemned the country's prime minister.Having tapped his vast personal wealth and marshaled his 210 million followers on X to help propel Donald Trump to election victory in November, Elon Musk has turned his gaze to European politics.Late Wednesday, Musk called in an X post for the release of Tommy Robinson, a British far-right agitator, saying he was in jail for "telling the truth." Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was jailed last year for breaching a court order not to repeat false claims about a refugee from Syria. Robinson was previously successfully sued for defamation over the claims.Musk then posted saying Britain should have an election the most recent one took place in July and claimed its government was reluctant to hold an inquiry into child sexual exploitation to protect the prime minister, Keir Starmer. He was the country's chief prosecutor when a series of high-profile court cases about gangs targeting children shook the nation.The posts are Musk's most aggressive intervention in European politics and follow months of commentary, particularly on events in the UK and Germany.On Tuesday, Musk told British voters to back Reform UK, a populist party led by Nigel Farage, a key figure in the UK's vote to leave the EU in 2016.The Tesla and SpaceX CEO who has embraced conservative stances on issues such as immigration, diversity, and transgender rights in recent years met with conservative firebrand Farage in mid-December at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.Farage later told the BBC that Musk was "fully, fully behind us" and open to donating to Reform UK if he could do so legally. The party has made no secret of its excitement about Musk and his potential donation, with Farage describing him as a "bloody hero" in a recent interview with the UK's Daily Telegraph.Musk has also been loudly critical of Starmer. In numerous X posts, he's called the country a "tyrannical police state" and suggested the nation was on the brink of civil war.The tech billionaire has also thrown his weight behind the German far-right party the AfD, which has come out strongly against immigration and echoed Trump in calling for mass deportations.The AfD currently holds around 10% of the seats in Germany's legislative body, the Bundestag, but has made significant gains in recent years, including coming second in this year's European Parliament elections.It is widely expected to win the second-highest share of votes in the Bundestag election in February and, like Reform UK, has welcomed Musk's support. Its candidate to become Germany's chancellor, Alice Weidel, said Musk was "perfectly right" when he said the party was the only one that could "save Germany" in an X post on December 20.Musk then championed the AfD in an op-ed published in German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag last weekend. The paper and Business Insider are both owned by Axel Springer.Musk wrote that years of misguided policies by the main political parties had led to "economic stagnation, social unrest, and the erosion of national identity," and the AfD represented the "last spark of hope" for the country. He justified his German political commentary by pointing to his "significant investments" in the country.Musk's Tesla Gigafactory just outside Berlin is the company's main European facility and employs close to 12,000 people. It produces components such as batteries, as well as completing the final assembly of the Tesla Model Y.The paper printed a response by its editor-in-chief-designate, Jan Philipp Burgard, on the same page as Musk's controversial column. Burgard wrote that "Musk's diagnosis is correct," but his claim that only the AfD can save Germany is "fatally flawed."Germany has accused Musk of meddling in its election Elon Musk hosted the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, at Tesla's Berlin Gigafactory in 2023. Christian Marquardt - Pool/Getty Images Before the op-ed, Musk's posts on X in support of the AfD prompted a government spokesperson to accuse him of attempting to meddle in the election, as first reported by Reuters.The spokesperson said that Musk was free to express his opinions, however said, "Freedom of opinion also covers the greatest nonsense."Friedrich Merz, the center-right Christian Democratic Union's candidate for chancellor, described Musk's backing of the AfD as "intrusive and pretentious.""I cannot recall in the history of Western democracies a comparable case of interference in the election campaign of a friendly country," he told the Funke media group.In his New Year's Eve message, Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck said Musk's support of the AfD was part of a "logical and systematic" campaign to weaken Europe and erode its regulatory system.Several of Musk's businesses, most notably Tesla, are subject to European regulations and stand to benefit from reduced oversight. Tesla's plans for fully self-driving cars face increased hurdles in Europe, where regulations on autonomous vehicles are more stringent.Musk has called Italy's leader a 'genius'Musk has also spoken