A not-very-successful robocall scheme Robocallers posing as FCC staff blocked after robocalling real FCC staff You can ignore robocalls from FCC "Fraud Prevention Team," which doesn't exist. Jon Brodkin Feb 5, 2025 2:05 pm | 16 Credit: Getty Images | PhonlamaiPhoto Credit: Getty Images | PhonlamaiPhoto Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreRobocallers posing as employees of the Federal Communications Commission made the mistake of trying to scam real employees of the FCC, the FCC announced yesterday. "On the night of February 6, 2024, and continuing into the morning of February 7, 2024, over a dozen FCC staff and some of their family members reported receiving calls on their personal and work telephone numbers," the FCC said.The calls used an artificial voice that said, "Hello [first name of recipient] you are receiving an automated call from the Federal Communications Commission notifying you the Fraud Prevention Team would like to speak with you. If you are available to speak now please press one. If you prefer to schedule a call back please press two."You may not be surprised to learn that the FCC does not have any "Fraud Prevention Team" like the one mentioned in the robocalls, and especially not one that demands Google gift cards in lieu of jail time."The FCC's Enforcement Bureau believes the purpose of the calls was to threaten, intimidate, and defraud," the agency said. "One recipient of an imposter call reported that they were ultimately connected to someone who 'demand[ed] that [they] pay the FCC $1,000 in Google gift cards to avoid jail time for [their] crimes against the state.'"The FCC said it does not "publish or otherwise share staff personal phone numbers" and that it "remains unclear how these individuals were targeted." Obviously, robocallers posing as FCC employees probably wouldn't intentionally place scam calls to real FCC employees. But FCC employees are just as likely to get robocalls as anyone else. This set of schemers apparently only made about 1,800 calls before their calling accounts were terminated.The FCC described the scheme yesterday when it announced a proposed fine of $4,492,500 against Telnyx, the voice service provider accused of carrying the robocalls. The FCC alleges that Telnyx violated "Know Your Customer (KYC)" rules by providing access to calling services without verifying the customers' identities. When contacted by Ars today, Telnyx denied the FCC's allegations and said it will contest the proposed fine.The MarioCop accountsThe robocalling scheme lasted two days. On February 6, 2024, Telnyx accepted two new customers calling themselves Christian Mitchell and Henry Walker, who provided street addresses in Toronto and email addresses with the domain name "mariocop123.com." The robocallers apparently used fake identities and paid for Telnyx service in Bitcoin.The Telnyx customers who placed the robocalls are referred to as "MarioCop accounts" in the FCC's Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) issued against Telnyx. Telnyx flagged one of the accounts in the course of its "routine examination of new users" and terminated the account on February 7 after determining the calls violated its terms and conditions and acceptable use policy. Telnyx also reported the account to the FCC.Telnyx is based in Chicago. It offers a service that lets callers "build a custom AI voice bot" and a voice API that "makes it simple to make, receive and control voice calls with code." Telnyx is also a VoIP provider that says it "holds carrier status in 30+ countries around the world" and offers "local calling in over 80 countries and PSTN [Public Switched Telephone Network] replacement in 45+ markets."The FCC subpoenaed Telnyx for information about the calls, and the resulting records showed that one MarioCop account placed 1,029 calls between February 6 and February 7. The other account placed 768 calls on February 6.The FCC also subpoenaed Telnyx for information that might identify the callers and "determined that the very limited identifying information Telnyx collected from its customers was false." They used physical addresses in Canada, including one that turned out to be a Sheraton hotel, and IP addresses from Scotland and England."The @mariocop123.com domain is not associated with any known business; a website using the same domain was created in February 2024 and remains undeveloped," the FCC said. The FCC notes that both MarioCop accounts may have been operated by the same person.FCC: Telcos must know their customersTelnyx "accepted the names and physical addresses at face value, without any further requests for corroboration or independent verification," the FCC forfeiture order said. Neither applicant provided a telephone number.The FCC alleged that Telnyx didn't do enough "to discern whether the limited amount of identifying information its customer provided was legitimate and it overlooked obvious discrepancies in the information it collected... Becoming Telynyx's customer and gaining access to outbound calling services that allowed origination of hundreds of calls (more than 1,000 calls from the First MarioCop Account) was as simple as making up a fake name and address and acquiring a non-free email address."The FCC notice continued:Our rules require Telnyx to know its customers. Yet it did not know who the MarioCop Account holders were. We therefore conclude that Telnyx apparently violated section 64.1200(n)(4) of our rules by allowing the First MarioCop Account and the Second MarioCop Account access to outbound calling services without actually knowing the true identities of the account holders. By extension, we believe we could likely find that Telnyx apparently violated our rules with regards to every customer it onboarded using the same process as it did for the MarioCop Accounts. We decline to do so here absent further investigation.Telnyx will have an opportunity to respond to the allegations and argue that it shouldn't be fined. In some cases, the FCC and the telecom reach a settlement for a lower amount.Telnyx CEO David Casem told Ars today that "Telnyx is surprised by the FCC's mistaken decision to issue a Notice of Apparent Liability stating an intent to impose monetary penalties. The Notice of Apparent Liability is factually mistaken, and Telnyx denies its allegations. Telnyx has done everything and more than the FCC has required for Know-Your-Customer ('KYC') and customer due diligence procedures."We also sent a message to the email addresses used by