35,000 Solar Power Systems Exposed To Internet Are Vulnerable To Cyberattacks  CybersecurityNews

Once again, Sam Altman wants to show you the future. The CEO of OpenAI is standing on a sparse stage in San Francisco, preparing to reveal his next move to an attentive crowd. “We needed some way for identifying, authenticating humans in the age of AGI,” Altman explains, referring to artificial general intelligence. “We wanted a way to make sure that humans stayed special and central.” The solution Altman came up with is looming behind him. It’s a white sphere about the size of a beach ball, with a camera at its center. The company that makes it, known as Tools for Humanity, calls this mysterious device the Orb. Stare into the heart of the plastic-and-silicon globe and it will map the unique furrows and ciliary zones of your iris. Seconds later, you’ll receive inviolable proof of your humanity: a 12,800-digit binary number, known as an iris code, sent to an app on your phone. At the same time, a packet of cryptocurrency called Worldcoin, worth approximately $42, will be transferred to your digital wallet—your reward for becoming a “verified human.” Altman co-founded Tools for Humanity in 2019 as part of a suite of companies he believed would reshape the world. Once the tech he was developing at OpenAI passed a certain level of intelligence, he reasoned, it would mark the end of one era on the Internet and the beginning of another, in which AI became so advanced, so human-like, that you would no longer be able to tell whether what you read, saw, or heard online came from a real person. When that happened, Altman imagined, we would need a new kind of online infrastructure: a human-verification layer for the Internet, to distinguish real people from the proliferating number of bots and AI “agents.”And so Tools for Humanity set out to build a global “proof-of-humanity” network. It aims to verify 50 million people by the end of 2025; ultimately its goal is to sign up every single human being on the planet. The free crypto serves as both an incentive for users to sign up, and also an entry point into what the company hopes will become the world’s largest financial network, through which it believes “double-digit percentages of the global economy” will eventually flow. Even for Altman, these missions are audacious. “If this really works, it’s like a fundamental piece of infrastructure for the world,” Altman tells TIME in a video interview from the passenger seat of a car a few days before his April 30 keynote address.Internal hardware of the Orb in mid-assembly in March. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe project’s goal is to solve a problem partly of Altman’s own making. In the near future, he and other tech leaders say, advanced AIs will be imbued with agency: the ability to not just respond to human prompting, but to take actions independently in the world. This will enable the creation of AI coworkers that can drop into your company and begin solving problems; AI tutors that can adapt their teaching style to students’ preferences; even AI doctors that can diagnose routine cases and handle scheduling or logistics. The arrival of these virtual agents, their venture capitalist backers predict, will turbocharge our productivity and unleash an age of material abundance.But AI agents will also have cascading consequences for the human experience online. “As AI systems become harder to distinguish from people, websites may face difficult trade-offs,” says a recent paper by researchers from 25 different universities, nonprofits, and tech companies, including OpenAI. “There is a significant risk that digital institutions will be unprepared for a time when AI-powered agents, including those leveraged by malicious actors, overwhelm other activity online.” On social-media platforms like X and Facebook, bot-driven accounts are amassing billions of views on AI-generated content. In April, the foundation that runs Wikipedia disclosed that AI bots scraping their site were making the encyclopedia too costly to sustainably run. Later the same month, researchers from the University of Zurich found that AI-generated comments on the subreddit /r/ChangeMyView were up to six times more successful than human-written ones at persuading unknowing users to change their minds.  Photograph by Davide Monteleone for TIMEBuy a copy of the Orb issue hereThe arrival of agents won’t only threaten our ability to distinguish between authentic and AI content online. It will also challenge the Internet’s core business model, online advertising, which relies on the assumption that ads are being viewed by humans. “The Internet will change very drastically sometime in the next 12 to 24 months,” says Tools for Humanity CEO Alex Blania. “So we have to succeed, or I’m not sure what else would happen.”For four years, Blania’s team has been testing the Orb’s hardware abroad. Now the U.S. rollout has arrived. Over the next 12 months, 7,500 Orbs will be arriving in dozens of American cities, in locations like gas stations, bodegas, and flagship stores in Los Angeles, Austin, and Miami. The project’s founders and fans hope the Orb’s U.S. debut will kickstart a new phase of growth. The San Francisco keynote was titled: “At Last.” It’s not clear the public appetite matches