fondly of Italy's right-wing prime minister, Giorgia Meloni. In September, he called her a "precious genius" who was "even more beautiful on the inside than she is on the outside."Meloni leads the Brothers of Italy party which has roots in the post-World War II neo-fascist Italian Social Movement. She came to power in 2022, standing on a platform of lower immigration, tighter border control, and traditional values. At the time, she was described as Italy's most right-wing leader since Benito Mussolini.Trump's agenda of tax cuts, tariffs, and deregulation promises to benefit his companies. Tesla's stock surged as soon as his victory was declared. But it's less obvious what Musk and his companies would gain from the rise of those he backs in Europe.Not only are AfD and Reform unlikely to form governments soon, both also have policies that could hurt Tesla.The AfD has previously opposed the extension of Tesla's German factory, while Reform has pledged to reverse a looming ban on the sale of gas and diesel cars in the UK, which is naturally set to benefit EV makers like Tesla.The AfD is polling in second place at 19%, more than the 12.6% it won at the last election in 2021. Musk posted to X Monday that it would win "an epic victory." Whether it makes predicted gains or not, it's unlikely to stop welcoming the support of the world's most outspoken billionaire.

The world's 10 wealthiest people added more than $500 billion to their combined fortunes in 2024.The top 20 gained $700 billion and ended the year with a total worth above $3 trillion.Elon Musk scored a huge $203 billion gain, but other tech bosses also notched up big rises.The richest people on the planet saw their fortunes surge in 2024 as the artificial intelligence boom, the Federal Reserve's interest rate cuts, Donald Trump's election victory, and a robust economic outlook helped the stock market to roar.The world's 10 wealthiest people grew more than $500 billion richer last year, boosting their combined net worth to just over $2 trillion not far off the $2.3 trillion market values of Amazon and Google owner Alphabet.Widen the lens to the top 20 names on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, and the total net worth jumped $700 billion to above $3 trillion by the year's end, rivaling Microsoft's $3.1 trillion market value.Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk led the pack with a $203 billion gain for the year, which lifted his personal fortune to $432 billion at the market close on December 31. His net worth briefly touched $486 billion a couple of weeks earlier after Tesla stock surged to a record high and SpaceX's valuation leaped to $350 billion. At that point, his year-to-date gain of $257 billion exceeded the entire net worth of Jeff Bezos, no.2 on the rich list.However, Musk wasn't the only one to notch huge wealth gains in 2024. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Nvidia boss Jensen Huang, Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison, and Bezos all grew between $60 billion and $80 billion wealthier as their respective companies surged in value.Other Big Tech luminaries scored big gains too with Michael Dell, the founder of the eponymous computer maker, adding $45 billion to his fortune. Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin added $42 billion and $38 billion to their respective fortunes.Tech leaders accounted for most of the wealth gains, but Walmart founder Sam Walton's three surviving heirs Jim, Alice, and Rob each grew more than $38 billion richer, thrusting the trio into the $100 billion club for the first time.Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate owes scores of businesses like Geico and huge stakes in public companies like Coca-Cola, also gained $22 billion and ended the year on $142 billion.Not everyone's a winnerThere were a few wealth losers among the uber-wealthy, however. LVMH founder and CEO Bernard Arnault saw his fortune shrink from over $230 billion at its peak in March to $176 billion by the end of December, sending him from first place to fifth.Indian industrialist Mukesh Ambani, Mexican telecoms mogul Carlos Slim, Indian infrastructure tycoon Gautam Adani, and L'Oral heiress Franoise Bettencourt Meyers all lost money last year by Bloomberg's estimates. Franoise Bettencourt Meyers pictured in 2010. MARTIN BUREAU/AFP via Getty Images The superrich mostly got wealthier because excited investors wagered the likes of Nvidia, Tesla, and Microsoft would post higher profits by playing key roles in the AI revolution.The Fed also made its first cuts to rates after hiking them to curb runaway inflation in 2022 and 2023. That has benefited stocks by making them relatively more appealing versus fixed-income assets such as government bonds, and could boost corporate profits by encouraging spending and borrowing.Trump's win in November pushed stocks higher too, as the former president had run on promises of pro-growth policies such as tax cuts and deregulation. Tesla in particular gained as investors bet Musk's close ties to the future president would benefit the automaker.