the MarioCop accounts and will update this article in the unlikely event that we receive a response.Telnyx defends response, citing quick shutdownCasem said the FCC hasn't previously demanded "perfection" in stopping illegal traffic. "Since bad actors continuously find ways to avoid detection, the FCC has historically expected providers to take reasonable steps to detect and block them," he told Ars. "Yet the FCC now seeks to impose substantial monetary penalties on Telnyx for limited unlawful calling activity that Telnyx not only did not originate but swiftly blocked within a matter of hours."Casem said that "there has been no allegation of subsequent recurring activity" and urged the FCC to "reconsider what can only be viewed as an improper effort to impose an unprecedented zero-tolerance requirement on providers through enforcement action, in the absence of any defined rules informing providers what is expected of them."FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said in yesterday's announcement that he is pleased with the "bipartisan vote in favor of this nearly $4.5 million proposed fine" and that it "continues the FCC's longstanding work to stop bad actors."Anna Gomez, a Democratic member of the FCC, said that Carr's office accepted her request for a change designed to encourage telecoms to report potential violations to the FCC. "It is important that service providers work quickly and closely with the FCC to identify and stop illegal traffic before it makes its way to consumers. I value self-reporting from industry actors on potential violations of our rules, and I am grateful the Office of Chairman Carr accepted our edits to this NAL to encourage self-reporting," Gomez said.There was a dissenting vote from Republican Commissioner Nathan Simington, but not because of the facts specific to this case. Because of a recent Supreme Court ruling limiting the power of federal agencies, Simington has vowed to vote against any fine imposed by the commission until its legal powers are clear."While the conduct described in this NAL is particularly egregious and certainly worth enforcement action, I continue to believe that the Supreme Court's decision in Jarkesy prevents me from voting, at this time, to approve this or any item purporting to impose a fine," Simington said.Jon BrodkinSenior IT ReporterJon BrodkinSenior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 16 Comments

1,2,3,4,5,7,6 Polestar CEO says the brands tech makes the US a great market for us Polestar is bringing ahead its compact SUV, the Polestar 7. Jonathan M. Gitlin Feb 5, 2025 1:45 pm | 6 Polestar made this Polestar 4 Arctic Circle (and matching Polestar 2 and 3s) for a recent ice race in Austria. Credit: Polestar Polestar made this Polestar 4 Arctic Circle (and matching Polestar 2 and 3s) for a recent ice race in Austria. Credit: Polestar Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreIn a move that will no doubt upset some of the more... orderly minded out there, Polestar is temporarily deviating from its otherwise most logical naming convention. Instead of giving its cars numbers based on some theoretical measurement of performance or their position in the showroom hierarchy, the numbers are chronological. Polestar 1 was the first, then Polestar 2, and so on.That remains true for the last couple of Polestars we drovethe big Polestar 3 SUV and the slightly smaller, slightly cheaper, Porsche Macan-rivaling Polestar 4. And later this year we should see the Polestar 5. But then it will jump to the Polestar 7, a new compact SUV, which undoubtedly has more sales potential than the drop-top Polestar 6 two-seater, no matter how sharp that car might end up looking."I brought in and changed the sequence, because I wanted to bring in the Polestar 7 because I think it's an important car," explained Michael Lohscheller, who became Polestar's CEO last fall.A new compact SUV doesn't mean the end of the fastback Polestar 2, thankfully. "The answer is no. Polestar 2 is very well established, I think it's very successful for a young brand like Polestar. It has 170,000 cars on the road. There are people who like this limousine, but I want to broaden a little bit the Polestar brand, right? And that's why this compact SUV is a key point. Because the compact SUV is just a big segment. It is the fastest growing segment in the world," Lohscheller said.Being an EV-only brand in 2025 looks to be a harder job than once anticipated, and for Polestar that's doubly hard given the company is owned by China's Geely, and therefore highly exposed to a string of recent protectionist moves by the US Congress and successive administrations to limit US exposure to Chinese automakers and their suppliers.Lohscheller didn't sound particularly pessimistic when we spoke earlier this week, though. "The US in general is a big market in terms of size. I think customers like emission-free mobility. They like also technology. And I think Polestar is much more than just [an] EV. We have so much technology in the cars," he said.Referring to the Polestar 3, "It's the first European Software Defined vehicle, right? So not only can we do the over-the-air bit, we can make the car better every day. And I mean, the German OEMs come probably in four years' time," Lohscheller said.As for the new landscape of tariffs and software bans? "I always think it's important to have clarity on things," he said. Now that the impending ban on Chinese connected-car software is on the books, Polestar has begun looking for new suppliers for its US-bound cars to ensure they're compliant when it goes into effect sometime next year."But our US strategy is very clear. We manufacture locally here. That makes a lot of sense. I think we have great products for the US market... I see a renaissance of the dealers. Many people are saying 'direct [sales] is the way to go, that's the solution of everything.' I don't think it is. It is an option, an alternative, but I think dealers, being close to your customers, offer the service, and we have an excellent network here," he said.Jonathan M. GitlinAutomotive EditorJonathan M. GitlinAutomotive Editor Jonathan is the Automotive Editor at Ars Technica. He has a BSc and PhD in Pharmacology. In 2014 he decided to indulge his lifelong passion for the car by leaving the National Human Genome Research Institute and launching Ars Technica's automotive coverage. He lives in Washington, DC. 6 Comments