the exultant branding. Tools for Humanity has “verified” just 12 million humans since mid 2023, a pace Blania concedes is well behind schedule. Few online platforms currently support the so-called “World ID” that the Orb bestows upon its visitors, leaving little to entice users to give up their biometrics beyond the lure of free crypto. Even Altman isn’t sure whether the whole thing can work. “I can see [how] this becomes a fairly mainstream thing in a few years,” he says. “Or I can see that it’s still only used by a small subset of people who think about the world in a certain way.” Blania (left) and Altman debut the Orb at World’s U.S. launch in San Francisco on April 30, 2025. Jason Henry—The New York Times/ReduxYet as the Internet becomes overrun with AI, the creators of this strange new piece of hardware are betting that everybody in the world will soon want—or need—to visit an Orb. The biometric code it creates, they predict, will become a new type of digital passport, without which you might be denied passage to the Internet of the future, from dating apps to government services. In a best-case scenario, World ID could be a privacy-preserving way to fortify the Internet against an AI-driven deluge of fake or deceptive content. It could also enable the distribution of universal basic income (UBI)—a policy that Altman has previously touted—as AI automation transforms the global economy. To examine what this new technology might mean, I reported from three continents, interviewed 10 Tools for Humanity executives and investors, reviewed hundreds of pages of company documents, and “verified” my own humanity. The Internet will inevitably need some kind of proof-of-humanity system in the near future, says Divya Siddarth, founder of the nonprofit Collective Intelligence Project. The real question, she argues, is whether such a system will be centralized—“a big security nightmare that enables a lot of surveillance”—or privacy-preserving, as the Orb claims to be. Questions remain about Tools for Humanity’s corporate structure, its yoking to an unstable cryptocurrency, and what power it would concentrate in the hands of its owners if successful. Yet it’s also one of the only attempts to solve what many see as an increasingly urgent problem. “There are some issues with it,” Siddarth says of World ID. “But you can’t preserve the Internet in amber. Something in this direction is necessary.”In March, I met Blania at Tools for Humanity’s San Francisco headquarters, where a large screen displays the number of weekly “Orb verifications” by country. A few days earlier, the CEO had attended a $1 million-per-head dinner at Mar-a-Lago with President Donald Trump, whom he credits with clearing the way for the company’s U.S. launch by relaxing crypto regulations. “Given Sam is a very high profile target,” Blania says, “we just decided that we would let other companies fight that fight, and enter the U.S. once the air is clear.” As a kid growing up in Germany, Blania was a little different than his peers. “Other kids were, like, drinking a lot, or doing a lot of parties, and I was just building a lot of things that could potentially blow up,” he recalls. At the California Institute of Technology, where he was pursuing research for a masters degree, he spent many evenings reading the blogs of startup gurus like Paul Graham and Altman. Then, in 2019, Blania received an email from Max Novendstern, an entrepreneur who had been kicking around a concept with Altman to build a global cryptocurrency network. They were looking for technical minds to help with the project. Over cappuccinos, Altman told Blania he was certain about three things. First, smarter-than-human AI was not only possible, but inevitable—and it would soon mean you could no longer assume that anything you read, saw, or heard on the Internet was human-created. Second, cryptocurrency and other decentralized technologies would be a massive force for change in the world. And third, scale was essential to any crypto network’s value. The Orb is tested on a calibration rig, surrounded by checkerboard targets to ensure precision in iris detection. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe goal of Worldcoin, as the project was initially called, was to combine those three insights. Altman took a lesson from PayPal, the company co-founded by his mentor Peter Thiel. Of its initial funding, PayPal spent less than $10 million actually building its app—but pumped an additional $70 million or so into a referral program, whereby new users and the person who invited them would each receive $10 in credit. The referral program helped make PayPal a leading payment platform. Altman thought a version of that strategy would propel Worldcoin to similar heights. He wanted to create a new cryptocurrency and give it to users as a reward for signing up. The more people who joined the system, the higher the token’s value would theoretically rise. Since 2019, the project has raised $244 million from investors like Coinbase and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. That money paid for the $50 million cost of designing the Orb, plus maintaining the software it runs on. The total market value of all Worldcoins in existence, however, is far higher—around $12 billion. That number is a bit misleading: most of those coins are not in circulation and Worldcoin’s price has fluctuated wildly. Still, it allows the company to reward users for signing up at no cost to itself. The main lure for investors is the crypto upside. Some 75% of all Worldcoins are set aside for humans to claim when they sign up, or as referral bonuses. The remaining 25% are split between Tools for Humanity’s backers and staff, including Blania and Altman. “I’m really excited to make a lot of money,” ” Blania says.From the beginning, Altman was thinking about the consequences of the AI revolution he intended to unleash. (On May 21, he announced plans to team up with famed former Apple designer Jony Ive on a new AI personal device.) A future in which advanced AI could perform most tasks more effectively than humans would bring a wave of unemployment and economic dislocation, he reasoned. Some kind of wealth redistribution might be necessary. In 2016, he partially funded a study of basic income, which gave $1,000 per-month handouts to low-income individuals in Illinois and Texas. But there was no single financial system that would allow money to be sent to everybody in the world. Nor was there a way to stop an individual human from claiming their share twice—or to identify a sophisticated AI pretending to be human and pocketing some cash of its own. In 2023, Tools for Humanity raised the possibility of using the network to redistribute the profits of AI labs that were able to automate human labor. “As AI advances,” it said, “fairly distributing access and some of the created value through UBI will play an increasingly vital role in counteracting the concentration of economic power.”Blania was taken by the pitch, and agreed to join the project as a co-founder. “Most people told us we were very stupid or crazy or insane, including Silicon Valley investors,” Blania says. At least until ChatGPT came out in 2022, transforming OpenAI into one of the world’s most famous tech companies and kickstarting a market bull-run. “Things suddenly started to make more and more sense to the external world,” Blania says of the vision to develop a global “proof-of-humanity” network. “You have to imagine a world in which you will have very smart and competent systems somehow flying through the Internet with different goals and ideas of what they want to do, and us having no idea anymore what we’re dealing with.”After our interview, Blania’s head of communications ushers me over to a circular wooden structure where eight Orbs face one another. The scene feels like a cross between an Apple Store and a ceremonial altar. “Do you want to get verified?” she asks. Putting aside my reservations for the purposes of research, I download the World App and follow its prompts. I flash a QR code at the Orb, then gaze into it. A minute or so later, my phone buzzes with confirmation: I’ve been issued my own personal World ID and some Worldcoin.The first thing the Orb does is check if you’re human, using a neural network that takes input from various sensors, including an infrared camera and a thermometer. Davide Monteleone for TIMEWhile I stared into the Orb, several complex procedures had taken place at once. A neural network took inputs from multiple sensors—an infrared camera, a thermometer—to confirm I was a living human. Simultaneously, a telephoto lens zoomed in on my iris, capturing the physical traits within that distinguish me from every other human on Earth. It then converted that image into an iris code: a numerical abstraction of my unique biometric data. Then the Orb checked to see if my iris code matched any it had seen before, using a technique allowing encrypted data to be compared without revealing the underlying information. Before the Orb deleted my data, it turned my iris code into several derivative codes—none of which on its own can be linked back to the original—encrypted them, deleted the only copies of the decryption keys, and sent each one to a different secure server, so that future users’ iris codes can be checked for uniqueness against mine. If I were to use my World ID to access a website, that site would learn nothing about me except that I’m human. The Orb is open-source, so outside experts can examine its code and verify the company’s privacy claims. “I did a colonoscopy on this company and these technologies before I agreed to join,” says Trevor Traina, a Trump donor and former U.S. ambassador to Austria who now serves as Tools for Humanity’s chief business officer. “It is the most privacy-preserving technology on the planet.”Only weeks later, when researching what would happen if I wanted to delete my data, do I discover that Tools for Humanity’s privacy claims rest on what feels like a sleight of hand. The company argues that in modifying your iris code, it has “effectively anonymized” your biometric data. If you ask Tools for Humanity to delete your iris codes, they will delete the one stored on your phone, but not the derivatives. Those, they argue, are no longer your personal data at all. But if I were to return to an Orb after deleting my data, it would still recognize those codes as uniquely mine. Once you look into the Orb, a piece of your identity remains in the system forever. If users could truly delete that data, the premise of one ID per human would collapse, Tools for Humanity’s chief privacy officer Damien Kieran tells me when I call seeking an explanation. People could delete and sign up for new World IDs after being suspended from a platform. Or claim their Worldcoin tokens, sell them, delete their data, and cash in again. This argument fell flat with European Union regulators in Germany, who recently declared that the Orb posed “fundamental data protection issues” and ordered the company to allow European users to fully delete even their anonymized data. (Tools for Humanity has appealed; the regulator is now reassessing the decision.) “Just like any other technology service, users cannot delete data that is not personal data,” Kieran said in a statement. “If a person could delete anonymized data that can’t be linked to them by World or any third party, it would allow bad actors to circumvent the security and safety that World ID is working to bring to every human.”On a balmy afternoon this spring, I climb a flight of stairs up to a room above a restaurant in an outer suburb of Seoul. Five elderly South Koreans tap on their phones as they wait to be “verified” by the two Orbs in the center of the room. “We don’t really know how to distinguish between AI and humans anymore,” an attendant in a company t-shirt explains in Korean, gesturing toward the spheres. “We need a way to verify that we’re human and not AI. So how do we do that? Well, humans have irises, but AI doesn’t.”The attendant ushers an elderly woman over to an Orb. It bleeps. “Open your eyes,” a disembodied voice says in English. The woman stares into the camera. Seconds later, she checks her phone and sees that a packet of Worldcoin worth 75,000 Korean won (about $54) has landed in her digital wallet. Congratulations, the app tells her. You are now a verified human.A visitor views the Orbs in Seoul on April 14, 2025. Taemin Ha for TIMETools for Humanity aims to “verify” 1 million Koreans over the next year. Taemin Ha for TIMEA couple dozen Orbs have been available in South Korea since 2023, verifying roughly 55,000 people. Now Tools for Humanity is redoubling its efforts there. At an event in a traditional wooden hanok house in central Seoul, an executive announces that 250 Orbs will soon be dispersed around the country—with the aim of verifying 1 million Koreans in the next 12 months. South Korea has high levels of smartphone usage, crypto and AI adoption, and Internet access, while average wages are modest enough for the free Worldcoin on offer to still be an enticing draw—all of which makes it fertile testing ground for the company’s ambitious global expansion. Yet things seem off to a slow start. In a retail space I visited in central Seoul, Tools for Humanity had constructed a wooden structure with eight Orbs facing each other. Locals and tourists wander past looking bemused; few volunteer themselves up. Most who do tell me they are crypto enthusiasts who came intentionally, driven more by the spirit of early adoption than the free coins. The next day, I visit a coffee shop in central Seoul where a chrome Orb sits unassumingly in one corner. Wu Ruijun, a 20-year-old student from China, strikes up a conversation with the barista, who doubles as the Orb’s operator. Wu was invited here by a friend who said both could claim free cryptocurrency if he signed up. The barista speeds him through the process. Wu accepts the privacy disclosure without reading it, and widens his eyes for the Orb. Soon he’s verified. “I wasn’t told anything about the privacy policy,” he says on his way out. “I just came for the money.”As Altman’s car winds through San Francisco, I ask about the vision he laid out in 2019: that AI would make it harder for us to trust each other online. To my surprise, he rejects the framing. “I’m much more [about] like: what is the good we can create, rather than the bad we can stop?” he says. “It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’ve got to avoid the bot overrun’ or whatever. It’s just that we can do a lot of special things for humans.” It’s an answer that may reflect how his role has changed over the years. Altman is now the chief public cheerleader of a $300 billion company that’s touting the transformative utility of AI agents. The rise of agents, he and others say, will be a boon for our quality of life—like having an assistant on hand who can answer your most pressing questions, carry out mundane tasks, and help you develop new skills. It’s an optimistic vision that may well pan out. But it doesn’t quite fit with the prophecies of AI-enabled infopocalypse that Tools for Humanity was founded upon.Altman waves away a question about the influence he and other investors stand to gain if their vision is realized. Most holders, he assumes, will have already started selling their tokens—too early, he adds. “What I think would be bad is if an early crew had a lot of control over the protocol,” he says, “and that’s where I think the commitment to decentralization is so cool.” Altman is referring to the World Protocol, the underlying technology upon which the Orb, Worldcoin, and World ID all rely. Tools for Humanity is developing it, but has committed to giving control to its users over time—a process they say will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of a few executives or