Elon Musk is contemplating decommissioning SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, responding to President Donald Trump's apparent intent to terminate government subsidies and contracts with the billionaire's companies. It looks like the feud between the former allies has quickly turned vicious.SpaceX's CEO initially announced that the company would retire its Dragon spacecraft in an X post on Thursday, with Musk sharing a screenshot of a post published on Trump's Truth Social account earlier in the day."The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," said Trump in the screenshotted post. "I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!" You May Also Like "In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately," Musk wrote on X.SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft are a family of vehicles designed to carry passengers and cargo. The National Aeronautics and Space Administrationhas previously relied upon them to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Mere hours prior to Musk's announcement, SpaceX posted on X that it was preparing to launch a Dragon next Tuesday.For a few hours, it seemed reasonable to assume that this launch would now not go ahead. However, Musk then appeared to quickly walk back his decision. Responding to an X user advising him to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days," the billionaire subsequently stated that Dragon will not be decommissioned after all.It's unclear whether Musk's initial announcement was sincere, or whether his apparent about-face might be sarcastic. Musk has a history of making flippant comments online with no apparent regard to their consequences. What is clear is that Musk and Trump's relationship is well past the honeymoon phase, and now looks much more like an ugly divorce.If Trump does terminate government contracts with Musk's companies, it would deal a significant blow to the billionaire. According to a Washington Post investigation, NASA has invested over billion in SpaceX alone. When put together with Musk's other companies such as EV automaker Tesla, his various businesses have received at least billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits. Mashable Trend Report: Coming Soon! Decode what’s viral, what’s next, and what it all means. Sign up for Mashable’s weekly Trend Report newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up! Musk and Trump go through messy public breakup Credit: Roberto Schmidt / AFP via Getty Images Musk's relationship with Trump has significantly deteriorated in recent days. The billionaire announced that he was leaving his position as de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiencylast Wednesday, just one day after he criticised Trump's tax bill as undermining its work. The split was presented as amicable at the time, with Trump presenting Musk with a golden key and words of praise. However, their love affair has quickly turned sour.Musk continued to lambast Trump's bill after his departure from DOGE, arguing that it will increase government debt by trillions of dollars. Strongly disagreeing with the president's characterisation of the proposed legislation as a "Big Beautiful Bill," Musk labelled it a "disgusting abomination" and has been calling for lawmakers to crush it.For his part, Trump has claimed that Musk is simply throwing a tantrum because the bill supposedly cut an alleged "EV mandate." The president stated on Thursday that he had asked the billionaire to leave his administration, and that Musk had been "wearing thin.""I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted, and he just went CRAZY!" Trump claimed. Despite Trump's assertions, he did not abolish any EV mandate as there has never been any U.S. law which makes switching to an electric car mandatory. However, Trump has taken several anti-EV measures since his inauguration, including abolishing incentives encouraging EV adoption, pausing billion in funding for a U.S. charging network, and introducing a annual fee for EV users in his recent tax bill. Related Stories Trump's claim about Musk is an interesting contrast to his statements in March, when he praised the billionaire for not complaining about the supposed end of the non-existent EV mandate. The president made the comments while he and Musk co-hosted a Tesla ad on the White House lawn in an effort to boost the company's cratering stock prices.Tesla's struggling share value has now fallen again amidst Musk's feud with Trump, plummeting more than 14 percent on Thursday to wipe out over billion in value."I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago," Trump wrote on Thursday.Meanwhile, Musk went all-in attacking Trump on Thursday, claiming that the president is linked to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and sharing posts calling for him to be impeached. Musk has also hit out at Trump's tariffs on international trade, predicting that they will "cause a recession in the second half of the year.""Without me, Trump would have lost the election," Musk alleged on X. "Such ingratitude." #spacex #retire #dragon #amidst #musk

