Surprisingly, the S25 Edge doesn't snap in half.

FromSoftware games are renowned for their hack-and-slash and spellslinging action, but Nightreign makes the archery experience feel fluid, too.

In a chilling sign of how far law enforcement surveillance has encroached on personal liberties, that a sheriff’s office in Texas searched data from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to track down a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. The officer searched 6,809 different camera networks maintained by surveillance tech company Flock Safety, including states where abortion access is protected by law, such as Washington and Illinois. The search record listed the reason plainly: “had an abortion, search for female.” Screenshot of data After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe v. Wade, states were given sweeping authority to ban and even criminalize abortion. In Texas—where the officer who conducted this search is based—abortion is now almost entirely banned. But in Washington and Illinois, where many of the searched Flock cameras are located, abortion remains legal and protected as a fundamental right up to fetal viability. The post-Dobbs legal landscape has also opened the door for law enforcement to exploit virtually any form of data—license plates, phone records, geolocation data—to pursue individuals across state lines. has documented more than 1,800 agencies have deployed ALPRs, but at least 4,000 agencies are able to run searches through some agencies in Flock's network. Many agencies share the data freely with other agencies across the country, with little oversight, restriction, or even standards for accessing data.  While this particular data point explicitly mentioned an abortion, scores of others in the audit logs released through public records requests simply list "investigation" as the reason for the plate search, with no indication of the alleged offense. That means other searches targeting someone for abortion, or another protected right in that jurisdiction, could be effectively invisible. This case underscores our growing concern: that the mass surveillance infrastructure—originally sold as a tool to find stolen cars or missing persons—is now being used to target people seeking reproductive healthcare. This unchecked, warrant-less access that allows law enforcement to surveil across state lines blurs the line between “protection” and persecution. From Missing Cars to Monitoring Bodies EFF has long warned about the dangers of ALPRs, which scan license plates, log time and location data, and build a detailed picture of people's movements. Companies like Flock Safety and Motorola Solutions offer law enforcement agencies access to nationwide databases of these readers, and in some cases, allow them to stake out locations like abortion clinics, or create “hot lists” of license plates to track in real time. Flock's technology also allows officers to search for a vehicle based on attributes like color, make and model, even without a plate number. The threat is compounded by how investigations often begin. A report published by If/When/How on the criminalization of self-managed abortion found that about a quarter of adult cases (26%) were reported to law enforcement by acquaintances entrusted with information, such as “friends, parents, or intimate partners” and another 18% through “other” means. This means that with ALPR tech, a tip from anyone can instantly escalate into a nationwide manhunt. And as Kate Bertash of the Digital Defense Fund explained to 404 Media, anti-abortion activists have long been documenting the plates of patients and providers who visit reproductive health facilities—data that can now be easily cross-referenced with ALPR databases. The 404 Media report proves that this isn’t a hypothetical concern. In 2023, a months-long EFF investigation involving hundreds of public records requests uncovered that many California police departments were sharing records containing detailed driving profiles of local residents with out-of-state agencies, despite state laws explicitly prohibiting this. This means that even in so-called “safe” states, your data might end up helping law enforcement in Texas or Idaho prosecute you—or your doctor.  That’s why we demanded that 75 California police departments stop sharing ALPR data with anti-abortion states, an effort that has largely been successful. Surveillance and Reproductive Freedom Cannot Coexist We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Lawmakers who support reproductive rights must recognize that abortion access and mass surveillance are incompatible.  The systems built to track stolen cars and issue parking tickets have become tools to enforce the most personal and politically charged laws in the country. What began as a local concern over privacy has escalated into a national civil liberties crisis. Yesterday’s license plate readers have morphed into today’s reproductive dragnet. Now, it’s time for decisive action. Our leaders must roll back the dangerous surveillance systems they've enabled. We must enact strong, enforceable state laws to limit data sharing, ensure proper oversight, and dismantle these surveillance pipelines before they become the new normal–or even just eliminate the systems altogether.