investors. Tools for Humanity would remain a for-profit company, and could levy fees on platforms that use World ID, but other companies would be able to compete for customers by building alternative apps—or even alternative Orbs. The plan draws on ideas that animated the crypto ecosystem in the late 2010s and early 2020s, when evangelists for emerging blockchain technologies argued that the centralization of power—especially in large so-called “Web 2.0” tech companies—was responsible for many of the problems plaguing the modern Internet. Just as decentralized cryptocurrencies could reform a financial system controlled by economic elites, so too would it be possible to create decentralized organizations, run by their members instead of CEOs. How such a system might work in practice remains unclear. “Building a community-based governance system,” Tools for Humanity says in a 2023 white paper, “represents perhaps the most formidable challenge of the entire project.”Altman has a pattern of making idealistic promises that shift over time. He founded OpenAI as a nonprofit in 2015, with a mission to develop AGI safely and for the benefit of all humanity. To raise money, OpenAI restructured itself as a for-profit company in 2019, but with overall control still in the hands of its nonprofit board. Last year, Altman proposed yet another restructure—one which would dilute the board’s control and allow more profits to flow to shareholders. Why, I ask, should the public trust Tools for Humanity’s commitment to freely surrender influence and power? “I think you will just see the continued decentralization via the protocol,” he says. “The value here is going to live in the network, and the network will be owned and governed by a lot of people.” Altman talks less about universal basic income these days. He recently mused about an alternative, which he called “universal basic compute.” Instead of AI companies redistributing their profits, he seemed to suggest, they could instead give everyone in the world fair access to super-powerful AI. Blania tells me he recently “made the decision to stop talking” about UBI at Tools for Humanity. “UBI is one potential answer,” he says. “Just giving [people] access to the latest [AI] models and having them learn faster and better is another.” Says Altman: “I still don’t know what the right answer is. I believe we should do a better job of distribution of resources than we currently do.” When I probe the question of why people should trust him, Altman gets irritated. “I understand that you hate AI, and that’s fine,” he says. “If you want to frame it as the downside of AI is that there’s going to be a proliferation of very convincing AI systems that are pretending to be human, and we need ways to know what is really human-authorized versus not, then yeah, I think you can call that a downside of AI. It’s not how I would naturally frame it.” The phrase human-authorized hints at a tension between World ID and OpenAI’s plans for AI agents. An Internet where a World ID is required to access most services might impede the usefulness of the agents that OpenAI and others are developing. So Tools for Humanity is building a system that would allow users to delegate their World ID to an agent, allowing the bot to take actions online on their behalf, according to Tiago Sada, the company’s chief product officer. “We’ve built everything in a way that can be very easily delegatable to an agent,” Sada says. It’s a measure that would allow humans to be held accountable for the actions of their AIs. But it suggests that Tools for Humanity’s mission may be shifting beyond simply proving humanity, and toward becoming the infrastructure that enables AI agents to proliferate with human authorization. World ID doesn’t tell you whether a piece of content is AI-generated or human-generated; all it tells you is whether the account that posted it is a human or a bot. Even in a world where everybody had a World ID, our online spaces might still be filled with AI-generated text, images, and videos.As I say goodbye to Altman, I’m left feeling conflicted about his project. If the Internet is going to be transformed by AI agents, then some kind of proof-of-humanity system will almost certainly be necessary. Yet if the Orb becomes a piece of Internet infrastructure, it could give Altman—a beneficiary of the proliferation of AI content—significant influence over a leading defense mechanism against it. People might have no choice but to participate in the network in order to access social media or online services.I thought of an encounter I witnessed in Seoul. In the room above the restaurant, Cho Jeong-yeon, 75, watched her friend get verified by an Orb. Cho had been invited to do the same, but demurred. The reward wasn’t enough for her to surrender a part of her identity. “Your iris is uniquely yours, and we don’t really know how it might be used,” she says. “Seeing the machine made me think: are we becoming machines instead of humans now? Everything is changing, and we don’t know how it’ll all turn out.”—With reporting by Stephen Kim/Seoul. This story was supported by Tarbell Grants.Correction, May 30The original version of this story misstated the market capitalization of Worldcoin if all coins were in circulation. It is $12 billion, not $1.2 billion.

TL;DR: Canberra authorities are embracing a tough approach to ransomware threats. A new law will require certain organizations to disclose when and how much they have paid to cybercriminals following a data breach. However, experts remain unconvinced that this is the most effective way to tackle the problem. Companies operating in Australia must now report any payments made to cybercriminals after experiencing a ransomware incident. Government officials hope the new mandate will help them gain a deeper understanding of the issue, as many enterprises continue to pay ransoms whenever they fall victim to file-encrypting malware. Originally proposed last year, the law applies only to companies with an annual turnover exceeding $1.93 million. This threshold targets the top 6.5 percent of Australia's registered businesses – representing roughly half of the country's total economic output. Under the new law, affected companies must report ransomware incidents to the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD). Failure to properly disclose an attack will result in fines under the country's civil penalty system. Authorities are allegedly planning to follow a two-stage approach, initially prioritizing major violations while fostering a "constructive" dialogue with victims. Starting next year, regulators will adopt a much stricter stance toward noncompliant organizations. The Australian government has implemented this mandatory reporting requirement after concluding that voluntary disclosures were insufficient. In 2024, officials noted that ransomware and cyber extortion incidents were vastly underreported, with only one in five victims coming forward. Ransomware remains a highly complex and growing phenomenon, with attacks reaching record levels despite increased law enforcement actions against notorious cyber gangs. Although several governments have proposed similar regulations, Australia is the first country to formally enact such a law. // Related Stories Jeff Wichman, director of incident response at cybersecurity firm Semperis, cautions that mandatory reporting is a double-edged sword. While the government may gain valuable data and insights into attacker profiles, the law may not reduce the frequency of attacks. Instead, it could serve mainly to publicly shame breached organizations – while cybercriminals continue to profit. A recent Semperis study found that over 70 percent of 1,000 ransomware-hit companies opted to pay the ransom and hope for the best. "Some companies, they just want to pay it and get things done, to get their data off the dark web. Others, it's a delayed response perspective, they want negotiations to happen with the attacker while they figure out what happened," Wichman explained. According to the study, 60 percent of victims who paid received functional decryption keys and successfully recovered their data. However, in 40 percent of cases, the provided keys were corrupted or ineffective.

They are the latest in a string of high-profile companies publicly reporting being hacked.

Author I'm building a grid turn-based game, and I have a couple of questions about Utility AI that I can't wrap my head around for a couple of weeks.Suppose we have a unit that can move X tiles and attack in melee range. I want an AI controller to enumerate all possible targets for this melee attack and score them.- Are "move" and "attack" two separate decisions, or is it one decision that does both the movement and the attack?- If they are separate decisions, then how can a decision to move consider a melee target? The option is to copy all of the considerations from the "melee" decision to the "move", but it feels bad.- If they are a single decision, how to reuse it if, let's say, I have another unit that knows how to teleport instead of how to move?My question boils down to this: where is the reasonable edge when I want to make some sequence of actions a single decision or a couple of decisions?

Fruit flies don't naturally enjoy the taste of cocaine. Credit: Deposit Photos Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. In a world first, scientists at the University of Utah have engineered fruit flies susceptible to cocaine addiction. But as strange as it sounds, there are potentially life-saving reasons for genetically altering the insects to crave the drug. The novel biological model could help addiction treatment therapies development and expedite research timelines. The findings are detailed in the Journal of Neuroscience. As surprising as it may sound, humans have a lot in common with fruit flies. In fact, we share around 70–75 percent of the same genes responsible for various diseases, as well as many of the same vital organs. Researchers have relied on the insects for genetic studies for years, especially for investigating the biological roots of certain addictions like cocaine abuse. This is due in large part to the fruit fly’s quick life cycle and its comparatively simple genetic makeup. But while scientists have administered the drug to the bugs in the past, there’s always been a small problem. “Flies don’t like cocaine one bit,” Adrian Rothenfluh, the study’s senior author and an associate professor of psychiatry, said in a statement. Even when previously introduced to cocaine, Rothenfluh’s team noted that the insects routinely opted for pure sugar water over sugar water laced with cocaine. Study first author Travis Philyaw theorized the reason may reside in a fly’s sense of taste that is found on their legs. “Insects are evolutionarily primed to avoid plant toxins, and cocaine is a plant toxin,” Philyaw explained. “They have taste receptors on their ‘arms’—their tarsal segments—so they can put their hand in something before it goes in their mouth, and decide, ‘I’m not going to touch that.'” After confirming that cocaine activates a fruit fly’s bitter-sensing taste receptors, Rothenfluh and Philyaw switched off those nerves. Once deactivated, there was little to stop the flies from developing a cocaine habit. These modified flies were subsequently introduced to sugar water infused with a low concentration of cocaine. Within 16 hours, the insects indicated a preference for the drug-laced drink. “At low doses, they start running around, just like people,” said Rothenfluh. “At very high doses, they get incapacitated, which is also true in people.” Now that researchers know how to breed the modified fruit flies, they can more easily study how cocaine addiction evolves in the body. Not only that, but they can do so on a much faster timeline by analyzing hundreds of genes at a time. “We can scale research so quickly in flies,” said Philyaw. “We can identify risk genes that might be difficult to uncover in more complex organisms, and then we pass that information to researchers who work with mammalian models.” From there, scientists can identify treatment targets that help link to human therapy options. “We can really start to understand the mechanisms of cocaine choice, and the more you understand about the mechanism, the more you have a chance to find a therapeutic that might act on that mechanism,” explained Rothenfluh.