"Squid Game" season two has an emotional finale followed by a scene interrupting the credits.It is the first time the series has tried something like that.Here's what it teases for the third season.Warning: major spoilers ahead for "Squid Game" season two.The highly anticipated second season of "Squid Game" is out, and it ends with a chaotic and tragic finale.Season one was a surprise hit for Netflix when in 2021, becoming a global sensation through word-of-mouth and social media trends. Netflix hopes for the same success with the second season, which debuted in the middle of the holiday season.In season one, a group of people struggling with debt signed up for a competition where they played children's games to win a fortune.What they realize too late is that the losers of the games are killed, leaving only one survivor, Seong Gi-hun (Lee Jung-Jae), Player 456.At the end of season one, Gi-hun vows to stop the deadly competition, but his plan is foiled in season two, and he finds himself competing again.Gi-hun leads a revolution against the guards in the final episode Lee Jung-jae as Seong Gi-hun and Lee Seo-hwan as Park Jung-bae in "Squid Game" season two. Dong-won Han / NohJu Han He tries to unite the contestants against the game, but they mostly insist on playing, enticed by the prize money.In the finale, this boils over into a massacre when the players who want to continue the games attack those who want to leave.Gi-hun and his allies use that chaos to overwhelm the guards and start an uprising against the game makers. But the rebels are eventually cornered and defeated. Gi-hun survives, but his best friend, Park Jung-bae (Lee Seo-hwan), Player 390, is killed in front of him by the antagonist, Hwang In-ho (Lee Byung-hun), Player 001.Gi-hun will likely seek revenge in season three, though his spirit may be broken by his failure and the loss of his close friend.The post-credit scene teases one of the next games The Young-hee in "Squid Game" season one. Netflix After Jung-bae's death, the credits for the director and cast appear on-screen.Then, a small scene shows a group of players walking into a new game room. This room includes a train signal stand, a hanging doll resembling the Young-hee doll from "Red Light, Green Light," and a boy doll facing the first.Netflix confirmed on December 31 in an Instagram post that the doll is called Chul-su.In June 2022, Hwang Dong-hyuk said in a statement teasing season two that the show will introduce "Young-hee's boyfriend, Cheol-su." Netflix appears to have renamed the character.Young-hee and Chul-su are characters from old South Korean textbooks and are well-known as best friends.Chul-su is not assigned to a specific game, but the other signs in the scene may indicate that the game is somehow related to trains.