If you wanted to get a COVID vaccine during pregnancy, to protect yourself and your future baby from the virus, that may soon be difficult to impossible. According to a short video posted on X, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, who is also a noted anti-vaccine activist, said that the COVID-19 vaccine “has been removed” from the list of vaccines recommended in pregnancy, as well as the list of vaccines recommended for healthy children. This announcement sidesteps the usual regulatory process, and it’s not clear exactly what will happen next—but here’s what we know. The announcement may not be entirely validRFK, Jr made the announcement in a video where he stood alongside the NIH director Jay Bhattacharya and FDA commissioner Marty Makary. Notably, nobody from the CDC was present. The FDA approves vaccines, but it’s the CDC that is in charge of recommendations. (It is not clear who the CDC’s acting director actually is, or whether there is one.) Normally, the CDC has an advisory panel called ACIP (the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices) that reviews scientific evidence to make recommendations for vaccines. They’ll vote on whether a given vaccine should be recommended for everybody in a group of people. Their decisions are then passed to CDC leadership, who make the final call as to whether the vaccine gets officially recommended for that group. Vaccines are not usually added or removed to the recommended list by the CDC without consulting with ACIP, and they definitely aren’t usually added or removed by tweeting a video. Dorit Reiss, a law professor who specializes in vaccine policy, posted on LinkedIn that the announcement may not be legally valid if it’s not immediately followed by supporting documentation. She says: “Under administrative law, to avoid being found arbitrary and capricious, an agency's decision has to meet certain criteria, including explaining the agency's fact finding, a connection between the facts and the decisions, etc. A one minute video on Twitter doesn't quite get you there.” So far, the CDC’s web page on vaccines recommended in pregnancy still says that “A pregnant woman should get vaccinated against whooping cough, flu, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).” The adult and child vaccine schedules still include COVID vaccines.Strangely, this move on behalf of the CDC contradicts the one we reported about recently from the FDA. The FDA plans to require extra steps (possibly unethical and/or impractical ones) to approve new COVID vaccines for healthy children and adults. But these steps don’t apply to people who are at high risk for complications of COVID. The FDA’s policy announcement included a list of those high risk health conditions—which includes pregnancy.Why it matters which vaccines are “recommended”Recommending a vaccine doesn’t just mean expressing an opinion; the Affordable Care Act requires that vaccines recommended by ACIP must be covered by most private insurance and Medicaid expansion plans without any cost sharing. That means no deductible and no copay—so these vaccines must be free to you out of pocket if you fall into a group of people for whom they are recommended. The recommended vaccines include all the standard childhood vaccines, plus your seasonal flu shot, and other vaccines that are recommended for adults, for people who are pregnant, and so on. The full schedules are here. If you’ve gotten a COVID shot, a flu shot, a tetanus shot, a shingles shot—the shot’s inclusion on this list is why you were able to (probably) get it for free.So taking a vaccine off the recommended list means that it could be prohibitively expensive. GoodRX, which keeps tabs on pharmacy prices, reports that COVID shots may cost $200 or more out of pocket, plus any applicable administration fee that the provider might charge.Taking a vaccine off the recommended list may also mean it won’t be covered by the Vaccines for Children program, which provides free vaccines to children who don’t have coverage for them through health insurance.Whether or not the vaccine actually gets taken off the list, the recent HHS announcement has another impact: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement that “Following this announcement, we are worried about our patients in the future, who may be less likely to choose vaccination during pregnancy despite the clear and definitive evidence demonstrating its benefit.” The ACOG statement also pointed out a few ways in which removing the vaccines from the recommended list is not “common sense and good science,” as the HHS announcement claimed. ACOG writes: “As ob-gyns who treat patients every day, we have seen firsthand how dangerous COVID infection can be during pregnancy and for newborns who depend on maternal antibodies from the vaccine for protection. We also understand that despite the change in recommendations from HHS, the science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families.”

Elden Ring Nightreign is a tough-as-nails game that blends the beloved roguelike and soulslike genres into something fans of both should find appealing. However, unlike most games in either genre, this one’s inherently designed around working together in a group of three. So, you may be wondering if you can strike out on your own in Elden Ring Nightreign. While the game is about to get easier for folks who choose to go it alone, right now such a style proves an exceptionally difficult challenge.Suggested ReadingThe Most Sought After Elden Ring Sword Has A Storied History Share SubtitlesOffEnglishview videoSuggested ReadingThe Most Sought After Elden Ring Sword Has A Storied History Share SubtitlesOffEnglish Elden Ring Nightreign solo?Let’s get this out of the way first: Yes, Elden Ring Nightreign offers the option for solo play. To do so, you’ll need to open the expedition menu at Roundtable Hold, then switch over to the matchmaking settings tab. At the bottom of the menu, set the Expedition Type to “Singleplayer.”The real question is whether Elden Ring Nightreign’s single-player experience is manageable or fun, and that really depends on your skill level, class choice, and patience more so than in any other similar game I can remember playing. If you really want to go at it by yourself, [play as] Ironeye or Wylder.Elden Ring Nightreign is already pretty damn challenging when running with a group of three other folks. The game’s sense of randomness adds a lot of unknowns to an expedition, and things can go wrong very quickly. But with a team, you can be revived, have someone else available to take some aggro from you when things get hairy, and use your character’s abilities to complement one another in difficult showdowns. It’s often still hard as hell, but victory usually feels possible even when things don’t go quite as planned.However, when you’re alone…Well, you’re all alone. If you die on a solo expedition, that’s it. You’re done. Back to the Roundable Hold with you, loser.With this in mind, some folks may find the anxiety-inducing pacing and chaotic showdowns enjoyable even while solo; but those who struggle to succeed without a group may find it demoralizing to watch hours go by without making any meaningful progress. And since some classes are much better for solo play than others, it can be even more frustrating to go it alone for someone who prefers to play one of the support-focused classes.If you really want to go at it by yourself, I’d recommend taking a look at Ironeye or Wylder.Ironeye’s ranged playstyle is the safest in the game, giving you a lot of freedom to tackle enemies your own way. For instance, you can take the high ground against some foes to avoid their attacks altogether, or use his sliding ability to dodge an attack and get behind an enemy for better positioning.Wylder, meanwhile, is a jack-of-all-trades character with a solid health pool and balanced stats that make him great at adapting to whatever type of loot a run provides. Simply grab any melee weapon and you’ll probably be doing alright with this fella. Plus, he has some of the coolest skins in the game. That doesn’t help you in battle, but like…come on. He looks rad.In conclusion, while things can certainly go poorly even with a team, I’d argue playing by your lonesome leaves too little room for error for a game that requires such a hefty time investment and minimal payoff for failure. Elden Ring Nightreign is designed from the ground up to be played with others, after all. Your mileage may vary, though, so play however you have fun with it! You can pick up Nightreign now on PS5, Xbox Series X/S, and Windows PCs. You’ll have to look elsewhere to pick up two other friends to play with, though.