Congress loves SLS Senate response to White House budget for NASA: Keep SLS, nix science Gateway is back, baby. Eric Berger – Jun 5, 2025 7:55 pm | 77 Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruzat a hearing on Tuesday, January 28, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruzat a hearing on Tuesday, January 28, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Negotiations over the US federal budget for fiscal year 2026 are in the beginning stages, but when it comes to space, the fault lines are already solidifying in the Senate. The Trump White House released its budget request last Friday, and this included detailed information about its plans for NASA. On Thursday, just days later, the US Senate shot back with its own budget priorities for the space agency. The US budget process is complicated and somewhat broken in recent years, as Congress has failed to pass a budget on time. So, we are probably at least several months away from seeing a final fiscal year 2026 budget from Congress. But we got our first glimpse of the Senate's thinking when the chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Sen. Ted Cruzreleased his "legislative directives" for NASA on Thursday These specific directives concern "reconciliation" for the current budget year, which are supplemental appropriations for NASA and other federal agencies under the purview of Cruz's committee. And this committee does not actually write the budget; that's left to appropriations committees in the House and Senate. Senate space priorities However, Cruz is one of the most important voices in the US Senate on space policy, and the directives released Thursday indicate where he intends to line up on NASA during the upcoming budget fights. Here is how his budget ideas align with the White House priorities in three key areas: Science: The Trump White House budget sought to significantly cut the space agency's science budget, from billion to billion, including the cancellation of some major missions. Cruz makes no comment on most of the science budget, but in calling for a Mars Telecommunications Orbiter, he is signaling support for a Mars Sample Return Mission. Lunar Gateway: The Trump administration called for the cancellation of a small space station to be built in an elongated lunar orbit. There is very uneven support for this in the space community, but it is being led at Johnson Space Center, in Cruz's home state. Cruz says Congress should "fully fund" the Gateway as "critical" infrastructure. Space Launch System and Orion: The Trump administration sought to cancel the large expensive rocket and spacecraft after Artemis III, the first lunar landing. Cruz calls for additional funding for at least Artemis IV and Artemis V. This legislation, the committee said in a messaging document, "Dedicates almost billion to win the new space race with China and ensure America dominates space. Makes targeted, critical investments in Mars-forward technology, Artemis Missions and Moon to Mars program, and the International Space Station." The reality is that it signals that Republicans in the US Senate are not particularly interested in sending humans to Mars, probably are OK with the majority of cuts to science programs at NASA, and want to keep the status quo on Artemis, including the Space Launch System rocket. Where things go from here It is difficult to forecast where US space policy will go from here. The very public breakup between President Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk on Thursday significantly complicates the equation. At one point, Trump and Musk were both championing sending humans to Mars, but Musk is gone from the administration, and Trump may abandon that idea due to their rift. For what it's worth, a political appointee in NASA Communications said on Thursday that the president's vision for space—Trump spoke of landing humans on Mars frequently during his campaign speeches—will continue to be implemented. "NASA will continue to execute upon the President’s vision for the future of space," NASA's press secretary, Bethany Stevens, said on X. "We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President’s objectives in space are met." Congress, it seems, may be heading in a different direction. Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston. 77 Comments #senate #response #white #house #budget

Catch This Year’s Strawberry Moon Lighting Up the Sky on June 11 The last full moon before summer kicks off is one of the lowest of the year in the Northern Hemisphere A full moon on June 28, 2018, as seen from Manchester, England. The reddish glow is likely due to the 2018 Saddleworth Moor wildfires.  Benjamin Shaw, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons Summer will officially begin with this year's solstice on June 20. And on Wednesday, June 11, comes a "strawberry moon," the last full moon of the Northern Hemisphere's spring. It will be at its brightest at 3:44 a.m. Eastern time in the United States. Its name, however, isn't related to the moon's color. The Old Farmer’s Almanac, which has charted everything from celestial bodies to the best time to plant vegetables since 1792, popularized useful nicknames for every month's full moon. According to the almanac, the name strawberry moon has been used by Native peoples, such as the Algonquian, Ojibwe, Dakota and Lakota, to mark the harvest time of “June-bearing” strawberries. "Mead moon" or "honey moon" are old European nicknames for June's full moon, according to National Geographic, and may have similarly been inspired by honey harvesting. In