Vegavis iaai was an ancient relative of ducks and geese, but it dived for fish like grebes or loonsMark WittonA 69-million-year-old skull found in Antarctica has been identified as a relative of geese and ducks, making it the oldest known modern bird.It belongs to a species that was first identified two decades ago named Vegavis iaai, which lived in the late Cretaceous Period alongside the last dinosaurs. But because only fragments of skulls had been found previously, scientists had been unable to agree what kind of bird it was or whether it was instead a bird-like, non-avian dinosaur. AdvertisementThe fossil skull was discovered in 2011 on Vega Island, off the Antarctic Peninsula. However, it was encased in rock so hard that excavators had to spend hundreds of hours chipping away at the surrounding stone before it could be scanned to reveal its internal details.Patrick OConnor at Ohio University, who worked on the analysis, says two features of the almost complete skull only ever occur in modern birds. First, the upper beak is primarily comprised of a bone called the premaxilla, while a second bone, the maxilla, is greatly reduced in size and contributes to only a small portion of the bony palate.Second, in modern birds, the forebrain is massive relative to the rest of the brain; in pre-modern birds and near-bird dinosaurs like Velociraptor, these areas are proportionally much smaller. Unmissable news about our planet delivered straight to your inbox every month.Sign up to newsletterWhile Vegavis has features that clearly mark it as being in the same group of waterfowl as ducks and geese, it would have looked very different, says OConnor. The birds beak shape, jaw musculature and hind limbs suggest it was highly specialised for diving in pursuit of fish.It would probably be easily mistaken for modern grebes or loons, which are only distantly related to ducks and to each other, he says.Jacqueline Nguyen at the Australian Museum in Sydney says this ancient species has been subject to a lot of debate among avian evolutionary scientists, but the new research helps settle the argument.Together, [the evidence] suggests that Vegavis looked and foraged quite differently from its duck and geese relatives, and that this may have been an evolutionary experiment in the early history of this group of birds, she says.Journal reference:Nature DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-08390-0Topics:

An indoor cannabis farm in CaliforniaShutterstock/Liudi HaraIndoor cannabis cultivation in the US uses more energy than all outdoor agriculture in the country combined. This generates a large and growing emissions footprint that often goes unrecognised.Consumers are led to believe that this is natures medicine and that its green in every sense of the word, says Evan Mills at Energy Associates, a consultancy in California. Theres lots of greenwashing.More than 60 per cent of the 24,000 tonnes of cannabis grown

Google's new AI guidelines removed a promise not to use AI for weapons or surveillance.Some employees have been reacting on the company's internal message board.Google said it's important for businesses and governments to work together for "national security."After Google retracted its promise not to use artificial intelligence for weapons or surveillance, some employees posted their reactions on the company's internal message board.The company said on Tuesday that it had updated its ethical AI guidelines, which lay out how Google will and won't deploy its technology. The new version removed wording that previously vowed Google would not use AI to build weapons, surveillance tools, or "technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm."Several Google employees expressed dismay at the change on the company's internal message board, Memegen, according to posts shared with Business Insider.One meme showed CEO Sundar Pichai querying Google's search engine for "how to become weapons contractor?"Another employee riffed on a popular meme of an actor dressed as a Nazi soldier in a TV comedy sketch. "Google lifts a ban on using its AI for weapons and surveillance," it read. "Are we the baddies?"Another post showed Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory asking why Google would drop its red line for weapons before seeing media reports about Google working more closely with defense customers, including the Pentagon, and responding, "Oh, that's why."These are memes shared by just a handful of Google staff. The company has over 180,000 employees, so these comments reflect a fraction of the workforce. Some Googlers may support tech companies working more closely with defense customers and the US government.In recent years, there's been a shift among some tech companies and startups toward offering more of their technology, including AI tools, for defense purposes.While Google did not directly acknowledge the removal of the wording, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis and SVP for Technology and Society James Manyika co-authored a blog post on Tuesday in which they described an "increasingly complex geopolitical landscape" and said it was important for businesses and governments to work together in the interest of "national security.""We believe democracies should lead in AI development, guided by core values like freedom, equality, and respect for human rights," they wrote in the blog post. "And we believe that companies, governments, and organizations sharing these values should work together to create AI that protects people, promotes global growth, and supports national security."Reached for comment, a Google spokesperson pointed BI to the company's Tuesday blog post.In 2018, Google employees protested a program between the company and the Pentagon that used Google's AI for warfare. The company abandoned the contract and laid out a set of AI principles that included examples of things the company would not pursue, explicitly mentioning "weapons" and surveillance tools.While the blog post about the 2018 principles is still live, it now includes a link at the top pointing users to the updated guidelines.Google's decision to draw red lines around weaponry has left it out of military deals signed by other tech giants, including Amazon and Microsoft. Huge strides in AI have been made since 2018, and theUS is now competing with China and other countries for supremacy in the technology.Are you a current or former Google employee with more to share? You can reach this reporter using the secure messaging app (+1 628-228-1836) or secure email (). We can keep you anonymous.

Novelty prop bets around the Super Bowl are centering on Taylor Swift this year.Many of these bets are on unregulated sites, since it's generally not legal to offer them in the US.Legal US betting apps are getting in on the action in other ways, including with "Swiftie Specials."Will Travis Kelce propose to Taylor Swift on the field after the Super Bowl? Will Swift take the stage during halftime?With the Kansas City Chiefs in the Super Bowl and Swift expected to be in the audience, many novelty prop bets this year are centering on the megastar. Gamblers are betting on everything from how many times Swift will appear during the broadcast to what she'll wear.These bets are happening, for the most part, on offshore platforms sites like Bovada and BetOnline that are unregulated and can't operate legally in the US.While sports betting is legal in more than 30 US states, regulators have strict rules on what Americans can wager on. Prop bets or wagers on outcomes other than who will win or lose a game are generally limited to the action in a sporting event and events with definitive outcomes. The limitations vary by state.But legal gambling operators in the US don't want to miss out entirely. While they can't craft bets around Swift's actions, they are trying to pull her into prop bets focused on star players.DraftKings, for instance, has a menu of over 30 "Swiftie Specials." These are typical prop bets but are named after Swift songs. They include the "Shake It Off," which has the Philadelphia Eagles scoring first and the Chiefs to win. "Mine" bets Kelce will get 87 or more receiving yards and score one or more touchdowns. The "I Knew You Were Trouble" wagers that Eagles running back Saquon Barkley will get 250 or more rush and receiving yards. And "Deja Vu" has the Chiefs winning by exactly three points."We're seeing a lot of interest on the Taylor Swift-related special, so we're very excited to roll those out," DraftKings CMO Stephanie Sherman told Business Insider.Betting operator Bet365 has similar offerings, including the "1989" on Kelce to have a reception for 19 or more yards and 89 or more receiving yards, as well as the "22" on the Chiefs tight end to record a record 22-plus receiving yards in each half.In North American markets like Ontario, Canada, where the restrictions are a little more lax, operators like FanDuel and BetMGM legally can and are offering bets on whether Kelce will propose on the field, too."If there's an opportunity to leverage her fame and her involvement with Kelce and the Kansas City Chiefs and her being at the game and being part of the broadcast, I think people are going to try to pull this off," Jason Logan, senior analyst at the gambling affiliate site Covers.com, told BI.Why you can't legally bet on a Kelce-Swift proposal in the USThe restrictions against many types of prop bets in the US are largely set up to prevent markets from being manipulated. For example, members of Swift's inner circle might be privy to what the artist plans to wear to the game."That's the nightmare scenario for gaming control boards," Logan said. "Someone knows that information and can leverage it to manipulate the markets."That's why legal operators like DraftKings or FanDuel can't offer bets in the US on whether Swift will appear onstage with Kendrick Lamar during halftime, for example.Swift isn't the sole focus of this Super Bowl's novelty prop bets. Gambling operators are also taking wagers in some US states on the coin toss, which is related to the action in a game and has a definitive outcome. Other novelty bets available legally in places like Ontario and offered by some offshore sites include how long the national anthem will run and the color of the Gatorade bath.The American Gaming Association estimates that Americans will wager a record $1.4 billion legally on Super Bowl LIX. Some analysts have pegged the figure even higher, at around $1.7 billion.With that much at stake, it's easy to see why companies like DraftKings are chasing Swifties this year. The star has helped bring in a new fan base for the NFL since she began dating Kelce and showing up to support him at games. Last year, a 24% spike in 18-to-24-year-old women viewers helped drive a record 123.7 million average viewers for the Super Bowl, Sportico reported, citing Nielsen data.Betting apps want a piece of that pie."They're trying to leverage that interest, the cross-the-aisle interest, bringing in fans that might not be big football fans," Logan said.