A team of Purdue University students recently set a new Guinness World Record with their custom robot that solved a Rubik’s Cube in just 0.103 seconds. That was about a third of the time it took the previous record-setting bot. But the new record wasn’t achieved by simply building a robot that moves faster. The students used a combination of high-speed but low-res camera systems, a cube customized for improved strength, and a special solving technique popular among human speed cubers.The Rubik’s Cube-solving robot arms race kicked off in 2014, when a robot called Cubestormer 3 built with Lego Mindstorms parts and a Samsung Galaxy S4 solved the iconic puzzle in 3.253 seconds — faster than any human or robot could at the time. (The current world record for a human solving a Rubik’s Cube belongs to Xuanyi Geng, who did it in just 3.05 seconds.) Over the course of a decade, engineers managed to reduce that record to just hundreds of milliseconds.Last May, engineers at Mitsubishi Electric in Japan claimed the world record with a robot that solved a cube in 0.305 seconds. The record stood for almost a year before the team from Purdue’s Elmore Family School of Electrical and Computer Engineering — Junpei Ota, Aden Hurd, Matthew Patrohay, and Alex Berta — shattered it. Their robot has come to be known as Purdubik’s Cube. Bringing the robot record down to less than half a second required moving away from Lego and, instead, using optimized components like industrial motors. Getting it down to just 0.103 seconds, however, required the team from Purdue to find multiple new ways to shave off milliseconds.“Each robot that previous world record-holders has done has kind of focused on one new thing,” Patrohay tells The Verge. When MIT grad students broke the record in 2018, they opted for industrial hardware that outperformed what previous record-holders had used. Mitsubishi Electric chose electric motors that were better suited for the specific task of spinning each side of the cube, instead of just hardware that moved faster.However, the first thing the Purdue students improved was actually the speed that their robot could visualize the scrambled cube. Human speed cubing competitors are allowed to study a Rubik’s Cube before their timer starts, but the robot record includes the time it takes it to determine the location of all the colored squares. The students used a pair of high-speed machine vision cameras from Flir, with a resolution of just 720x540 pixels, pointed at opposing corners of the cube. Each camera can see three sides simultaneously during exposures that lasted as little as 10 microseconds.The Purdubik’s Cube’s high-speed Flir cameras use wide-angle lenses, and the Rubik’s Cube appears in only a very small region of their field of view. The color detection system relies on low-resolution images of the puzzle, which speeds up processing times. Photo: Matthew Patrohay / Purdue UniversityAlthough it may seem instantaneous, it takes time for a camera to process the data coming from a sensor and turn it into a digital picture. The Purdubik’s Cube uses a custom image detection system that skips image processing altogether. It also only focuses on a very small area of what each camera’s sensor sees — a cropped region that’s just 128x124 pixels in size — to reduce the amount of data being moved around.Raw data from the sensors is sent straight to a high-speed color detection system that uses the RGB measurements from even smaller sample areas on each square to determine their color faster than other approaches — even AI.“It’s sometimes slightly less reliable,” Patrohay admits, “but even if it’s 90 percent consistent, that’s good enough as long as it’s fast. We really want that speed.”Despite a lot of the hardware on Purdue’s robot being custom-made, the team chose to go with existing software when it came to figuring out the fastest way to solve a scrambled cube. They used Elias Frantar’s Rob-Twophase, which is a cube-solving algorithm that takes into account the unique capabilities of robots, like being able to spin two sides of a cube simultaneously.The team also took advantage of a Rubik’s Cube-solving technique called corner cutting where you can start to turn one side of the cube before you’ve finished turning another side that’s perpendicular to it. The advantage to this technique is that you’re not waiting for one side to completely finish its rotation before starting another. For a brief moment, there’s overlap between the movements of the two sides that can result in a significant amount of time saved when you’re chasing a world record.High-speed footage of the Purdubik’s Cube reveals how it uses the corner-cutting technique to overlap movements and reduce the time it takes to solve the Rubik’s Cube. Photo: Matthew Patrohay / Purdue UniversityThe challenge with corner cutting is that if you use too much force (like a robot is capable of) and don’t time things perfectly, you can physically break or even completely destroy a Rubik’s Cube. In addition to perfecting the timing of the robot’s movements and the acceleration of its motors, the students had to customize the cube itself.Guinness World Records follows the guidelines of the World Cube Association, which has a long list of regulations that need to be followed before a record will be recognized. It allows competitors to modify their cube, so long as it twists and turns like a standard Rubik’s Cube and has nine colored squares on each of its six sides, with each side a different color. Materials other than plastic can be used, but the color parts all need to have the same texture. To improve its durability, the Purdue team upgraded the internal structure of their cubes with a custom 3D-printed version made from stronger SLS nylon plastic. The WCA also allows the use of lubricants to help make cubes spin more freely, but here it’s used for a different reason.