The post ترامب يدخل عالم الاتصالات: إطلاق شبكة Trump Mobile وهاتف ذهبي جديد appeared first on عرب هاردوير.

What just happened? As protests against federal immigration enforcement swept through downtown Los Angeles last week, a wave of looting left several major retailers, including Apple, T-Mobile, and Adidas, counting the cost of smashed windows and stolen goods. Yet for those who made off with iPhones from Apple's flagship store, the thrill of the heist quickly turned into a lesson in high-tech security. Apple's retail locations are equipped with advanced anti-theft technology that renders display devices useless once they leave the premises. The moment a demonstration iPhone is taken beyond the store's Wi-Fi network, it is instantly disabled by proximity software and a remote "kill switch." Instead of a functioning smartphone, thieves were met with a stark message on the screen: "Please return to Apple Tower Theatre. This device has been disabled and is being tracked. Local authorities will be alerted." The phone simultaneously sounds an alarm and flashes the warning, ensuring it cannot be resold or activated elsewhere. This system is not new. During the nationwide unrest of 2020, similar scenes played out as looters discovered that Apple's security measures turned their stolen goods into little more than expensive paperweights. The technology relies on a combination of location tracking and network monitoring. As soon as a device is separated from the store's secure environment, it is remotely locked, its location is tracked, and law enforcement is notified. // Related Stories Videos circulating online show stolen iPhones blaring alarms and displaying tracking messages, making them impossible to ignore and virtually worthless on the black market. According to the Los Angeles Police Department, at least three individuals were arrested in connection with the Apple Store burglary, including one suspect apprehended at the scene and two others detained for looting. The crackdown on looting comes amid a broader shift in California's approach to retail crime. In response to public outcry over rising thefts, state and local officials have moved away from previously lenient policies. The passage of Proposition 36 has empowered prosecutors to file felony charges against repeat offenders, regardless of the value of stolen goods, and to impose harsher penalties for organized group theft. Under these new measures, those caught looting face the prospect of significant prison time, a marked departure from the misdemeanor charges that were common under earlier laws. District attorneys in Southern California have called for even harsher penalties, particularly for crimes committed during states of emergency. Proposals include making looting a felony offense, increasing prison sentences, and ensuring that suspects are not released without judicial review. The goal, officials say, is to deter opportunistic criminals who exploit moments of crisis, whether during protests or natural disasters.

Investment scams aren't anything new: Bad actors have long used pump-and-dump tactics to hype stocks or cryptocurrencies, preying on emotions like fear and greed. And who wouldn't want big—or even steady—returns on their money, especially amidst tariffs and other economic turmoil? Scammers are currently capitalizing on this with fraudulent Facebook ads to lure users into handing over large sums of money. Here's how to spot these schemes and avoid falling victim. Investment scams on Meta platformsAccording to a group of 42 state attorneys general, the current fraudulent investment campaigns also happen to have elements of impersonation scams. The scheme begins with ads on Facebook that feature prominent investors, including ARK Investment Management's Cathie Wood, CNBC's Joe Kernan, and Fundstrat's Tom Lee, along with other wealthy individuals like Warren Buffet and Elon Musk (none of whom have any actual affiliation with the ad). If you click the ad, you'll be prompted to download or open WhatsApp to join an investment group. This is where the pump-and-dump kicks off. "Experts" in the group advise members to purchase specific stocks, inflating the price, which they in turn sell and profit from. The AG letter to Meta detailing the scam includes reports of individuals losing anywhere from $40,000 to $100,000 or more after clicking on a fraudulent ad on Facebook. Other investment scams originating on Facebook involve cyber criminals harvesting sensitive personal information via fraudulent investing platforms (also by spoofing celebrity endorsements). Investment scam red flags to watch forFor many people, it seems obvious that you shouldn't get your investment advice from a Facebook ad or WhatsApp group. But fear and greed are powerful emotions, and scammers are counting on these social engineering tactics working at least some of the time. That's why you should be wary of any advice that promises an unrealistic rate of return in a short period of time with no risk of loss as well as endorsements from celebrities, political figures, and well-known investors (who are almost certainly not endorsing anything). It's also just good practice not to click ads on Facebook, which are easy vectors for spreading scams and malware. Another sign of a scam is content or communication that appears to be generated by AI. After joining a WhatsApp group, an investigator from the New York Office of the Attorney General was called by a scammer who used AI to translate her speech into English. Unfortunately, emotions can cloud our ability to identify AI-generated content if we want to believe what we're seeing.