the Northern Hemisphere, the strawberry moon is one of the lowest full moons of the year. That's because June's full moon usually takes place closest to the summer solstice, which is when the Earth is in the lowest point of its tilted orbit around the sun, and thus the sun appears at its peak height in our skies. Full moons occur when they are opposite the sun in respect to Earth, so if the sun is in its highest point, the moon is in its lowest, as reported by Live Science's Jamie Carter. Earth will reach its aphelion—or the farthest point in its elliptical orbit around the sun—on July 3, making the strawberry moon one of the farthest full moons from our star, per Live Science. Earth's summer and winter solstices NASA Because of its position in the sky, June's full moon may live up to its nickname by appearing more colorful. According to NASA, when the moon hangs low, it "tends to have a more yellow or orange hue" than when it's high because its light has to travel through a thicker portion of the atmosphere to reach our view. This means a greater number of long red wavelengths survive the journey than short blue ones. Pollution, dust or wildfires can also make the moon appear more red. The strawberry moon is distinct from the blood moon, however, notes Fox61's Krys Shahin. Blood moons—like the one that graced our skies in March—occur during total lunar eclipses, when the sun, the Earth and the moon line up in a way that makes the Earth block most of the sun's light from reaching the moon. The light that manages to seep around our planet and still reach the moon has to filter through our atmosphere, meaning mostly red wavelengths make it through once again. Though the strawberry moon will reach its peak early Wednesday morning, the best time to see it will be when it rises over the horizon at dusk on Tuesday evening, per Live Science. As reported by Discover Magazine's Stephanie Edwards, Mars will also be visible on June 11. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday. More about: Moon Sky Watching Guide Sun #catch #this #year039s #strawberry #moon

IT Pros ‘Extremely Worried’ About Shadow AI: Report By John P. Mello Jr. June 4, 2025 5:00 AM PT ADVERTISEMENT Enterprise IT Lead Generation Services Fuel Your Pipeline. Close More Deals. Our full-service marketing programs deliver sales-ready leads. 100% Satisfaction Guarantee! Learn more. Shadow AI — the use of AI tools under the radar of IT departments — has information technology directors and executives worried, according to a report released Tuesday. The report, based on a survey of 200 IT directors and executives at U.S. enterprise organizations of 1,000 employees or more, found nearly half the IT proswere “extremely worried” about shadow AI, and almost all of themwere concerned about it from a privacy and security viewpoint. “As our survey found, shadow AI is resulting in palpable, concerning outcomes, with nearly 80% of IT leaders saying it has resulted in negative incidents such as sensitive data leakage to Gen AI tools, false or inaccurate results, and legal risks of using copyrighted information,” said Krishna Subramanian, co-founder of Campbell, Calif.-based Komprise, the unstructured data management company that produced the report. “Alarmingly, 13% say that shadow AI has caused financial or reputational harm to their organizations,” she told TechNewsWorld. Subramanian added that shadow AI poses a much greater problem than shadow IT, which primarily focuses on departmental power users purchasing cloud instances or SaaS tools without obtaining IT approval. “Now we’ve got an unlimited number of employees using tools like ChatGPT or Claude AI to get work done, but not understanding the potential risk they are putting their organizations at by inadvertently submitting company secrets or customer data into the chat prompt,” she explained. “The data risk is large and growing in still unforeseen ways because of the pace of AI development and adoption and the fact that there is a lot we don’t know about how AI works,” she continued. “It is becoming more humanistic all the time and capable of making decisions independently.” Shadow AI Introduces Security Blind Spots Shadow AI is the next step after shadow IT and is a growing risk, noted James McQuiggan, security awareness advocate at KnowBe4, a security awareness training provider in Clearwater, Fla. “Users use AI tools for content, images, or applications and to process sensitive data or company information without proper security checks,” he told TechNewsWorld. “Most organizations will have privacy, compliance, and data protection policies, and shadow AI introduces blind spots in the organization’s data loss prevention.” “The biggest risk with shadow AI is that the AI application has not passed through a security analysis as approved AI tools may have been,” explained Melissa Ruzzi, director of AI at AppOmni, a SaaS security management software company, in San Mateo, Calif. “Some AI applications may be training models using your data, may not adhere to relevant regulations that your company is required to follow, and may not even have the data storage security level you deem necessary to keep your data from being exposed,” she told TechNewsWorld. “Those risks are blind spots of potential security vulnerabilities in shadow AI.” Krishna Vishnubhotla, vice president of product strategy