After the celebration ends, college graduates typically face numerous transitions, from moving to a new city and/or starting a new job to taking on student loan payments and other financial responsibilities. College students are often targeted for job scams, but the Better Business Bureau is alerting recent grads about schemes being employed specifically to steal their personal information and money during this transition period. Unpaid tuition scamImagine getting a call after graduation that you have an outstanding tuition payment, and unless you pay the bill immediately, your diploma will be rescinded. Scammers are using this threat to con recent grads—who have, in fact, paid their full tuition—into sending money via wire transfer or prepaid debit card, which cannot be tracked or recovered. Another version of this scam attempts to convince college students (and/or their parents) that they owe tuition and need to pay immediately to ensure they remain enrolled. If you receive an email, text, or call about an unpaid bill, do not engage—instead, contact your school's bursar or financial services office directly. You will typically receive communication from higher education institutions by mail or via a secure student portal—not as an urgent message demanding money.Student loan scamsStudent loans have been targets for scammers for years—made easier by the starting and stopping of loan forgiveness programs—and recent college grads who are getting ready to make their first payments are common victims. You may get an unsolicited call, text, or email from a company offering debt relief or debt forgiveness services for a fee. In some cases, the company is legit but making false claims, and in others, the whole thing is a scam. They may ask for upfront payment, usually via gift card or wire transfer, and never deliver, or gather a bunch of personal information that can be used to steal your identity. While the status of loan forgiveness can be difficult to follow, you should know the details of your loan, including when payments are due to begin, and look for official sources regarding loan forgiveness options. Job scamsEmployment scams range from fake job listings to unsolicited texts from "recruiters" offering a position while demanding personal information and payment for "training." Recent grads may be promised an entry-level remote role at a completely unrealistic salary, and scammers collect everything from your Social Security number to your bank account information in exchange for the offer. Other schemes have you pay upfront for training or equipment you never receive (because the job isn't real) or pay you too much with a fake check and ask for reimbursement via app or wire transfer. No one is getting too-good-to-be-true jobs in this market. Always do your due diligence on companies before applying for a position or accepting an offer: Review the official website for contact information and job postings, and consider reaching out to HR or employees you locate independently to confirm that a position is legit. Don't ever pay for anything up front. Moving scamsThe moving industry seems to be rife with scams, and recent grads who need to move across town or out of state are not immune. Moving companies may charge more money than was quoted and, in the worst cases, hold your stuff hostage unless you pay. Or they may simply not show after you've paid a deposit for the move. Red flags for moving companies include estimates delivered quickly and with little information collected about your move, full payments demanded before the move, and non-refundable deposits paid via peer-to-peer apps and bank transfers (negating the protection of credit cards). Thoroughly research the company to understand how moving brokers operate, and make sure you get everything in writing.Rental scamsIf you make it through the actual move unscathed, you could still encounter a rental scam. As with job scams, these involve listings that sound too good to be true, with lots of amenities in a desired location at an affordable price. (Like job scams, most renters aren't getting these deals in this market.) Fraudsters may even use real properties in their listings to lure you in. Once they have you, they collect a deposit, first month's rent, and a bunch of personal information while leaving you with nowhere to live. While you may pay your actual rent via Zelle, PayPal, or Venmo, you shouldn't use these services to send a deposit for a rental you haven't seen to a landlord you haven't met. Search the listing on Zillow, Redfin, and other rental sites to look for inconsistencies that could indicate a scam. Verify the address, look at Google street view, and visit (or send someone you trust in your place) before paying any money if you can.