In 1989 a computer scientist argued that more functionality in software actually lowers usability and practicality — leading to the counterintuitive proposition that "worse is better". But is that still true? Python's original creator Guido van Rossum addressed the question last month in a lightning talk at the annual Python Language Summit 2025. Guido started by recounting earlier periods of Python development from 35 years ago, where he used UNIX "almost exclusively" and thus "Python was greatly influenced by UNIX's 'worse is better' philosophy"... "The fact that [Python] wasn't perfect encouraged many people to start contributing. All of the code was straightforward, there were no thoughts of optimization... These early contributors also now had a stake in the language; [Python] was also their baby"... Guido contrasted early development to how Python is developed now: "features that take years to produce from teams of software developers paid by big tech companies. The static type system requires an academic-level understanding of esoteric type system features." And this isn't just Python the language, "third-party projects like numpy are maintained by folks who are paid full-time to do so.... Now we have a huge community, but very few people, relatively speaking, are contributing meaningfully." Guido asked whether the expectation for Python contributors going forward would be that "you had to write a perfect PEP or create a perfect prototype that can be turned into production-ready code?" Guido pined for the "old days" where feature development could skip performance or feature-completion to get something into the hands of the community to "start kicking the tires". "Do we have to abandon 'worse is better' as a philosophy and try to make everything as perfect as possible?" Guido thought doing so "would be a shame", but that he "wasn't sure how to change it", acknowledging that core developers wouldn't want to create features and then break users with future releases. Guido referenced David Hewitt's PyO3 talk about Rust and Python, and that development "was using worse is better," where there is a core feature set that works, and plenty of work to be done and open questions. "That sounds a lot more fun than working on core CPython", Guido paused, "...not that I'd ever personally learn Rust. Maybe I should give it a try after," which garnered laughter from core developers. "Maybe we should do more of that: allowing contributors in the community to have a stake and care". Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Fewer food crops Biofuels policy has been a failure for the climate, new report claims Report: An expansion of biofuels policy under Trump would lead to more greenhouse gas emissions. Georgina Gustin, Inside Climate News – Jun 14, 2025 7:10 am | 24 An ethanol production plant on March 20, 2024 near Ravenna, Nebraska. Credit: David Madison/Getty Images An ethanol production plant on March 20, 2024 near Ravenna, Nebraska. Credit: David Madison/Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here. The American Midwest is home to some of the richest, most productive farmland in the world, enabling its transformation into a vast corn- and soy-producing machine—a conversion spurred largely by decades-long policies that support the production of biofuels. But a new report takes a big swing at the ethanol orthodoxy of American agriculture, criticizing the industry for causing economic and social imbalances across rural communities and saying that the expansion of biofuels will increase greenhouse gas emissions, despite their purported climate benefits. The report, from the World Resources Institute, which has been critical of US biofuel policy in the past, draws from 100 academic studies on biofuel impacts. It concludes that ethanol policy has been largely a failure and ought to be reconsidered, especially as the world needs more land to produce food to meet growing demand. “Multiple studies show that US biofuel policies have reshaped crop production, displacing food crops and driving up emissions from land conversion, tillage, and fertilizer use,” said the report’s lead author, Haley Leslie-Bole. “Corn-based ethanol, in particular, has contributed to nutrient runoff, degraded water quality and harmed wildlife habitat. As climate pressures grow, increasing irrigation and refining for first-gen biofuels could deepen water scarcity in already drought-prone parts of the Midwest.” The conversion of Midwestern agricultural land has been sweeping. Between 2004 and 2024, ethanol production increased by nearly 500 percent. Corn and soybeans are now grown on 92 and 86 million acres of land respectively—and roughly a third of those crops go to produce ethanol. That means about 30 million acres of land that could be used to grow food crops are instead being used to produce ethanol, despite ethanol only accounting for 6 percent of the country’s transportation fuel. The biofuels industry—which includes refiners, corn and soy growers and the influential agriculture lobby writ large—has long insisted that corn- and soy-based biofuels provide an energy-efficient alternative to fossil-based fuels. Congress and the US Department of Agriculture have agreed. The country’s primary biofuels policy, the Renewable Fuel Standard, requires that biofuels provide a greenhouse gas reduction over fossil fuels: The law says that ethanol from new plants must deliver a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline. In addition to greenhouse gas reductions, the industry and its allies in Congress have also continued to say that ethanol is a primary mainstay of the rural economy, benefiting communities across the Midwest. But a growing body of research—much of which the industry has tried to debunk and deride—suggests that ethanol actually may not provide the benefits that policies require. It may, in fact, produce more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuels it was intended to replace. Recent research says that biofuel refiners also emit significant amounts of carcinogenic and dangerous substances, including hexane and formaldehyde, in greater amounts than petroleum refineries. The new report points to research saying that increased production of biofuels from corn and soy could actually raise greenhouse gas emissions, largely from carbon emissions linked to clearing land in other countries to compensate for the use of land in the Midwest. On top of that, corn is an especially fertilizer-hungry crop requiring large amounts of nitrogen-based fertilizer, which releases huge amounts of nitrous oxide when it interacts with the soil. American farming is, by far, the largest source of domestic nitrous oxide emissions already—about 50 percent. If biofuel policies lead to expanded production, emissions of this enormously powerful greenhouse gas will likely increase, too. The new report concludes that not only will the expansion of ethanol increase greenhouse gas emissions, but it has also failed to provide the social and financial benefits to Midwestern communities that lawmakers and the industry say it has. (The report defines the Midwest as Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.) “The benefits from biofuels remain concentrated in the hands of a few,” Leslie-Bole said. “As subsidies flow, so may the trend of farmland consolidation, increasing inaccessibility of farmland in the Midwest, and locking out emerging or low-resource farmers. This means the benefits of biofuels production are flowing to fewer people, while more are left bearing the costs.” New policies being considered in state legislatures and Congress, including additional tax credits and support for biofuel-based aviation fuel, could expand production, potentially causing more land conversion and greenhouse gas emissions, widening the gap between the rural communities and rich agribusinesses at a time when food demand is climbing and, critics say, land should be used to grow food instead. President Donald Trump’s tax cut bill, passed by the House and currently being negotiated in the Senate, would not only extend tax credits for biofuels producers, it specifically excludes calculations of emissions from land conversion when determining what qualifies as a low-emission fuel. The primary biofuels industry trade groups, including Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association, did not respond to Inside Climate News requests for comment or interviews. An employee with the Clean Fuels Alliance America, which represents biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuel producers, not ethanol, said the report vastly overstates the carbon emissions from crop-based fuels by comparing the farmed land to natural landscapes, which no longer exist. They also noted that the impact of soy-based fuels in 2024 was more than $42 billion, providing over 100,000 jobs. “Ten percent of the value of every bushel of soybeans is linked to biomass-based fuel,” they said. Georgina Gustin, Inside Climate News 24 Comments

Doing press for his latest movie, Chris Evans was flat-out asked by a journalist: Are you returning for Marvel’s Avengers: Doomsday? That rumor has floated around the internet for months, no doubt buoyed by the fact that Evans made a surprise cameo in last summer’s Deadpool vs. Wolverine, despite the fact that he was supposed to be “retired” from the Marvel Cinematic Universe after the last Avengers movie, Endgame.Evans claimed he wasn’t involved. But he wouldn’t be the first Marvel star to lie about a role in an MCU movie — and he wouldn’t be the first “retired” Marvel hero returning for Doomsday either.Avengers: Doomsday video we look at the facts and speculate about whether Evans might or might not appear in the film (or, for that matter, its sequel, Avengers: Secret Wars)Watch our full discussion on Chris Evans and Doomsday below:READ MORE: The Weirdest Marvel Comics Ever PublishedIf you liked that video on whether Chris Evans is secretly in Avengers: Doomsday, check out more of our videos below, including one on the original plan for Madame Web and why it was so much better than what Sony actually made, one on the connection between Wanda and Doctor Doom, and one on the canceled X-Men vs. Fantastic Four film we never got to see. Plus, there’s tons more videos over at ScreenCrush’s YouTube channel. Be sure to subscribe to catch all our future episodes. Avengers: Doomsday is scheduled to open in theaters on December 18, 2026.Sign up for Disney+ here.Get our free mobile appEvery Marvel Cinematic Universe Movie, Ranked From Worst to BestIt started with Iron Man and it’s continued and expanded ever since. It’s the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with 36 movies and counting. But what’s the best and the worst? We ranked them all.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday that revises and rolls back cybersecurity policies set in place by his Democratic predecessors, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. In a White House fact sheet, the administration claims that Biden’s Executive Order 14144 — signed days before the end of his presidency — was an attempt “to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy.” Among other things, Biden’s order encouraged agencies to “consider accepting digital identity documents” when public benefit programs require ID. Trump struck that part of the order, with the White House now saying this approach risks “widespread abuse by enabling illegal immigrants to improperly access public benefits.” However, Mark Montgomery, senior director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, told Politico that “the fixation on revoking digital ID mandates is prioritizing questionable immigration benefits over proven cybersecurity benefits.”  On AI, Trump removed Biden’s requirements around testing the use of AI to defend energy infrastructure, funding federal research programs around AI security, and directing the Pentagon to “use AI models for cyber security.” The White House describes its moves on AI as refocusing AI cybersecurity strategy “towards identifying and managing vulnerabilities, rather than censorship.” (Trump’s Silicon Valley allies have complained repeatedly about the threat of AI “censorship.”) Trump’s order also removed requirements that agencies start using quantum-resistant encryption “as soon as practicable.” And it removed requirements that federal contractors attest to the security of their software — the White House describes those requirements as “unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance checklists over genuine security investments.” Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | July 15 REGISTER NOW Going back even further, Trump’s executive order repeals Obama’s policies around sanctions for cybersecurity attacks on the United States; those sanctions can now only be applied to “foreign malicious actors.” The White House says this will will prevent “misuse against domestic political opponents” and clarify that “sanctions do not apply to election-related activities.”