A Vox reader asks: Why is some soap labeled antibiotic? Is there a soap that is friendly to germs, viruses, etc.? I thought the whole idea was to get rid of germs and viruses.There really are too many varieties of soap out there. Too many brands, too many fragrances and colors, too many claims about their hand-softening, nail-beautifying, nostalgia-enhancing qualities to keep it all straight. And thats before you even consider whether a product actually gets rid of disease-causing microbes. If this seems like too much, youre not wrong; the market is overwhelming.You may be surprised to learn that most plain soap doesnt actually kill germs. Heres what it actually does: When combined with water, it surrounds germs in slippery globs that make them literally slide off your hands and down the drain. Not lethal to microbes, but still a pretty efficient way to clean them off your hands.Soap labeled as antimicrobial does more damage to microbes than just whisking them away it does actually murder them by breaking up the outer layers of bacterial or viral cells and causing them to spill out their guts. These soaps contain additional ingredients that are particularly effective at slicing up the fatty compounds in germs outer walls, exposing the tiny organ-like structures on their insides and rendering them dead. When it comes to getting rid of germs, it might seem that deadlier is better right? Not necessarily. Antimicrobial soaps are indeed better at lowering the amount of germs on a persons hands than plain soap but in most situations, the risks arent worth that benefit. One concern consumer safety experts at the Food and Drug Administration have had is that people who used certain antimicrobial soaps too often specifically, soaps that contain any of nearly two dozen antiseptics historically used in consumer cleaning and handwashing products might absorb some of those germ-killing ingredients into their bloodstreams. These chemicals tend to do the same thing to skin that they do to germs: break up the outer layers, causing damage and irritation. The FDA was worried specifically about triclosan and triclocarban, the most widely used of these antiseptics. Animal studies suggested they could be absorbed from the skin into the blood, where they could go on to have hormone-like effects on the thyroid and on sex hormones. For other antiseptics, there was no good data proving they didnt have these effects. The body of evidence raised questions about what might happen if a very zealous person took regular baths in a readily available antimicrobial soap.The FDA also worried using antimicrobial soaps too frequently could create more microscopic superbugs that are harder to kill with common antibiotics. This isnt just a theoretical concern: In one study, people who used a triclosan-containing antibacterial soap at home were more likely to have skin bacteria resistant both to the germ-killing ingredients in the soaps and to common oral antibiotics. Not great!The risks of antimicrobial soap so dramatically outweighed their benefits that in 2016, the FDA banned most germ-killing ingredients from consumer products. Why is some hand soap labeled antibiotic, but others arent? While they were conducting their review of antibiotic soaps, the FDA found that a handful of antimicrobials were actually safe enough to use at home: benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, and chloroxylenol. That doesnt mean they have an advantage over plain soap in preventing infections they dont. It just gives manufacturers permission to market them to you. You can still find these in soaps labeled antimicrobial or antibacterial on store shelves today. Manufacturers arent allowed to use those words to describe soap that doesnt contain these ingredients, so most soaps dont.Why havent germs evolved to resist plain hand soap?The key is in the killing, or lack thereof. Germs often develop immunity by chance: They mutate pretty often as they reproduce, and occasionally, those mutations will give a handful of germ babies a survival advantage. As an example, lets say your bacteria-eliminating weapon of choice is a blowtorch. Given the frequency of bacterial mutation, five out of 100 bacteria living happily on a tiny section of your skin might have a mutation that makes them resistant to blowtorching. So if you try to clean that skin by blowtorching those bugs, youll end up with five living, blowtorch-resistant germs each of which now has more space and resources to procreate and zero competition. Those elite germs will fill that space with their progeny, and the next time you want to clear that spot of bacteria, a blowtorch wont cut it: Every member of this new, stronger bacterial population is already blowtorch-resistant.Using a strategy that removes germs without killing them doesnt create the same environment for those lucky mutants to thrive, so they stay small in number. Thats one of the major reasons why using plain soap is better for most situations than antimicrobial soap.Is there anything better than soap?You didnt ask about alcohol, but Ill tell you this: Unless you have visibly dirty hands, or have norovirus or certain kinds of infectious diarrhea, alcohol-based sanitizers are a better choice than any soap. They dont get absorbed into the bloodstream through the skin. (Just dont inhale them!) They also kill bacteria and many viruses more reliably than even antibacterial soaps, in large part because we apply them in the same concentration every time we use them. (Soap gets diluted by water, so its harder to be sure people are getting the same ratio of soap to skin.) That means superbug evolution isnt a concern with these products.Alcohol-based hand sanitizer is so much better than soap that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually recommends sanitizer over antibacterial soap in most health care settings. One exception is before surgery: Because antibacterial soaps are still the best at removing bacteria from the skin just below the surface, surgeons still have to scrub with germ-killing soap and water before gloving and gowning up for surgery.This story was originally published in The Highlight, Voxs member-exclusive magazine. To get early access to member-exclusive stories every month, join the Vox Membership program today.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