Meta is bidding to build high-tech wearables for the US Army, as reported by Wall Street Journal. The company is teaming up with Palmer Luckey's defense firm Anduril Industries on the project, which has been dubbed EagleEye. The contract is worth around $100 million, though it hasn't been awarded yet. It's part of a larger $22 billion Army wearables project of which Anduril is the lead vendor. As expected from Meta and Luckey, EagleEye will be a line of tech-forward helmets, glasses and other wearables that provide an augmented reality or virtual reality experience. Reporting indicates that these devices will include sensors that enhance the hearing and vision of soldiers. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a statement that this tech will “protect our interests at home and abroad.” Anduril and Meta have teamed up to make the world's best AR and VR systems for the United States Military. Leveraging Meta's massive investments in XR technology for our troops will save countless lives and dollars. pic.twitter.com/t9d2vRInSe— Palmer Luckey (@PalmerLuckey) May 29, 2025 This could be used to detect drones flying miles away, for instance, or to suss out hidden targets. It'll also allow these soldiers to interact with AI-powered weapon systems, as Anduril's autonomy software and Meta's AI models will underpin each device. This all sounds very dystopian, but such are the times we find ourselves in. “I have successfully persuaded not just Meta but many others that working with the military is important," Palmer Luckey said in an interview, speaking on Big Tech's embrace of defense contract work. He's become a big player in the defense space in recent years, securing $6 billion in global government contracts and partnering up with many of the tech world's major players. "I've always said that we need to transition from being the world police to being the world gun store," he said in a recent interview with CBS News. Luckey is a long-time supporter of President Trump and recently said that Anduril "did well under Trump in his first administration" and that he thinks the company is "going to do even better now." This is something of a homecoming for Luckey. He co-founded Oculus VR, which Meta purchased. He was fired back in 2017 after news broke that he donated $10,000 to a group trying to install 4chan-style anti-Hillary Clinton memes on roadside billboards. Zuckerberg has since cozied up to Trump in various ways, so I guess the two can be friends again or whatever. “I finally got all my toys back,” Luckey told WSJ.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/meta-could-soon-start-building-tech-for-the-us-army-184405058.html?src=rss

It may be time to suck it up — and we don't just mean the carbon in the atmosphere. No, we're talking about reckoning with the possibility that our attempts at capturing the greenhouse gas to stave off climate disaster are already hopelessly behind schedule, New Scientist reports, if they're not in vain entirely.To illustrate, here're some simple numbers. The CO2 removal industry expects to hit a milestone of removing one million metric tons of CO2 this year. And companies across the globe have bought carbon credits to remove 27 million more, according to data from CDR.fyi cited in the reporting (more on these carbon credit schemes in a moment).That sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. As New Scientist notes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the leading authority on these issues — concluded in a 2022 report that we need to be removing up to 16 billion tons of carbon, not millions, each year to keep the rise in global temperature from exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by the middle of the century, past which the most drastic effects of climate change are believed to be irreversible."It's not scaling up as fast as it would need to if we are going to reach multiple gigatons by 2050," Robert Höglund at Marginal Carbon, a climate consultancy based in Sweden, told the magazine. Carbon capture is not the be-all and end-all. The fact remains that humanity needs to drastically reduce its emissions, which probably means reorganizing society — or at least its energy production and consumption — as we know it. Simply removing the CO2 that's already there is more like a band-aid that buys us a little time; eventually, we'll need to rip it off.For these reasons, some critics fear that carbon capture — and even more drastic interventions, like attempting to dim the Sun — could distract from the climate change's systemic causes. But there's a lot of enthusiasm for the approach all the same, both from scientists and investors. The IPCC acknowledged in its 2022 report that carbon removal was "unavoidable" — as in, essential to meeting climate targets.One popular method of carbon removal is called direct air capture, which involves sucking the carbon straight from the air using massive industrial facilities. A more circuitous approach that's gaining steam involves extracting CO2 out of the ocean, freeing up room for the world's largest carbon sink to passively absorb even more of the greenhouse gas. All of these initiatives, though, are basically just getting off the ground. And the corporate investment, which once promised billions of dollars in cash, seems to be cooling. More than 90 percent of all carbon removal credits sold this year were bought by a single company, Microsoft, New Scientist notes, probably to gloss over its egregious energy bill it's accrued from building loads of AI datacenters.This also touches on the fact that the practice of buying carbon credits can be used as a means of corporate greenwashing. By paying to another firm to "certify" that they will remove a certain amount of carbon at some undetermined point in the future, a company can report a greener carbon balance sheet without actually reducing its emissions.In any case, staking the industry's hopes on corporate munificence is a dicey prospect indeed."I have been raising the alarm for about a year and a half," Eli Mitchell-Larson at Carbon Gap, a UK carbon dioxide removal advocacy organisation, told New Scientist. "If we're just waiting for the waves of free philanthropic money from corporations to fill a hole on their sustainability report, we're not really going to solve the problem."More on climate change: Scientists Just Found Who's Causing Global WarmingShare This Article