“The cube we use for the record is tensioned incredibly tight, like almost hilariously tight,” says Patrohay. “The one that we modified is very difficult to turn. Not impossible, but you can’t turn it with your fingers. You have to really get your wrist into it.” When solving the cube at high speeds, the lubricant helps to smooth out its movements while the increased tension reduces overturns and improves control so time-saving tricks like corner cutting can be used.Each of the robot’s six servo motors connect to the Rubik’s Cube center squares using a custom-made metal shaft that spins each side. Photo: Matthew Patrohay / Purdue UniversityFaster servo motors do help to reduce solving times, but it’s not as simple as maxing out their speed and hoping for the best. The Purdubik’s Cube uses six motors attached to metal shafts that slot into the center of each side of the cube. After testing several different approaches the team settled on a trapezoidal motion profile where the servos accelerate at speeds of up to 12,000,000 degrees/s2, but decelerate much slower, closer to 3,000,000 degrees/s2, so the robot can more accurately position each side as it comes to a stop.Could the Purdubik’s Cube break the record again? Patrohay believes it’s possible, but it would need a stronger cube made out of something other than plastic. “If you were to make a completely application-specific Rubik’s Cube out of some sort of carbon fiber composite, then I could imagine you being able to survive at higher speeds, and just being able to survive at higher speeds would then allow you to bring the time down.”See More:

How Deepfakes Are Created Generative AI models enable the creation of highly realistic fake media. Most deepfakes today are produced by training deep neural networks on real images, video or audio of a target person. The two predominant AI architectures are generative adversarial networks (GANs) and autoencoders. A GAN consists of a generator network that produces synthetic images and a discriminator network that tries to distinguish fakes from real data. Through iterative training, the generator learns to produce outputs that increasingly fool the discriminator¹. Autoencoder-based tools similarly learn to encode a target face and then decode it onto a source video. In practice, deepfake creators use accessible software: open-source tools like DeepFaceLab and FaceSwap dominate video face-swapping (one estimate suggests DeepFaceLab was used for over 95% of known deepfake videos)². Voice-cloning tools (often built on similar AI principles) can mimic a person’s speech from minutes of audio. Commercial platforms like Synthesia allow text-to-video avatars (turning typed scripts into lifelike “spokespeople”), which have already been misused in disinformation campaigns³. Even mobile apps (e.g. FaceApp, Zao) let users do basic face swaps in minutes⁴. In short, advances in GANs and related models make deepfakes cheaper and easier to generate than ever. Diagram of a generative adversarial network (GAN): A generator network creates fake images from random input and a discriminator network distinguishes fakes from real examples. Over time the generator improves until its outputs “fool” the discriminator⁵ During creation, a deepfake algorithm is typically trained on a large dataset of real images or audio from the target. The more varied and high-quality the training data, the more realistic the deepfake. The output often then undergoes post-processing (color adjustments, lip-syncing refinements) to enhance believability¹. Technical defenses focus on two fronts: detection and authentication. Detection uses AI models to spot inconsistencies (blinking irregularities, audio artifacts or metadata mismatches) that betray a synthetic origin⁵. Authentication embeds markers before dissemination – for example, invisible watermarks or cryptographically signed metadata indicating authenticity⁶. The EU AI Act will soon mandate that major AI content providers embed machine-readable “watermark” signals in synthetic media⁷. However, as GAO notes, detection is an arms race – even a marked deepfake can sometimes evade notice – and labels alone don’t stop false narratives from spreading⁸⁹. Deepfakes in Recent Elections: Examples Deepfakes and AI-generated imagery already have made headlines in election cycles around the world. In the 2024 U.S. primary season, a digitally-altered audio robocall mimicked President Biden’s voice urging Democrats not to vote in the New Hampshire primary. The caller (“Susan Anderson”) was later fined $6 million by the FCC and indicted under existing telemarketing laws¹⁰¹¹. (Importantly, FCC rules on robocalls applied regardless of AI: the perpetrator could have used a voice actor or recording instead.) Also in 2024, former President Trump posted on social media a collage implying that pop singer Taylor Swift endorsed his campaign, using AI-generated images of Swift in “Swifties for Trump” shirts¹². The posts sparked media uproar, though analysts noted the same effect could have been achieved without AI (e.g., by photoshopping text on real images)¹². Similarly, Elon Musk’s X platform carried AI-generated clips, including a parody “Ad” depicting Vice-President Harris’s voice via an AI clone¹³. Beyond the U.S., deepfake-like content has appeared globally. In Indonesia’s 2024 presidential election, a video surfaced on social media in which a convincingly generated image of the late President Suharto appeared to endorse the candidate of the Golkar Party. Days later, the endorsed candidate (who is Suharto’s son-in-law) won the presidency¹⁴. In Bangladesh, a viral deepfake video superimposed the face of opposition leader Rumeen Farhana onto a bikini-clad body – an incendiary fabrication designed to discredit her in the conservative Muslim-majority society¹⁵. Moldova’s pro-Western President Maia Sandu has been repeatedly targeted by AI-driven disinformation; one deepfake video falsely showed her resigning and endorsing a Russian-friendly party, apparently to sow distrust in the electoral process¹⁶. Even in Taiwan (amidst tensions with China), a TikTok clip circulated that synthetically portrayed a U.S. politician making foreign-policy statements – stoking confusion ahead of Taiwanese elections¹⁷. In Slovakia’s recent campaign, AI-generated audio mimicking the liberal party leader suggested he plotted vote-rigging and beer-price hikes – instantly spreading on social media just days before the election¹⁸. These examples show that deepfakes have touched diverse polities (from Bangladesh and Indonesia to Moldova, Slovakia, India and beyond), often aiming to undermine candidates or confuse voters¹⁵¹⁸. Notably, many of the most viral “deepfakes” in 2024 were actually circulated as obvious memes or claims, rather than subtle deceptions. Experts observed that outright undetectable AI deepfakes were relatively rare; more common were AI-generated memes plainly shared by partisans, or cheaply doctored “cheapfakes” made with basic editing tools¹³¹⁹. For instance, social media was awash with memes of Kamala Harris in Soviet garb or of Black Americans holding Trump signs¹³, but these were typically used satirically, not meant to be secretly believed. Nonetheless, even unsophisticated fakes can sway opinion: a U.S. study found that false presidential ads (not necessarily AI-made) did change voter attitudes in swing states. In sum, deepfakes are a real and growing phenomenon in election campaigns²⁰²¹ worldwide – a trend taken seriously by voters and regulators alike. U.S. Legal Framework and Accountability In the U.S., deepfake creators and distributors of election misinformation face a patchwork of tools, but no single comprehensive federal “deepfake law.” Existing laws relevant to disinformation include statutes against impersonating government officials, electioneering (such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which requires disclaimers on political ads), and targeted statutes like criminal electioneering communications. In some cases ordinary laws have been stretched: the NH robocall used the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and mail/telemarketing fraud provisions, resulting in the $6M fine and a criminal charge. Similarly, voice impostors can potentially violate laws against “false advertising” or “unlawful corporate communications.” However, these laws were enacted before AI, and litigators have warned they often do not fit neatly. For example, deceptive deepfake claims not tied to a specific victim do not easily fit into defamation or privacy torts. Voter intimidation laws (prohibiting threats or coercion) also leave a gap for non-threatening falsehoods about voting logistics or endorsements. Recognizing these gaps, some courts and agencies are invoking other theories. The U.S. Department of Justice has recently charged individuals under broad fraud statutes (e.g. for a plot to impersonate an aide to swing votes in 2020), and state attorneys general have considered deepfake misinformation as interference with voting rights. Notably, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is preparing to enforce new rules: in April 2024 it issued an advisory opinion limiting “non-candidate electioneering communications” that use falsified media, effectively requiring that political ads use only real images of the candidate. If finalized, that would make it unlawful for campaigns to pay for ads depicting a candidate saying things they never did. Similarly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have signaled that purely commercial deepfakes could violate consumer protection or election laws (for example, liability for mass false impersonation or for foreign-funded electioneering). U.S. Legislation and Proposals Federal lawmakers have proposed new statutes. The DEEPFAKES Accountability Act (H.R.5586 in the 118th Congress) would, among other things, impose a disclosure requirement: political ads featuring a manipulated media likeness would need clear disclaimers identifying the content as synthetic. It also increases penalties for producing false election videos or audio intended to influence the vote. While not yet enacted, supporters argue it would provide a uniform rule for all federal and state campaigns. The Brennan Center supports transparency requirements over outright bans, suggesting laws should narrowly target deceptive deepfakes in paid ads or certain categories (e.g. false claims about time/place/manner of voting) while carving out parody and news coverage. At the state level, over 20 states have passed deepfake laws specifically for elections. For example, Florida and California forbid distributing falsified audio/visual media of candidates with intent to deceive voters (though Florida’s law exempts parody). Some states (like Texas) define “deepfake” in statutes and allow candidates to sue or revoke candidacies of violators. These measures have had mixed success: courts have struck down overly broad provisions that acted as prior restraints (e.g. Minnesota’s 2023 law was challenged for threatening injunctions against anyone “reasonably believed” to violate it). Critically, these state laws raise First Amendment issues: political speech is highly protected, so any restriction must be tightly tailored. Already, Texas and Virginia statutes are under legal review, and Elon Musk’s company has sued under California’s law (which requires platforms to label or block deepfakes) as unconstitutional. In practice, most lawsuits have so far centered on defamation or intellectual property (for instance, a celebrity suing over a botched celebrity-deepfake video), rather than election-focused statutes. Policy Recommendations: Balancing Integrity and Speech Given the rapidly evolving technology, experts recommend a multi-pronged approach. Most stress transparency and disclosure as core principles. For example, the Brennan Center urges requiring any political communication that uses AI-synthesized images or voice to include a clear label. This could be a digital watermark or a visible disclaimer. Transparency has two advantages: it forces campaigns and platforms to “own” the use of AI, and it alerts audiences to treat the content with skepticism. Outright bans on all deepfakes would likely violate free speech, but targeted bans on specific harms (e.g. automated phone calls impersonating voters, or videos claiming false polling information) may be defensible. Indeed, Florida already penalizes misuse of recordings in voter suppression. Another recommendation is limited liability: tying penalties to demonstrable intent to mislead, not to the mere act of content creation. Both U.S. federal proposals and EU law generally condition fines on the “appearance of fraud” or deception. Technical solutions can complement laws. Watermarking original media (as encouraged by the EU AI Act) could deter the reuse of authentic images in doctored fakes. Open tools for deepfake detection – some supported by government research grants – should be deployed by fact-checkers and social platforms. Making detection datasets publicly available (e.g. the MIT OpenDATATEST) helps improve AI models to spot fakes. International cooperation is also urged: cross-border agreements on information-sharing could help trace and halt disinformation campaigns. The G7 and APEC have all recently committed to fighting election interference via AI, which may lead to joint norms or rapid response teams. Ultimately, many analysts believe the strongest “cure” is a well-informed public: education campaigns to teach voters to question sensational media, and a robust independent press to debunk falsehoods swiftly. While the law can penalize the worst offenders, awareness and resilience in the electorate are crucial buffers against influence operations. As Georgia Tech’s Sean Parker quipped in 2019, “the real question is not if deepfakes will influence elections, but who will be empowered by the first effective one.” Thus policies should aim to deter malicious use without unduly chilling innovation or satire. References: https://www.security.org/resources/deepfake-statistics/. https://www.wired.com/story/synthesia-ai-deepfakes-it-control-riparbelli/. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107292. https://technologyquotient.freshfields.com/post/102jb19/eu-ai-act-unpacked-8-new-rules-on-deepfakes. https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/we-looked-at-78-election-deepfakes-political-misinformation-is-not-an-ai-problem. https://www.npr.org/2024/12/21/nx-s1-5220301/deepfakes-memes-artificial-intelligence-elections. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-elections-disinformation-chatgpt-bc283e7426402f0b4baa7df280a4c3fd. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/new-and-old-tools-to-tackle-deepfakes-and-election-lies-in-2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/regulating-ai-deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-political-arena. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/political-deepfakes-and-elections/. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/deceptive-audio-or-visual-media-deepfakes-2024-legislation. https://law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/2022/06/nagumotu_pp113-157.pdf. https://dfrlab.org/2024/10/02/brazil-election-ai-research/. https://dfrlab.org/2024/11/26/brazil-election-ai-deepfakes/. https://freedomhouse.org/article/eu-digital-services-act-win-transparency. The post The Legal Accountability of AI-Generated Deepfakes in Election Misinformation appeared first on MarkTechPost.