If youve studied First Amendment law, its impossible not to experience dj vu while reading the briefs in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a Supreme Court case the justices will hear on January 15 about online pornography. Thats because the Texas law at the heart of Free Speech Coalition is in all relevant respects identical to a federal law the Supreme Court blocked in Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004). (That federal law was meant to keep minors from being able to view pornography, and the Texas law attempts to do the same, albeit through a slightly different mechanism.) If the justices take seriously some of the more aggressive arguments Texas makes to defend its law, they could eliminate longstanding free speech protections for sexual content. Even the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which upheld the Texas law, conceded that the two laws are very similar though the Fifth Circuit did, in an unusual act of defiance by a lower court, conclude that it was not bound by the Supreme Court precedent established in Ashcroft and was free to uphold the Texas law anyway. Its tempting, in other words, to dismiss Free Speech Coalition as an insignificant case that should end in the justices rebuking their insubordinate colleagues on the Fifth Circuit. That court has a history of handing down poorly reasoned opinions supporting right-wing results. And the Supreme Court, even with its 6-3 Republican supermajority, frequently reverses the Fifth Circuits most disruptive decisions.And yet, despite the Fifth Circuits weak reasoning and a poorly argued brief by the state of Texas defending its law, the state does make one plausible argument that the Court should tweak First Amendment law to make it less friendly to pornography producers.Free Speech Coalition involves a 2023 Texas law that requires many but not all websites that distribute pornographic content to verify that their users are over the age of 18. The plaintiffs, a trade association for the pornography industry along with various members of that industry, argues that this law forces adult users to incur severe privacy and security risks.Many adults, in other words, dont want to submit a picture of their drivers license to a porn site which could be hacked or subpoenaed, revealing intimate information about its users sexual desires.In Ashcroft, the Supreme Court ruled against a largely identical federal law, which made it a crime for businesses to post material online that is harmful to minors, but which also allowed those businesses to escape conviction if they took certain steps to verify the age of their consumers. There are some distinctions between the law at issue in Ashcroft and the Texas law at issue in Free Speech Coalition most notably, the Texas law only imposes civil, as opposed to criminal, penalties on violators but even the Fifth Circuit conceded that these distinctions do not change how Free Speech Coalition should be analyzed under the First Amendment.RelatedThe Trumpiest court in AmericaIn Ashcroft, a majority of the justices concluded that the government should have used less restrictive methods of keeping children away from porn sites, such as promoting blocking and filtering software that allows parents and teachers to prevent a particular computer from loading pornographic websites.Ashcroft is one of a line of First Amendment decisions establishing that the government typically may not prevent adults from seeing sexual content, even if the goal is to also prevent children from seeing the same material. Under this line of cases, laws that burden an adults access to nearly all sexual material must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling goal, which is why Ashcroft required the government to use the least burdensome method to restrict speech. Laws that burden constitutional rights such as the right to free speech are often subject to this narrow tailoring requirement, which is known as strict scrutiny. A law can fail strict scrutiny if it sweeps too broadly, imposing severe burdens on a constitutional right in return for relatively small benefits to society. But laws can also fail strict scrutiny if they are underinclusive, on the theory that a law with too many exceptions and loopholes can still limit constitutional rights without actually achieving a goal that could justify such a limitation.Texass brief defending its 2023 law suggests that the Ashcroft line of cases should be overruled, and that strict scrutiny should no longer apply to laws that seek to prevent children from seeing pornography, but that also restrict the First Amendment rights of adults. If the justices agree, that would give the government far more power to limit adults access to sexual content. A key element of Texass argument seems to be that more