2025 might already be Kendrick Lamars year. Its a familiar story for the Pulitzer-Prize winning rapper, whos received dozens of accolades in his career and dominated pop culture in 2024 thanks to a now-iconic feud with Drake. But the new year is off to an even stronger start. Over the weekend, he picked up five Grammys for his massive diss track Not Like Us, including Record of the Year and Song of the Year. The star-studded audience, including Beyonc and Taylor Swift, were particularly enthusiastic about Lamars victories. As he walked onstage to receive the Record of the Year Grammy in a seemingly intentional all-denim outfit known as a Canadian tuxedo, you could hear the crowd rap along to the song as it played throughout the arena. The entire moment was a nice boost for the months-old diss track and a reminder of Lamars import leading up to the biggest gig of his career this weekend: headlining the Super Bowl LIX halftime show. This wont be Lamars first time on the NFLs big broadcast. In 2022, he appeared in the halftime shows first-ever hip-hop lineup, alongside Dr. Dre, 50 Cent, Snoop Dogg, Eminem, and Mary J. Blige, where he performed his 2015 political anthem Alright. Lamars segment was a standout in a rather chaotic medley, due to his energetic stage presence and poignant visuals. Even with the halftime shows mediocre track record with rap, it felt inevitable that he would grace the telecast again at some point. Lamar arguably couldve taken on the show by himself years ago. However, Not Like Us provided the perfect moment of organic enthusiasm and renewed respect for the critically acclaimed artist. Still, his coming performance brings up a number of questions, from what happened to his previous concerns about the NFL to if hell even be able to play his hit song, which is currently the subject of a defamation lawsuit.Here are five questions you might have about this years highly anticipated Super Bowl headliner and what may or may not go down on Sunday, answered to the best of our ability.Why is Lamars halftime show such a big deal?Lamars Super Bowl halftime show will most likely be historic for quite a few reasons, but a big one is that hes the first solo rap act to headline the show in the broadcasts almost 60-year history. The music segment has certainly evolved since the early days of hosting college marching bands and the unsettling, feel-good dance group Up With People, now welcoming contemporary pop acts from Lady Gaga to The Weeknd. However, the NFL has been more hesitant to fully embrace rap, despite it being one of the most popular genres of music in the world. Even with its diverse talent, the show has historically catered to or at least made decisions based on its largely white viewership with inoffensive, apolitical artists. That said, when obscene moments like Justin Timberlake exposing Janet Jacksons nipple in 2004 and political messaging like Beyonc honoring the Black Panther Party in 2016 have occurred on the halftime show, NFL viewers and the league itself have responded in histrionic ways. In addition to the wave of backlash from conservative media, the Federal Communications Commission received numerous complaints about Beyoncs Formation performance. Meanwhile, the NFL sued musician M.I.A. for $16 million in restitution after she extended her middle finger during Madonnas halftime show in 2012. Eminem, Dr. Dre, Kendrick Lamar, Mary J. Blige, Snoop Dogg, and 50 Cent perform during the 2022 halftime show. Kevin C. Cox/Getty ImagesWhile rappers like Nelly, Big Boi, and Nicki Minaj have appeared in a guest capacity, it wasnt until 2022 that hip-hop dominated the stage. Its a decision that seemingly wouldnt have happened if not for a recent partnership between the NFL and Jay-Zs Roc Nation Entertainment. Since 2020, Roc Nation has co-produced the halftime show with a notably diverse mix of guests, including Jennifer Lopez and Shakira, Rihanna, and, most recently, Usher. That said, Lamars headlining might just normalize more hip-hop acts getting booked for the show. Why is Lamar getting a halftime show now? 2024 was an unexpected moment of hypervisibility for Lamar, thanks to a highly publicized beef with Drake. While Lamar had been sneak-dissing Drake for nearly a decade, taking shots at his fake rap persona to his alleged habit of using ghostwriters, Lamars guest verse of the Future and Metro Boomin song Like That made his self-proclaimed hatred for the Canadian rapper known in a way it hadnt been before. The relatively tame F the Big 3 bar on the track kicked off a weeks-long back-and-forth between Drake, Lamar and an entire Avengers-like ensemble of Drakes industry adversaries. However, it was Lamars catchy, Mustard-produced Not Like Us that rose to the top of a litany of diss tracks. The song, where Lamar calls Drake a certified pedophile and claims he should be placed on neighborhood watch, initially felt a bit uncomfortable to listen to, particularly following the domestic abuse allegations Drake had made against Lamar on another diss track. Over time, though, Not Like Us has become an ode to Black LA culture, a go-to club banger, and even an international protest song. Later in November 2024, Lamar released his sixth album, GNX, which debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard charts. The album didnt feature Not Like Us, but still produced several hit singles, including squabble up, which reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, and the SZA-featured song, luther, which peaked at No. 3. Will Lamar get political? About a decade ago, it was a much safer bet that a Kendrick Lamar halftime show would feature some sort of political statement or imagery. Since becoming a known face in rap, Lamar has voiced pro-Black, anti-establishment opinions to the anger of conservatives and Fox News anchors. In particular, his 2015 album To Pimp a Butterfly, which featured singles Alright and The Blacker the Berry, made him a symbol for the Black Lives Matter movement the former song becoming a rallying cry against police brutality. That era also established Lamar as a provocative and politically charged live act. In his performance of Alright at the 2015 BET Awards, Lamar rapped on top of a cop car with a giant American flag waving behind him. It also included a snippet of a Fox News segment criticizing the anti-cop lyrics in the song. At the 2016 Grammys, he performed a medley from To Pimp a Butterfly, appearing with a group of Black men in shackles and prisoner outfits. Kendrick Lamar performing during the 2016 Grammys. Kevork Djansezian/Getty ImagesOver time, though, Lamar has seemed less interested in playing the role of a political mascot. On his 2021 collaboration with Baby Keem, Family Ties, Lamar rebukes his former activist label, saying, I been duckin the social gimmick / I been duckin the overnight activists / Im not a trending topic, Im a prophet. Recently, his output has been characterized more by pettiness and a sense of personal triumph than politics, as seen through the Not Like Us/GNX era.It was clear that he had resigned from a more radical position when he performed at the halftime show in 2022. In 2017, the rapper, along with many of his peers, expressed support for free-agent quarterback Colin Kaepernick after the NFL player claimed that he had been blackballed by the league for kneeling during the National Anthem. While Lamar never actively boycotted the NFL or the halftime show in solidarity with Kaepernick, his embrace of the platform speaks to a watered-down approach to politics in the latter part of his career, more focused on representation than calling out institutions. With this headlining gig, many would argue that Lamar, along with Jay-Z, are merely providing a PR cleanup for the NFL and their historical mistreatment of Black players. On top of that, the Super Bowl halftime show is not typically a platform to broadcast revolutionary messages. Although previous performers like Jennifer Lopez and Eminem have been allowed to make political statements during the segment, creating the appearance that the NFL is actually tolerant of political dissent, these havent exactly been table-shaking sentiments. Meanwhile, the NFL is removing its End Racism messaging from the Super Bowl end zone for the first time since it was added in 2021. Still, perhaps another Trump administration will inspire the sort of attention-grabbing stunts that defined the To Pimp a Butterfly era. On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that President Donald Trump would be attending the Super Bowl, making him the first sitting president to do so. If Lamar performs Alright in front of the president which he most likely will it will certainly be received as a powerful statement. Will Lamar even be allowed to play Not Like Us?While it seems like a no-brainer that Lamar would perform Not Like Us, the song is the subject of a lawsuit brought on by Drake that has made performing the song publicly, let alone on the most-watched telecast, a little complicated. On January 15, Drake filed a lawsuit against the record label, Universal Music Group, to which he and Lamar are both signed under different divisions, for defamation regarding the lyrics in Not Like Us. He filed the suit a day after he withdrew a petition he filed in in November accusing UMG and Spotify of artificially inflating the popularity of the diss track, as well as participating in a pay-for-play scheme with iHeartRadio. The defamation suit claims that the allegations in the song specifically, the certified pedophile line have put Drake and his family in danger. The suit references an incident on May 7, 2024, a few days after the song was released, when an armed group drove to Drakes Toronto home and at least one person with a gun allegedly shot a security guard. The suit lists two other break-in attempts at Drakes home over the following two days. Drake at a Toronto Raptors and Oklahoma City Thunder game on December 5, 2024. Andrew Lahodynskyj/Getty ImagesNotably, though, Drake is suing UMG for its promotion of the song not Lamar for making it. That said, the risk of Lamar getting in trouble for performing the already widely played song is pretty low, according to First Amendment litigator Ken White. Still, that doesnt mean its an easy choice White told the Los Angeles Times last month that other parties, like the NFL and Fox, who are helping to publish what [Lamar] says could potentially be brought into the legal saga if hes allowed to perform it. If I were an in-house counsel, Id be telling them not to do it, he said. Well see on Sunday whether keeping the Grammy-winning song off the setlist or courting defamation charges is a bigger risk. Will there be any other guests? The slate of peers, mentors, and collaborators Lamar possibly could invite onstage during his halftime show is pretty vast. Back in August, he hosted the Amazon live concert called The Pop-Out: Ken and Friends, where he celebrated the West Coast hip-hop community by bringing a slew of local artists including some of his former Top Dawg Entertainment labelmates dancers, and even gang members onstage. Likewise, an appearance from mentor Dr. Dre, who he gave a shoutout to while accepting Record of the Year, seems likely. It also wouldnt be a surprise if he brought out krumping innovator Tommy the Clown, who, along with his crew of dancers, appears in the Not Like Us music video. Still, so far, Lamars former labelmate SZA is the only artist confirmed to join the halftime show. The two have a history of collaborations as TDEss premier flagship artists, including the Oscar-nominated song All of the Stars from the Black Panther soundtrack and luther. Theyre also about to embark on their recently announced a nationwide stadium tour beginning in April. The halftime show obviously serves as an ideal promotional vehicle.See More:

Welcome to Know-It-All. In the age of information overload and so many things to care about, Vox experts explain what you need to know to get into a particular corner of culture.I dont want to sound like too much of an expert, but this past weekend, something big and weird happened in the world of basketball. As someone who doesnt pay all that much attention to sports, stories from that world only cross my radar when no one can stop talking about them. But as a gossip, I really love mess. If youre like me, you might notice that the discussion youre overhearing about the Dallas Mavericks trading star Luka Doni to the Los Angeles Lakers on February 1 has been confusing, emotional, and seemingly very, very juicy. Angry fans? Bad business deals? What is going on here?To better understand why so many people have strong opinions and wild theories about a tall Slovenian man and a billionaire power broker named Miriam, I asked a self-made expert, Vox senior correspondent and big, big basketball fan Dylan Scott to break it all down for us. Dylan, why are all our coworkers talking about someone named Luka?Luka Doni, one of the best young professional basketball players in the world, was traded from the Dallas Mavericks, where he had been a star player for six seasons, to the Los Angeles Lakers. It is hard to capture in words how shocking this was even for people who follow the league closely. Hell, even for people in the league. I can send you multiple quotes of players saying they dont understand how this could have happened. Were all prone to hyperbole after a big story breaks, but you could easily make the argument that its the most surprising transaction in the history of the NBA. I saw the news when I was about to go to bed on Saturday night and stayed up for another two hours scrolling Reddit and I dont even root for these teams!Is it really all that weird to trade a player?Its not weird to trade a player. That happens all the time. Its weird to trade a player like Luka Doni.Okay, speed round: Luka was a teenage phenomenon in Europes professional league before he came to the NBA. Dallas acquired him with the third pick in the 2018 draft. (That is a whole other story, but we cant get into it now.)Luka Doni, playing for the Mavs. Getty ImagesHe quickly became one of the best offensive players in the league and is now probably the second-best. He won Rookie of the Year in his first season. Every year after that, he has made the All-NBA First Team, meaning he was one of the five best players in the league. Last year, he averaged the most points per game of any player.But wait, theres more. He is especially good in the playoffs. Last year, even with an injury, he led the Mavericks to the NBA Finals. They lost, but Luka is still only 25 years old. Most NBA players reach the peak of their powers in their late 20s. The future looked so bright. Most other teams are desperately searching for their own Luka Doni. So it was and remains mystifying why the Mavericks would give him up.What is the team leadership doing here?Okay, you want to trade Luka Doni. Weird choice, but okay. So youre definitely going to get as many good players and/or draft picks as you can for him, right? If youre giving up your best player, you want to give yourself the tools to be good again in the future.Instead, the Mavericks got one excellent player who is seven years older than Luka and may not have too many great seasons left (Anthony Davis), one somewhat promising young player, and one draft pick. That is not much compared to previous blockbuster NBA trades. The Mavericks leadership has openly admitted they did not ask a bunch of teams for their best offers. They talked to the Lakers. This is not how you do business in the NBA or, uh, anywhere else.Its very confusing and lends itself to all kinds of speculation. Some people think the Mavs were sincerely worried about Lukas health because he got hurt this year (though he has been a very durable player up until now). Some think he had a personality clash with the coach or other senior officials. A select few even think the Mavs could be better without him.But the most interesting explanations that Ive read have come from people like long-time NBA reporter Henry Abbott, who covers the league with a scrutiny that corporate outlets often dont. Its still hard to be sure were all guessing here but it seems to me the basic story would be: The Mavericks ownership didnt want to keep paying Luka hundreds of millions of dollars, because they dont really care that much if the team is good. But they also knew the fans would be furious if they openly shopped their best player. So they did a deal quickly and quietly to minimize any blowback that could stop it before it was completed and, frankly, they just dont mind that a bunch of fans are mad and say they will never watch again now that the trade is done, especially if the blame ends up being placed primarily on the general manager, Nico Harrison. Theyre not really that interested in keeping Mavs fans happy or trying to win a championship. Thats not why the franchise is valuable to them. (Again, this is the theory.)Why wouldnt the Mavericks owners care if the team is good or if the fans disavowed them?Sports fans may think rich people buy sports teams for love of the game. But for the billionaires, these are business transactions and they primarily want to make money.The Mavericks owner is Miriam Adelson, widow of Sheldon Adelson, who presides over a massive gambling empire. It is a matter of public record, as Abbott put it, that the Adelsons would really like to build an enormous sports arena/casino gambling complex. (I am envisioning a sportsbook on the mezzanine level, such synergy.) They have been trying to build one in Dallas, but local politics have gummed it up.Miriam Adelson attends the inauguration of President Donald Trump. Julia Demaree Nikhinson/Pool/Getty ImagesThere is a theory that the Adelsons dont care if the Mavs are