Silicon Valley nerds have been lonelier since Fry’s Electronics shut down in February 2021 in the midst of the pandemic. The electronics store chain was an embodiment of the valley’s tech roots. But Micro Center, an electronics retailer from Ohio, has opened its 29th store in Santa Clara, California. And so the nerd kingdom has returned. I see this as a big deal, following up on the opening of the Nintendo store — the second in the country after New York — in San Francisco earlier this month. After years of bad economic news, it’s nice to see signs that the Bay Area is coming back. No. To answer your question, nerds cannot live at the Micro Center store. But this isn’t just any store. It’s a symbol — a sign that shows tech still has a physical presence in Silicon Valley, in addition to places like the Buck’s Restaurant, the Denny’s where Nvidia started, the Intel Museum, the Computer History Museum, the California Academy of Sciences and the Tech Museum of Innovation. Other historic hangouts for techies like Walker’s Wagon Wheel, Atari’s headquarters, Lion & Compass — even Circuit City — have long since closed. But hey, we’ve got the Micro Center store, and the Apple spaceship is not that far away. The grand opening week has been going well and I got a tour of the superstore from Dan Ackerman, a veteran tech journalist who is editor-in-chief at Micro Center News. As I walked into the place, Ackerman was finishing a chat with iFixit, a tech repair publication which has its own space for podcasts inside the store. That was unexpected, as I’ve never seen a store embrace social media in such a way. Can you stump the geniuses at the Knowledge Bar at Micro Center? Nearby was the Knowledge Bar, where you can get all your tech questions answered — much like the Genius Bars in Apple Stores. And there were repair tables out in the open. There are a lot of things for tech enthusiasts can like about Micro Center. First, it’s not as sprawling as Fry’s, which had zany themes like ancient Egypt and a weird mix of electronics goods as well as household appliances, cosmetics, magazines and tons of snack foods. (The Egyptian-themed Campbell, California Fry’s store that I drove by often was 156,000 square feet, and now it’s home to a pickleball court complex). Fry’s was a store that stereotyped nerds and Silicon Valley, which also had its own HBO television show that carried on the stereotypes. Nvidia’s latest RTX 50 Series GPUs were in stock at Micro Center. The Micro Center store, by contrast, is smaller at 40,000 square feet and stocked with many more practical nerd items. For the grand opening, this store had the very practical product of more than 4,000 graphics processing units (GPUs) in stock from Nvidia (which just launched its 50 Series GPUs) and AMD, Ackerman told me. Some of those graphics cards cost as much as $4,000. Not to be outdone. AMD has a row of GPUs at Micro Center too. “There were people waiting to get to the GPUs,” Ackerman said. On display was a gold-plated graphics card that was being auctioned off for charity. It was signed by Jensen Huang, Nvidia CEO. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang signed this GPU being auctioned for charity at Micro Center. “I joke that whoever wins the bid should get a Jensen leather jacket as well,” said Ackerman. And this Micro Center store has a good location (5201 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Santa Clara) that is just a six-minute drive from Apple’s worldwide headquarters and (perhaps better yet) a one-minute walk from the Korean Hair Salon. Micro Center had a previous store in Silicon Valley, near Intel’s headquarters in Santa Clara. But that store close in 2012 because the company couldn’t negotiate better terms with the landlord. For its return to the Bay Area, Micro Center bided its time and came back at a time when many other retail chains were failing. It proves that the once proud region — the birthplace of electronics — still merits its own electronics store. You can buy dyes for liquid-cooled tubes at Micro Center. Sure, we have Target, Best Buy and Walmart selling lots of electronics gear. But there’s nothing like the Akihabara electronics district in Japan, which is full of multi-story electronics stores and gaming arcades. But this store is loaded with today’s modern top gear, like AI PCs, Ubiquity home networking gear, and dyes for multi-colored water-cooling systems. Vendors like Razer and Logitech had their own sections. Ackerman was pleased to show me the USB-C to USB-A adapter in stock, among many obscure items. And he showed me the inventory machine that could rotate its stock of 3D-printing filaments and give you the exact SKU that you scanned with a bar code. Tech hobbyists can find their love at Micro Center. “That’s super fun. I call it Mr. Filaments,” Ackerman said of the inventory robot. There’s a section for hobbyists who like single-board computing and DIY projects. There’s a set of video, audio and digital content creation tools for content creators. All told, there are more than 20,000 products and over 100 tech experts who can help. It even has the numbered cashier locations where you can check out — the same kind of checkout stands that Fry’s had. The Mr. Filaments robot inventory system at Micro Center. Customers can receive authorized computer service for brands like Apple, Dell, and HP, benefiting from same-day diagnostics and repairs, thanks to over 3,000 parts on hand through partnerships with leading OEMs. I only wish it had a help desk for Comcast. Micro Center has gear to entertain geeks. Micro Center started in 1979 in Columbus, Ohio. It’s a surprise there aren’t more nerd stores, given how ubiquitous tech is around the world these days. But Ackerman said, “These guys are really doing it right, picking and choosing, finding the right cities, finding the right locations. That’s why Charlotte is great. Miami is a big tech hub, especially for health tech. And we’re literally five minutes away from Apple headquarters and plenty of other places. People from HP and Nvidia and other companies are coming in today to hang out.” “Even though this store is big, the CEO (Richard Mershad) is really into curation, making sure it’s the right mix of stuff. He’s making sure it doesn’t go too far afield. So you’re not going to come in here and find, you know, hair dryers or lawncare equipment,” Ackerman said. “You’re going to find computer and home entertainment stuff, and DIY gear. There are components, just like in a Radio Shack, that hobbyists care about.” Dan Ackerman knows how to install a TV on your wall. As for the Micro Center News, Ackerman told me he has around 10 regular contributors and 20 more freelancers writing gadget reviews and other stories about tech gear. It is a kind of refuge for that vanishing breed of professional tech journalists. No wonder I was so nostalgic visiting Micro Center.