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) Friday that scratched or revised several of his Democratic predecessors’ major cybersecurity initiatives. “Just days before President Trump took office, the Biden Administration attempted to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy,” the White House said in a fact sheet about Trump’s new directive, referring to projects that Biden launched with his Jan. 15 executive order. Trump’s new EO eliminates those projects, which would have required software vendors to prove their compliance with new federal security standards, prioritized research and testing of artificial intelligence for cyber defense and accelerated the rollout of encryption that withstands the future code-cracking powers of quantum computers. “President Trump has made it clear that this Administration will do what it takes to make America cyber secure,” the White House said in its fact sheet, “including focusing relentlessly on technical and organizational professionalism to improve the security and resilience of the nation’s information systems and networks.” Major cyber regulation shift Trump’s elimination of Biden’s software security requirements for federal contractors represents a significant government reversal on cyber regulation. Following years of major cyberattacks linked to insecure software, the Biden administration sought to use federal procurement power to improve the software industry’s practices. That effort began with Biden’s 2021 cyber order and gained strength in 2024, and then Biden officials tried to add teeth to the initiative before leaving office in January. But as it eliminated that project on Friday, the Trump administration castigated Biden’s efforts as “imposing unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance checklists over genuine security investments.” Trump’s order eliminates provisions from Biden’s directive that would have required federal contractors to submit “secure software development attestations,” along with technical data to back up those attestations. Also now eradicated are provisions that would have required the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to verify vendors’ attestations, required the Office of the National Cyber Director to publish the results of those reviews and encouraged ONCD to refer companies whose attestations fail a review to the Justice Department “for action as appropriate.” Trump’s order leaves in place a National Institute of Standards and Technology collaboration with industry to update NIST’s Software Software Development Framework, but it eliminates parts of Biden’s order that would have incorporated those SSDF updates into security requirements for federal vendors. In a related move, Trump eliminated provisions of his predecessor’s order that would have required NIST to “issue guidance identifying minimum cybersecurity practices” (based on a review of globally accepted standards) and required federal contractors to follow those practices. AI security cut Trump also took an axe to Biden requirements related to AI and its ability to help repel cyberattacks. He scrapped a Biden initiative to test AI’s power to “enhance cyber defense of critical infrastructure in the energy sector,” as well as one that would have directed federal research programs to prioritize topics like the security of AI-powered coding and “methods for designing secure AI systems.” The EO also killed a provision would have required the Pentagon to “use advanced AI models for cyber defense.” On quantum computing, Trump’s directive significantly pares back Biden’s attempts to accelerate the government’s adoption of post-quantum cryptography. Biden told agencies to start using quantum-resistant encryption “as soon as practicable” and to start requiring vendors to use it when technologically possible. Trump eliminated those requirements, leaving only a Biden requirement that CISA maintain “a list of product categories in which products that support post-quantum cryptography … are widely available.” Trump also eliminated instructions for the departments of State and Commerce to encourage key foreign allies and overseas industries to adopt NIST’s PQC algorithms. The EO dropped many other provisions of Biden’s January directive, including one requiring agencies to start testing phishing-resistant authentication technologies, one requiring NIST to advise other agencies on internet routing security and one requiring agencies to use strong email encryption. Trump also cut language directing the Office of Management and Budget to advise agencies on addressing risks related to IT vendor concentration. In his January order, Biden ordered agencies to explore and encourage the use of digital identity documents to prevent fraud, including in public benefits programs. Trump eliminated those initiatives, calling them “inappropriate.”  Trump also tweaked the language of Obama-era sanctions authorities targeting people involved in cyberattacks on the U.S., specifying that the Treasury Department can only sanction foreigners for these activities. The White House said Trump’s change would prevent the power’s “misuse against domestic political opponents.” Amid the whirlwind of changes, Trump left one major Biden-era cyber program intact: a Federal Communications Commission project, modeled on the Energy Star program, that will apply government seals of approval to technology products that undergo security testing by federally accredited labs. Trump preserved the language in Biden’s order that requires companies selling internet-of-things devices to the federal government to go through the FCC program by January 2027.