oversight is necessary given the breadth of pornography available the states brief is full of lurid descriptions of things like bondage and tentacle porn. Texass lawyers appear to believe they can coax the justices into supporting their favored result by bombarding them with graphic descriptions of online pornography.That said, Texas does make one good argument for allowing some laws restricting young people from viewing pornography to stand. Ashcroft is a 20-year-old decision, and Texas claims that, in the last two decades, new technologies have emerged that make it possible to verify that an internet user is over 18 without threatening that persons privacy or revealing any other information about them. If Texas is correct that this technology does exist, and that it can be fairly easily be used, then at least some laws requiring porn sites to bar underage users are constitutional. Thats because the kind of age-gating software that Texas describes in its brief would achieve the governments goal of preventing children from seeing online porn more effectively than the content-filtering software endorsed by Ashcroft, and it would do so while imposing only a minimal burden on adults who have a right to see pornography. So a law that requires age-gating may survive strict scrutiny today, even if it didnt in 2004 when technology was less advanced.A decision holding that the law may require pornographers to use this kind of secure, privacy-protecting age-gating software would be consistent with Ashcroft, and wouldnt require the Supreme Court to toss out its previous decisions establishing that adults may view sexual content an approach that Texas advocates for in much of its brief. Ashcroft, after all, did not rule that age-gating software is forbidden by the Constitution. It merely looked at the state of technology in 2004 and determined that content filtering was the best available option at that time.For much of American history, the courts largely ignored the First Amendments language barring laws abridging the freedom of speech. The federal Comstock Act, which has never been formally repealed, made it a crime to mail every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance, and many states had similar laws that extended beyond the mail. Artists, art dealers, booksellers, and others were arrested for producing or distributing sexual material that the government or even just a few particularly zealous government officials deemed too lascivious. In one 1883 case, an art gallery owner was convicted for selling reproductions of famous nude paintings, including Alexandre Cabanels masterpiece The Birth of Venus.Alexandre Cabernels The Birth of Venus. Public Domain via WikipediaBy the middle of the 20th century, however, the Supreme Court began to take the First Amendment seriously, handing down a series of decisions that gradually shrunk the definition of obscenity (a legal term that refers to sexual material that is not protected by the First Amendment) until virtually nothing qualified. Yet, while modern First Amendment law broadly permits artists, authors, and pornographers to provide sexual material of all kinds to adults, its also well established that the government may bar young people from accessing some content that adults have a right to see.Both Texas and the Fifth Circuit rely heavily on Ginsberg v. New York, a 1968 case holding that the government may restrict minors access to some sexual content. But the facts of this nearly 60-year-old case are very different from those in Free Speech Coalition or Ashcroft.Ginsberg upheld New Yorks prosecution of a lunch counter operator who sold two girlie magazines to a 16-year-old boy. This case, in other words, did not involve a law that prevented adults from seeing sexual material. Under the New York law at issue in that case, adults who wished to buy similar magazines could simply show their ID to prove they were of sufficient age, and they could do so without much worry that a hacker or government investigator would discover that they bought a magazine full of nude pictures.The Ashcroft line of cases, by contrast, all involve technologies that can widely broadcast sexual material in ways that make it difficult to check whether each consumer of that material is an adult. One 1989 case, for example, struck down a ban on dial-a-porn services, where callers could dial a phone number (and pay a fee) to hear a prerecorded, sexually explicit message.These decisions, moreover, established that laws which restrict adults access to sexual content generally must survive strict scrutiny, and they did so several years before Ashcroft applied this rule to the internet. In United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000), for example, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that effectively prohibited cable television stations from broadcasting pornography except between 10 pm and 6 am.Playboy could not possibly be clearer in holding that laws which prevent adults from seeing sexual material that they have a right to see must survive strict scrutiny even if those laws are intended to shield children from pornography. In the Courts words, even where speech is indecent and enters the home, the objective of shielding children does not suffice to support a blanket ban if the protection can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative.Ashcroft, in other words, was hardly a groundbreaking decision. It simply took the rule which had already been established in cases like Playboy, and applied it to the new context of online pornography. And