Frankenstein, the post-Enlightenment novel written by a teenage girl that invented modern science fiction, has long been Guillermo del Toro’s white whale. The Mexican filmmaker has eyed adapting Mary Shelley’s story of a modern day Prometheus since the 1990s. And now it’s almost here. It’s a good feeling for the filmmaker and his admirers… but it also an opportunity of mounting excitement for fans of Shelley, too, since so much of her 1818 masterpiece remains mostly associated with the page in spite of the countless film adaptations based on the story of a man and his monster. And as judged by the first remarkable teaser trailer of Frankenstein introduced by del Toro and stars Oscar Isaac and Mia Goth at Netflix’s Tudum event Saturday night, it’s safe to stay that del Toro is pulling from Shelley directly… including a wrap-around story of hers that is seldom ever attempted on the screen. “What manner of creature is that?” a shaken voice whispers in the new Frankenstein trailer. “What manner of devil made him?” We never exactly see what countenance could earn the dehumanizing term “creature” in the trailer, but we feel his presence. He is a silhouette, a shadow—a vengeful wraith—walking across a sheet of ice with the sunset to his back. And he is approaching what is demonstrably a half-mad, frostbitten Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac), who can only say in his frozen delirium “I did.” Victor is the devil who made that. For fans of Shelley’s novel, or just those with a good memory of Kenneth Branagh’s now mostly forgotten 1994 adaptation of the book, this framing device should send a chill of anticipation through the spine as giddy as any more familiar promises of gods and monsters. That’s because del Toro is adapting the cruel framing device Shelley used to introduce both Victor and the creature he pursues. Indeed, most of Frankenstein on the page is told in flashback and relayed by our protagonist Victor as a kind of last rites confession as he dies from fever and starvation after years and years of chasing his creation north. Always north. Whereas most of the novel takes place actually at the end of the Enlightenment era of the 19th century—the glory days of Mary’s famous philosophical and activist parents—the only “modern” part of the story is to compare the zeal for discovery in Victor with what was only a dawning fascination in the 19th century with discovering the North Pole (a feat that wouldn’t actually be accomplished until the early 20th century). In the book, Victor’s tale of obsession for greatness causes a captain who has led his men to becoming stuck in the Arctic ice to reflect on the potentially lethal consequences of his ambitions—especially after he meets the Monster who later verifies Victor’s story by mourning over the scientist’s body. The framing device is fascinating because of where it places the story in history, but also because it elevates the tragedy of the so-called Monster and his Creator. Who was really hunting who at the end of the world in the North Pole, and who is truly the monster? The Creature did terrible things, but how much of that is Victor’s fault for abandoning his progeny to a lifetime of loneliness hatred, and despair, including by that which gave him life? Both suffer tragic fates in the end in the cold. Unloved and unremembered, except by one sea captain no one will believe. While it remains to be seen if del Toro is doing a straight-ahead faithful adaptation of the novel—in fact we can assume he is not since Isaac’s Victor dresses more like a Victorian of the mid-19th century than a contemporary of Voltaire or Thomas Jefferson, and we also know that Burn Gorman appears in the movie as Fritz, a character created by Universal Pictures in the iconic 1931 film adaptation starring Boris Karloff—it is fascinating to see the master filmmaker returning to the source material. It also raises questions of just where he will go with Jacob Elordi’s intentionally obscured and hidden Monster. We know from the trailer’s end with the Monster attacking the crew of the North Pole-bound ship (a beat also, we might add, is not in the novel) that he has the power of speech. It will be curious indeed to learn if he proves to be a Milton-esque philosopher demon, which is also a largely ignored element of Shelley’s original story. Frankenstein is expected to premiere in November on Netflix.