bad, because if the Mavs are bad and the fans abandon them, then the Adelsons could threaten to move the team to Las Vegas (which does not have an NBA team, which the league is already eyeing for expansion, and where the Adelsons business interests are already concentrated). So maybe it comes down to: Either Dallas ponies up the money for the arena-casino hybrid or they follow through on their threat and head to Vegas. Again, in theory.Who exactly are the fans mad at?Look, I cannot emphasize enough that nobody knows for sure what happened behind the scenes. There are a lot of leaks right now, and its hard to know who to trust. Whatever the leaks might say, it seems inevitable Adelson and her son-in-law who more directly oversees the Mavs had a say. They own the team. You have Harrison, who is the general manager and ostensibly the one making personnel decisions. You have head coach Jason Kidd, who has clashed with Luka at times, though they also had great success together. Some people think Kidd must be pissed; others think he was in on it. Thats how confused things are.One person who does not seem to be involved is Mark Cuban, the former majority owner of the Mavs. He sold his majority stake to the Adelsons and while he was supposed to continue to have a role in basketball decisions, he apparently was not consulted in the deal.Okay so I get why people are mad at the Mavs. Why are people so mad at the Lakers?Lets be clear: People always hate the Lakers. They are Hollywood, the most famous and (second) most successful franchise in league history.They also have a long history of acquiring star players in their primes like Luka Doni. Even non-sports fans know a lot of these names: Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille ONeal, LeBron James.So when people saw the trade and saw what the Lakers gave up, there was a collective feeling of: Are you fucking serious? Again? Sure, nobody blames them for taking such a deal. But the trade has uncorked more Lakers resentment.The Lakers general manager, Rob Pelinka, also has a deep friendship with the Mavs GM Harrison, so you have all the ingredients for people to think something is rigged. Maybe the league is just trying to get another young star to the Lakers, its most iconic team, right before LeBron retires for good. (Hes 40!)Im not endorsing these conspiracies. Im not sure we will ever know with certainty why the trade happened. I lean toward the Dallas ownerships non-sports reasons for doing this. I could certainly see it being a combination of factors.But as drama, this was really the perfect storm: a young basketball star, traded to the Lakers, in a deal that sure looks fishy for one reason or another. I still cant believe it.See More:

Drone operators and jammers are in a high-tech arms race

By AJ Dellinger Published February 5, 2025 | Comments (0) | Google and Gemini logo appearing on a smartphone Lorenzo Di Cola/NurPhoto via Getty Images In attempting to advertise the functionality of its AI model Gemini, Google accidentally create an advertisement for the greatest flaw of AI tools: their affinity for just making stuff up. The Verge recently caught that Google had to fix its planned Super Bowl Sunday ad promoting Gemini because the text of an answer provided by the AI model that the company is infusing into everything happened to get its information wrong. Googles ad campaign for the upcoming Big Game will focus on how small businesses across the country are using Gemini to help in their operations, with 50 different stories highlighting a different business in every state. In the Wisconsin ad, a cheesemonger uses Gemini to help write copy for his businesss website. Geminis AI-generated text says that gouda makes up 50 to 60 percent of the worlds cheese consumption, which, as it turns out, is not true. The issue was called out on Twitter by travel blogger Nate Hake, calling the stat a hallucination because Gemini did not provide a source for it. That summoned Jerry Dischler, the President of Cloud Applications at Google Cloud, into the comments to defend the ad. Hey Nate not a hallucination, Gemini is grounded in the Web and users can always check the results and references, he wrote, even though no reference was cited in the text shown in the original ad. In this case, multiple sites across the web include the 50-60% stat.That is true that the internet does say thatpretty much every attribution of the stat circles back to an entry on cheese.com, which does not cite any evidence for its figure. Pinning the bad info on the fact that Gemini is pulling from shaky sources is not exactly a compelling defense. Whatever happened to Dont believe everything you read on the internet? Alsoand this is not really relevant to anythingDischler ended his response by saying, Gouda news: many love this cheese! Bada news: not everyone thinks its as grate, which just screams I asked Gemini for cheese puns. I guess its good he believes in his product but, woof, does he make it look so painfully uncool.Anyway, despite defending the information produced by Gemini in the ad, it appears Google has still decided to go back and tweak it. A new version of the advertisement removes the 50-60% statistic. Its unclear if the tweak was made manually or if Google went back and gave Gemini a different prompt to make sure that figure didnt appear, but the fixed version will air during the Super Bowl. The whole incident is a much better advertisement for what you can expect out of tools like Gemini: theyll copy information fed to them with no real mechanism in place to help you figure out if its feeding you some nonsense or not. But at least itll save you time!Daily NewsletterYou May Also Like By Kyle Barr Published February 5, 2025 By Isaac Schultz Published February 5, 2025 By Matt Novak Published February 5, 2025 By Jorge Jimenez Published February 3, 2025 By Kyle Barr Published February 3, 2025 By Thomas Maxwell Published January 31, 2025