yet, despite this long line of cases that all point in exactly one direction, the Fifth Circuit concluded that it could defy all of these cases. It did so largely by implying that the George W. Bush-era Justice Department was staffed by rank incompetents.According to the Fifth Circuit, the Ashcroft opinion contains startling omissions. Though the opinion held that the federal law at issue in that case would fail strict scrutiny, Ashcroft did not actually explain why strict scrutiny should apply to a law restricting online porn. The Fifth Circuit claimed that omission occurred because the Justice Department lawyers who litigated Ashcroft failed to make the argument that strict scrutiny should not apply (instead, they claimed that the law at issue in Ashcroft survived strict scrutiny). According to the Fifth Circuit, because the DOJ never argued against strict scrutiny, Ashcroft never actually established a legal rule requiring courts to apply strict scrutiny in similar cases.Its hard to know where to even begin with this argument. Lower courts are bound by Supreme Court decisions, even if they disagree with those decisions. Judges cannot refuse to follow Supreme Court cases because they think the lawyers who argued those cases did a bad job.In Ashcroft, moreover, there was a pretty obvious reason why the Justice Department decided not to argue against strict scrutiny. Playboy was decided in 2000, four years before Ashcroft was argued before the justices. So it was already settled law in 2004 that strict scrutiny applies to cases like Ashcroft.And, while the DOJ may have decided not to press the case against strict scrutiny in its Ashcroft briefing and arguments, one of the justices did. Justice Antonin Scalia published a dissenting opinion in Ashcroft which argued that his eight colleagues erred in subjecting [the federal anti-porn law] to strict scrutiny. So the justices who decided Ashcroft were hardly unaware of the arguments against strict scrutiny. Eight of them were simply unpersuaded by those arguments.So how should the Supreme Court handle Free Speech Coalition?The First Amendment issues presented by Free Speech Coalition are serious. And the question of whether technology has advanced to the point where it is possible both to shield minors from online pornography and ensure that adults can access any material they have a right to see is a difficult one that deserves a serious look by the federal courts.So its a shame that both the Fifth Circuits opinion and Texass brief are so poorly argued. Proponents of age-gating on porn sites deserve better advocates. They also deserve a more competently drafted law than the one at issue in Free Speech Coalition.The Texas law at issue in Free Speech Coalition appears to have been drafted without any input from a First Amendment lawyer. If Texas is correct that software can verify which consumers of online porn are adults without threatening their privacy, then the Supreme Court should uphold a properly crafted law requiring porn sites to use those services. But it should not uphold this Texas law.Thats because Texass law is not structured to survive strict scrutiny. Recall that strict scrutiny requires the courts to strike down laws that arent narrowly tailored to advance a compelling interest, and that this narrow tailoring requirement bars laws that are so underinclusive that they dont actually do much to advance that interest.Texass law mocks this narrow tailoring requirement by applying its restrictions on online pornography to only a small subset of websites where pornography appears. Specifically, the law applies only to a business that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material on an Internet website more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors.For starters, its unclear how, exactly, the law measures how much of a website is devoted to sexual material. Is this determined by looking at how many bytes of data are devoted to pornography? How many minutes of video? How many inches of screen space? But, even setting this vagueness concern aside, one of the main purposes of strict scrutinys narrow tailoring requirement is to block laws that burden constitutional rights without actually doing much to achieve the governments goals. The Texas laws one-third requirement means it would not actually block minors access to pornography, thus failing to achieve the states objective. As the Free Speech Coalition plaintiffs explain in their brief, the trial court which heard this case found that social media platforms like Instagram and Facebook contain material which is sexually explicit for minors, and sites like Reddit maintain entire communities and forums devoted to posting online pornography. So Texass law wont actually stop anyone from seeing online porn, it will just shift their porn consumption from Pornhub to Reddit.And so, even if age verification apps work as Texas says they do, this particular law still violates the First Amendment and should be struck down for failing to satisfy strict scrutiny. Should the Court decide to follow this path, which is the only path consistent with existing law, it could also make clear that a better-drafted law might survive strict scrutiny again, assuming that it is actually possible to construct age gates around online pornography without threatening the privacy of adults.In any event, there is no need to overrule decisions like Ashcroft, or to pretend those decisions can be ignored like the Fifth Circuit did, in order to uphold age-restrictive laws. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: