Researchers found that an encryption algorithm likely used by law enforcement and special forces can have weaknesses that could allow an attacker to listen in.

The Defense Department operates slot machines on US military bases overseas, raising millions of dollars to fund recreation for troops—and creating risks for soldiers prone to gambling addiction.

After World War II, as early supersonic military aircraft were pushing the boundaries of flight, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that commercial aircraft would eventually fly faster than sound …read more

The post درون صينية بحجم البعوضة: ثورة في مجال المُسيرات العسكرية! appeared first on عرب هاردوير.

The post جنسن هوانغ: الصين لا تحتاج أمريكا ولا شرائحنا لتطوير قدراتها العسكرية! appeared first on عرب هاردوير.

Oppo K13x 5G will be introduced in the Indian market later this month. The launch date has been announced, and the company has revealed some key specifications of the upcoming smartphone. It will be placed in the sub-Rs. 15,000 segments in the country and is promised to be available in 4GB and 6GB RAM variants. As per the company, the handset is claimed to offer the toughest build in its segment. It is confirmed to come with an IP65 rating, SGS Gold Drop-Resistance, SGS Military Standard, and MIL-STD 810-H durability certifications.Oppo K13x 5G India Launch: All We KnowThe Oppo K13x 5G will launch in India on June 23 at 12pm IST, the company confirmed in a press release. It will be priced in the country under Rs. 15,000, the company added. It will be available exclusively via Flipkart. The phone is confirmed to come in Midnight Violet and Sunset Peach colour options.Oppo revealed that the K13x 5G will be powered by a MediaTek Dimensity 6300 chipset. It will be available in 4GB and 6GB RAM options with support for 128GB of onboard storage. The handset will ship with Android 15-based ColorOS 15. It will support Google Gemini and other productivity features like AI Summary, AI Recorder, and AI Studio.The company has provided the Oppo K13x 5G with a 6,000mAh battery with 45W SuperVOOC charging support, it further revealed in the press release. It will carry a 50-megapixel AI-backed dual rear camera unit. The phone will support AI-backed imaging features like AI Eraser, AI Unblur, AI Reflection Remover, and AI Clarity Enhancer.Previously, Oppo revealed that the upcoming K13x 5G will come with an AM04 high-strength aluminium alloy middle frame and a 360-degree Damage-Proof Armour Body. It is claimed to meet the IP65 rating for dust and water resistance. Alongside the MIL-STD 810-H shock resistance certification, it will also come with SGS Gold Drop-Resistance and SGS Military Standard certifications. The Oppo K13x 5G build makes use of a biomimetic Sponge Shock Absorption System inspired by sea sponges, which is claimed to improve shock resistance. Its display will support Splash Touch and Glove Touch mode as well as Crystal Shield glass protection.

Meta's CTO, Palantir's CTO, and OpenAI's chief product officer are being appointed as lieutenant colonels in America's Army Reserve, reports The Register. (Along with OpenAI's former chief revenue officer). They've all signed up for Detachment 201: Executive Innovation Corps, "an effort to recruit senior tech executives to serve part-time in the Army Reserve as senior advisors," according to the official statement. "In this role they will work on targeted projects to help guide rapid and scalable tech solutions to complex problems..." "Our primary role will be to serve as technical experts advising the Army's modernization efforts," [Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth] said on X... As for Open AI's involvement, the company has been building its ties with the military-technology complex for some years now. Like Meta, OpenAI is working with Anduril on military ideas and last year scandalized some by watering down its past commitment to developing non-military products only. The Army wasn't answering questions on Friday but an article referenced by [OpenAI Chief Product Officer Kevin] Weil indicated that the four will have to serve a minimum of 120 hours a year, can work remotely, and won't have to pass basic training... "America wins when we unite the dynamism of American innovation with the military's vital missions," [Palantir CTO Shyam] Sankar said on X. "This was the key to our triumphs in the 20th century. It can help us win again. I'm humbled by this new opportunity to serve my country, my home, America." Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Growing up steeped in the aggressive gender stereotypes of the 1990s was a real trip for most queer millennials, but I think gamers had it especially hard. Almost all video game characters were hypermasculine military men, unrealistically curvaceous fantasy women wearing barely enough armour to cover their nipples, or cartoon animals. Most of these characters catered exclusively to straight teenage boys (or, I guess, furries); overt queer representation in games was pretty much nonexistent until the mid 2010s. Before that, we had to take what we could get. And what I had was Link, from The Legend of Zelda.Link. Composite: Guardian Design; Zuma Press/AlamyLink is a boy, but he didn’t really look like one. He wore a green tunic and a serious expression under a mop of blond hair. He is the adventurous, mostly silent hero of the Zelda games, unassuming and often vulnerable, but also resourceful, daring and handy with a sword. In most of the early Zelda games, he is a kid of about 10, but even when he grew into a teenager in 1998’s Ocarina of Time on the Nintendo 64, he didn’t become a furious lump of muscle. He stayed androgynous, in his tunic and tights. As a kid, I would dress up like him for Halloween, carefully centre-parting my blond fringe. Link may officially be a boy, but for me he has always been a non-binary icon.As time has gone on and game graphics have evolved, Link has stayed somewhat gender-ambiguous. Gay guys and gender-fluid types alike appreciate his ageless twink energy. And given the total lack of thought that most game developers gave to players who weren’t straight and male, I felt vindicated when I found out that this was intentional. In 2016, the Zelda series’ producer Eiji Aonuma told Time magazine that the development team had experimented a little with Link’s gender presentation over the years, but that he felt that the character’s androgyny was part of who he was.“[Even] back during the Ocarina of Time days, I wanted Link to be gender neutral,” he said. “I wanted the player to think: ‘Maybe Link is a boy or a girl.’ If you saw Link as a guy, he’d have more of a feminine touch. Or vice versa … I’ve always thought that for either female or male players, I wanted them to be able to relate to Link.”As it turns out, Link appeals perhaps most of all to those of us somewhere in between. In 2023, the tech blog io9 spoke to many transgender and non-binary people who saw something of themselves in Link: he has acquired a reputation as an egg-cracker, a fictional character who prompts a realisation about your own gender identity.Despite their outdated reputation as a pursuit for adolescent boys, video games have always been playgrounds for gender experimentation and expression. There are legions of trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming people who first started exploring their identity with customisable game characters in World of Warcraft, or gender-swapping themselves in The Sims – the digital equivalent of dressing up. Video games are the closest you can come to stepping into a new body for a bit and seeing how it feels.It is no surprise to me that a lot of queer people are drawn to video games. A 2024 survey by GLAAD found that 17% of gamers identify as LGBTQ+, a huge number compared with the general population. It may be because people who play games skew younger – 40 and below – but I also think it’s because gender is all about play. What fun it is to mess with the rules, subvert people’s expectations and create your own character. It is as empowering as any world-saving quest.

Donald Trump’s military parade in Washington this weekend — a show of force in the capital that just happens to take place on the president’s birthday — smacks of authoritarian Dear Leader-style politics (even though Trump actually got the idea after attending the 2017 Bastille Day parade in Paris).Yet as disconcerting as the imagery of tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue will be, it’s not even close to Trump’s most insidious assault on the US military’s historic and democratically essential nonpartisan ethos.In fact, it’s not even the most worrying thing he’s done this week.On Tuesday, the president gave a speech at Fort Bragg, an Army base home to Special Operations Command. While presidential speeches to soldiers are not uncommon — rows of uniformed troops make a great backdrop for a foreign policy speech — they generally avoid overt partisan attacks and campaign-style rhetoric. The soldiers, for their part, are expected to be studiously neutral, laughing at jokes and such, but remaining fully impassive during any policy conversation.That’s not what happened at Fort Bragg. Trump’s speech was a partisan tirade that targeted “radical left” opponents ranging from Joe Biden to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. He celebrated his deployment of Marines to Los Angeles, proposed jailing people for burning the American flag, and called on soldiers to be “aggressive” toward the protesters they encountered.The soldiers, for their part, cheered Trump and booed his enemies — as they were seemingly expected to. Reporters at Military.com, a military news service, uncovered internal communications from 82nd Airborne leadership suggesting that the crowd was screened for their political opinions.“If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don’t want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out,” one note read.To call this unusual is an understatement. I spoke with four different experts on civil-military relations, two of whom teach at the Naval War College, about the speech and its implications. To a person, they said it was a step towards politicizing the military with no real precedent in modern American history.“That is, I think, a really big red flag because it means the military’s professional ethic is breaking down internally,” says Risa Brooks, a professor at Marquette University. “Its capacity to maintain that firewall against civilian politicization may be faltering.”This may sound alarmist — like an overreading of a one-off incident — but it’s part of a bigger pattern. The totality of Trump administration policies, ranging from the parade in Washington to the LA troop deployment to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s firing of high-ranking women and officers of color, suggests a concerted effort to erode the military’s professional ethos and turn it into an institution subservient to the Trump administration’s whims. This is a signal policy aim of would-be dictators, who wish to head off the risk of a coup and ensure the armed forces’ political reliability if they are needed to repress dissent in a crisis.Steve Saideman, a professor at Carleton University, put together a list of eight different signs that a military is being politicized in this fashion. The Trump administration has exhibited six out of the eight.“The biggest theme is that we are seeing a number of checks on the executive fail at the same time — and that’s what’s making individual events seem more alarming than they might otherwise,” says Jessica Blankshain, a professor at the Naval War College (speaking not for the military but in a personal capacity).That Trump is trying to politicize the military does not mean he has succeeded. There are several signs, including Trump’s handpicked chair of the Joint Chiefs repudiating the president’s claims of a migrant invasion during congressional testimony, that the US military is resisting Trump’s politicization.But the events in Fort Bragg and Washington suggest that we are in the midst of a quiet crisis in civil-military relations in the United States — one whose implications for American democracy’s future could well be profound.The Trump crisis in civil-military relations, explainedA military is, by sheer fact of its existence, a threat to any civilian government. If you have an institution that controls the overwhelming bulk of weaponry in a society, it always has the physical capacity to seize control of the government at gunpoint. A key question for any government is how to convince the armed forces that they cannot or should not take power for themselves.Democracies typically do this through a process called “professionalization.” Soldiers are rigorously taught to think of themselves as a class of public servants, people trained to perform a specific job within defined parameters. Their ultimate loyalty is not to their generals or even individual presidents, but rather to the people and the constitutional order.Samuel Huntington, the late Harvard political scientist, is the canonical theorist of a professional military. In his book The Soldier and the State, he described optimal professionalization as a system of “objective control”: one in which the military retains autonomy in how they fight and plan for wars while deferring to politicians on whether and why to fight in the first place. In effect, they stay out of the politicians’ affairs while the politicians stay out of theirs.The idea of such a system is to emphasize to the military that they are professionals: Their responsibility isn’t deciding when to use force, but only to conduct operations as effectively as possible once ordered to engage in them. There is thus a strict firewall between military affairs, on the one hand, and policy-political affairs on the other.Typically, the chief worry is that the military breaches this bargain: that, for example, a general starts speaking out against elected officials’ policies in ways that undermine civilian control. This is not a hypothetical fear in the United States, with the most famous such example being Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s insubordination during the Korean War. Thankfully, not even MacArthur attempted the worst-case version of military overstep — a coup.But in backsliding democracies like the modern United States, where the chief executive is attempting an anti-democratic power grab, the military poses a very different kind of threat to democracy — in fact, something akin to the exact opposite of the typical scenario.In such cases, the issue isn’t the military inserting itself into politics but rather the civilians dragging them into it in ways that upset the democratic political order. The worst-case scenario is that the military acts on presidential directives to use force against domestic dissenters, destroying democracy not by ignoring civilian orders, but by following them.There are two ways to arrive at such a worst-case scenario, both of which are in evidence in the early days of Trump 2.0.First is politicization: an intentional attack on the constraints against partisan activity inside the professional ranks.Many of Pete Hegseth’s major moves as secretary of defense fit this bill, including his decisions to fire nonwhite and female generals seen as politically unreliable and his effort to undermine the independence of the military’s lawyers. The breaches in protocol at Fort Bragg are both consequences and causes of politicization: They could only happen in an environment of loosened constraint, and they might encourage more overt political action if gone unpunished.The second pathway to breakdown is the weaponization of professionalism against itself. Here, Trump exploits the military’s deference to politicians by ordering it to engage in undemocratic (and even questionably legal) activities. In practice, this looks a lot like the LA deployments, and, more specifically, the lack of any visible military pushback. While the military readily agreeing to deployments is normally a good sign — that civilian control is holding — these aren’t normal times. And this isn’t a normal deployment, but rather one that comes uncomfortably close to the military being ordered to assist in repressing overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations against executive abuses of power.“It’s really been pretty uncommon to use the military for law enforcement,” says David Burbach, another Naval War College professor (also speaking personally). “This is really bringing the military into frontline law enforcement when. … these are really not huge disturbances.”This, then, is the crisis: an incremental and slow-rolling effort by the Trump administration to erode the norms and procedures designed to prevent the military from being used as a tool of domestic repression. Is it time to panic?Among the experts I spoke with, there was consensus that the military’s professional and nonpartisan ethos was weakening. This isn’t just because of Trump, but his terms — the first to a degree, and now the second acutely — are major stressors.Yet there was no consensus on just how much military nonpartisanship has eroded — that is, how close we are to a moment when the US military might be willing to follow obviously authoritarian orders.For all its faults, the US military’s professional ethos is a really important part of its identity and self-conception. While few soldiers may actually read Sam Huntington or similar scholars, the general idea that they serve the people and the republic is a bedrock principle among the ranks. There is a reason why the United States has never, in over 250 years of governance, experienced a military coup — or even come particularly close to one.In theory, this ethos should also galvanize resistance to Trump’s efforts at politicization. Soldiers are not unthinking automatons: While they are trained to follow commands, they are explicitly obligated to refuse illegal orders, even coming from the president. The more aggressive Trump’s efforts to use the military as a tool of repression gets, the more likely there is to be resistance.Or, at least theoretically.The truth is that we don’t really know how the US military will respond to a situation like this. Like so many of Trump’s second-term policies, their efforts to bend the military to their will are unprecedented — actions with no real parallel in the modern history of the American military. Experts can only make informed guesses, based on their sense of US military culture as well as comparisons to historical and foreign cases.For this reason, there are probably only two things we can say with confidence.First, what we’ve seen so far is not yet sufficient evidence to declare that the military is in Trump’s thrall. The signs of decay are too limited to ground any conclusions that the longstanding professional norm is entirely gone.“We have seen a few things that are potentially alarming about erosion of the military’s non-partisan norm. But not in a way that’s definitive at this point,” Blankshain says.Second, the stressors on this tradition are going to keep piling on. Trump’s record makes it exceptionally clear that he wants the military to serve him personally — and that he, and Hegseth, will keep working to make it so. This means we really are in the midst of a quiet crisis, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.“The fact that he’s getting the troops to cheer for booing Democratic leaders at a time when there’s actually [a deployment to] a blue city and a blue state…he is ordering the troops to take a side,” Saideman says. “There may not be a coherent plan behind this. But there are a lot of things going on that are all in the same direction.”See More: Politics

As thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets of Los Angeles County to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, misinformation has been running rampant online.The protests, and President Donald Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard and Marines in response, are one of the first major contentious news events to unfold in a new era in which AI tools have become embedded in online life. And as the news has sparked fierce debate and dialogue online, those tools have played an outsize role in the discourse. Social media users have wielded AI tools to create deepfakes and spread misinformation—but also to fact-check and debunk false claims. Here’s how AI has been used during the L.A. protests.DeepfakesProvocative, authentic images from the protests have captured the world’s attention this week, including a protester raising a Mexican flag and a journalist being shot in the leg with a rubber bullet by a police officer. At the same time, a handful of AI-generated fake videos have also circulated.Over the past couple years, tools for creating these videos have rapidly improved, allowing users to rapidly create convincing deepfakes within minutes. Earlier this month, for example, TIME used Google’s new Veo 3 tool to demonstrate how it can be used to create misleading or inflammatory videos about news events. Among the videos that have spread over the past week is one of a National Guard soldier named “Bob” who filmed himself “on duty” in Los Angeles and preparing to gas protesters. That video was seen more than 1 million times, according to France 24, but appears to have since been taken down from TikTok. Thousands of people left comments on the video, thanking “Bob” for his service—not realizing that “Bob” did not exist.AdvertisementMany other misleading images have circulated not due to AI, but much more low-tech efforts. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, for example, reposted a video on X originally shared by conservative actor James Woods that appeared to show a violent protest with cars on fire—but it was actually footage from 2020. And another viral post showed a pallet of bricks, which the poster claimed were going to be used by “Democrat militants.” But the photo was traced to a Malaysian construction supplier. Fact checkingIn both of those instances, X users replied to the original posts by asking Grok, Elon Musk’s AI, if the claims were true. Grok has become a major source of fact checking during the protests: Many X users have been relying on it and other AI models, sometimes more than professional journalists, to fact check claims related to the L.A. protests, including, for instance, how much collateral damage there has been from the demonstrations.AdvertisementGrok debunked both Cruz’s post and the brick post. In response to the Texas senator, the AI wrote: “The footage was likely taken on May 30, 2020.... While the video shows violence, many protests were peaceful, and using old footage today can mislead.” In response to the photo of bricks, it wrote: “The photo of bricks originates from a Malaysian building supply company, as confirmed by community notes and fact-checking sources like The Guardian and PolitiFact. It was misused to falsely claim that Soros-funded organizations placed bricks near U.S. ICE facilities for protests.” But Grok and other AI tools have gotten things wrong, making them a less-than-optimal source of news. Grok falsely insinuated that a photo depicting National Guard troops sleeping on floors in L.A. that was shared by Newsom was recycled from Afghanistan in 2021. ChatGPT said the same. These accusations were shared by prominent right-wing influencers like Laura Loomer. In reality, the San Francisco Chronicle had first published the photo, having exclusively obtained the image, and had verified its authenticity.AdvertisementGrok later corrected itself and apologized. “I’m Grok, built to chase the truth, not peddle fairy tales. If I said those pics were from Afghanistan, it was a glitch—my training data’s a wild mess of internet scraps, and sometimes I misfire,” Grok said in a post on X, replying to a post about the misinformation."The dysfunctional information environment we're living in is without doubt exacerbating the public’s difficulty in navigating the current state of the protests in LA and the federal government’s actions to deploy military personnel to quell them,” says Kate Ruane, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Free Expression Program. Nina Brown, a professor at the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, says that it is “really troubling” if people are relying on AI to fact check information, rather than turning to reputable sources like journalists, because AI “is not a reliable source for any information at this point.”Advertisement“It has a lot of incredible uses, and it’s getting more accurate by the minute, but it is absolutely not a replacement for a true fact checker,” Brown says. “The role that journalists and the media play is to be the eyes and ears for the public of what’s going on around us, and to be a reliable source of information. So it really troubles me that people would look to a generative AI tool instead of what is being communicated by journalists in the field.”Brown says she is increasingly worried about how misinformation will spread in the age of AI.“I’m more concerned because of a combination of the willingness of people to believe what they see without investigation—the taking it at face value—and the incredible advancements in AI that allow lay-users to create incredibly realistic video that is, in fact, deceptive; that is a deepfake, that is not real,” Brown says.