at Zimperium, a mobile security company based in Dallas, noted that shadow AI extends beyond unapproved applications and involves embedded AI components that can process and disseminate sensitive data in unpredictable ways. “Unlike traditional shadow IT, which may be limited to unauthorized software or hardware, shadow AI can run on employee mobile devices outside the organization’s perimeter and control,” he told TechNewsWorld. “This creates new security and compliance risks that are harder to track and mitigate.” Vishnubhotla added that the financial impact of shadow AI varies, but unauthorized AI tools can lead to significant regulatory fines, data breaches, and loss of intellectual property. “Depending on the scale of the agency and the sensitivity of the data exposed, the costs could range from millions to potentially billions in damages due to compliance violations, remediation efforts, and reputational harm,” he said. “Federal agencies handling vast amounts of sensitive or classified information, financial institutions, and health care organizations are particularly vulnerable,” he said. “These sectors collect and analyze vast amounts of high-value data, making AI tools attractive. But without proper vetting, these tools could be easily exploited.” Shadow AI Everywhere and Easy To Use Nicole Carignan, SVP for security and AI strategy at Darktrace, a global cybersecurity AI company, predicts an explosion of tools that utilize AI and generative AI within enterprises and on devices used by employees. “In addition to managing AI tools that are built in-house, security teams will see a surge in the volume of existing tools that have new AI features and capabilities embedded, as well as a rise in shadow AI,” she told TechNewsWorld. “If the surge remains unchecked, this raises serious questions and concerns about data loss prevention, as well as compliance concerns as new regulations start to take effect.” “That will drive an increasing need for AI asset discovery — the ability for companies to identify and track the use of AI systems throughout the enterprise,” she said. “It is imperative that CIOs and CISOs dig deep into new AI security solutions, asking comprehensive questions about data access and visibility.” Shadow AI has become so rampant because it is everywhere and easy to access through free tools, maintained Komprise’s Subramanian. “All you need is a web browser,” she said. “Enterprise users can inadvertently share company code snippets or corporate data when using these Gen AI tools, which could create data leakage.” “These tools are growing and changing exponentially,” she continued. “It’s really hard to keep up. As the IT leader, how do you track this and determine the risk? Managers might be looking the other way because their teams are getting more done. You may need fewer contractors and full-time employees. But I think the risk of the tools is not well understood.” “The low, or in some cases non-existent, learning curve associated with using Gen AI services has led to rapid adoption, regardless of prior experience with these services,” added Satyam Sinha, CEO and co-founder of Acuvity, a provider of runtime Gen AI security and governance solutions, in Sunnyvale, Calif. “Whereas shadow IT focused on addressing a specific challenge for particular employees or departments, shadow AI addresses multiple challenges for multiple employees and departments. Hence, the greater appeal,” he said. “The abundance and rapid development of Gen AI services also means employees can find the right solution. Of course, all these traits have direct security implications.” Banning AI Tools Backfires To support innovation while minimizing the threat of shadow AI, enterprises must take a three-pronged approach, asserted Kris Bondi, CEO and co-founder of Mimoto, a threat detection and response company in San Francisco. They must educate employees on the dangers of unsupported, unmonitored AI tools, create company protocols for what is not acceptable use of unauthorized AI tools, and, most importantly, provide AI tools that are sanctioned. “Explaining why one tool is sanctioned and another isn’t greatly increases compliance,” she told TechNewsWorld. “It does not work for a company to have a zero-use mandate. In fact, this results in an increase in stealth use of shadow AI.” In the very near future, more and more applications will be leveraging AI in different forms, so the reality of shadow AI will be present more than ever, added AppOmni’s Ruzzi. “The best strategy here is employee training and AI usage monitoring,” she said. “It will become crucial to have in place a powerful SaaS security tool that can go beyond detecting direct AI usage of chatbots to detect AI usage connected to other applications,” she continued, “allowing for early discovery, proper risk assessment, and containment to minimize possible negative consequences.” “Shadow AI is just the beginning,” KnowBe4’s McQuiggan added. “As more teams use AI, the risks grow.” He recommended that companies start small, identify what’s being used, and build from there. They should also get legal, HR, and compliance involved. “Make AI governance part of your broader security program,” he said. “The sooner you start, the better you can manage what comes next.” John P. Mello Jr. has been an ECT News Network reporter since 2003. His areas of focus include cybersecurity, IT issues, privacy, e-commerce, social media, artificial intelligence, big data and consumer electronics. He has written and edited for numerous publications, including the Boston Business Journal, the Boston Phoenix, Megapixel.Net and Government Security News. Email John. Leave a Comment Click here to cancel reply. Please sign in to post or reply to a comment. New users create a free account. Related Stories More by John P. Mello Jr. view all More in IT Leadership #pros #extremely #worried #about #shadow

Limited-time offer: Get more than 30% off a Vox Membership. Join today to support independent journalism. Federal civil servants are supposed to enjoy robust protections against being fired or demoted for political reasons. But President Donald Trump has effectively stripped them of these protections by neutralizing the federal agencies that implement these safeguards.An agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Boardhears civil servants’ claims that a “government employer discriminated against them, retaliated against them for whistleblowing, violated protections for veterans, or otherwise subjected them to an unlawful adverse employment action or prohibited personnel practice,” as a federal appeals court explained in an opinion on Tuesday. But the three-member board currently lacks the quorum it needs to operate because Trump fired two of the members.Trump also fired Hampton Dellinger, who until recently served as the special counsel of the United States, a role that investigates alleged violations of federal civil service protections and brings related cases to the MSPB. Trump recently nominated Paul Ingrassia, a far-right podcaster and recent law school graduate to replace Dellinger.The upshot of these firings is that no one in the government is able to enforce laws and regulations protecting civil servants. As Dellinger noted in an interview, the morning before a federal appeals court determined that Trump could fire him, he’d “been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job,” and was working to get “all probationary employees put back on the jobtheir unlawful firing” by the Department of Government Efficiency and other Trump administration efforts to cull the federal workforce. These and other efforts to reinstate illegally fired federal workers are on hold, and may not resume until Trump leaves office.Which brings us to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, which proposes an innovative solution to this problem.As the Owen opinion notes, the Supreme Court has held that the MSPB process is the only process a federal worker can use if they believe they’ve been fired in violation of federal civil service laws. So if that process is shut down, the worker is out of luck.But the Fourth Circuit’s Owen opinion argues that this “conclusion can only be true…when the statute functions as Congress intended.” That is, if the MSPB and the special counsel are unable to “fulfill their roles prescribed by” federal law, then the courts should pick up the slack and start hearing cases brought by illegally fired civil servants.For procedural reasons, the Fourth Circuit’s decision will not take effect right away — the court sent the case back down to a trial judge to “conduct a factual inquiry” into whether the MSPB continues to function. And, even after that inquiry is complete, the Trump administration is likely to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court if it wants to keep civil service protections on ice.If the justices agree with the circuit court, however, that will close a legal loophole that has left federal civil servants unprotected by laws that are still very much on the books. And it will cure a problem that the Supreme Court bears much of the blame for creating.The “unitary executive,” or why the Supreme Court is to blame for the loss of civil service protectionsFederal law provides that Dellinger could “be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and members of the MSPB enjoy similar protections against being fired. Trump’s decision to fire these officials was illegal under these laws.But a federal appeals court nonetheless permitted Trump to fire Dellinger, and the Supreme Court recently backed Trump’s decision to fire the MSPB members as well. The reason is a legal theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is popular among Republican legal scholars, and especially among the six Republicans that control the Supreme Court.If you want to know all the details of this theory, I can point you to three different explainers I’ve written on the unitary executive. The short explanation is that the unitary executive theory claims that the president must have the power to fire top political appointees charged with executing federal laws – including officials who execute laws protecting civil servants from illegal firings.But the Supreme Court has never claimed that the unitary executive permits the president to fire any federal worker regardless of whether Congress has protected them or not. In a seminal opinion laying out the unitary executive theory, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the president must have the power to remove “principal officers” — high-ranking officials like Dellinger who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under Scalia’s approach, lower-ranking government workers may still be given some protection.The Fourth Circuit cannot override the Supreme Court’s decision to embrace the unitary executive theory. But the Owen opinion essentially tries to police the line drawn by Scalia. The Supreme Court has given Trump the power to fire some high-ranking officials, but he shouldn’t be able to use that power as a back door to eliminate job protections for all civil servants.The Fourth Circuit suggests that the federal law which simultaneously gave the MSPB exclusive authority over civil service disputes, while also protecting MSPB members from being fired for political reasons, must be read as a package. Congress, this argument goes, would not have agreed to shunt all civil service disputes to the MSPB if it had known that the Supreme Court would strip the MSPB of its independence. And so, if the MSPB loses its independence, it must also lose its exclusive authority over civil service disputes — and federal courts must regain the power to hear those cases.It remains to be seen whether this argument persuades a Republican Supreme Court — all three of the Fourth Circuit judges who decided the Owen case are Democrats, and two are Biden appointees. But the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning closely resembles the kind of inquiry that courts frequently engage in when a federal law is struck down.When a court declares a provision of federal law unconstitutional, it often needs to ask whether other parts of the law should fall along with the unconstitutional provision, an inquiry known as “severability.” Often, this severability analysis asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that the one provision is invalid.The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is essentially a severability opinion. It takes as a given the Supreme Court’s conclusion that laws protecting Dellinger and the MSPB members from being fired are unconstitutional, then asks which law Congress would have enacted if it had known that it could not protect MSPB members from political reprisal. The Fourth Circuit’s conclusion is that, if Congress had known that MSPB members cannot be politically independent, then it would not have given them exclusive authority over civil service disputes.If the Supreme Court permits Trump to neutralize the MSPB, that would fundamentally change how the government functionsThe idea that civil servants should be hired based on merit and insulated from political pressure is hardly new. The first law protecting civil servants, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law in 1883.Laws like the Pendleton Act do more than protect civil servants who, say, resist pressure to deny government services to the president’s enemies. They also make it possible for top government officials to actually do their jobs.Before the Pendleton Act, federal jobs were typically awarded as patronage — so when a Democratic administration took office, the Republicans who occupied most federal jobs would be fired and replaced by Democrats. This was obviously quite disruptive, and it made it difficult for the government to hire highly specialized workers. Why would someone go to the trouble of earning an economics degree and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy, if they knew that their job in the Treasury Department would disappear the minute their party lost an election?Meanwhile, the task of filling all of these patronage jobs overwhelmed new presidents. As Candice Millard wrote in a 2011 biography of President James A. Garfield, the last president elected before the Pendleton Act, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers began to form outside the White House “before he even sat down to breakfast.” By the time Garfield had eaten, this line “snaked down the front walk, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.” Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, a fact that likely helped build political support for the Pendleton Act.By neutralizing the MSPB, Trump is effectively undoing nearly 150 years worth of civil service reforms, and returning the federal government to a much more primitive state. At the very least, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is likely to force the Supreme Court to ask if it really wants a century and a half of work to unravel.See More: #federal #courts #novel #proposal #rein

The color of nostalgia Endangered classic Mac plastic color returns as 3D-printer filament Mac fan paid to color-match iconic Apple beige-gray "Platinum" plastic for everyone. Benj Edwards – Jun 4, 2025 6:13 pm | 3 The Mac SE, released in 1987, was one of many classic Macs to use the "Platinum" color scheme. Credit: Apple / Polar Filament The Mac SE, released in 1987, was one of many classic Macs to use the "Platinum" color scheme. Credit: Apple / Polar Filament Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more On Tuesday, classic computer collector Joe Strosnider announced the availability of a new 3D-printer filament that replicates the iconic "Platinum" color scheme used in classic Macintosh computers from the late 1980s through the 1990s. The PLA filamentallows hobbyists to 3D-print nostalgic novelties, replacement parts, and accessories that match the original color of vintage Apple computers. Hobbyists commonly feed this type of filament into commercial desktop 3D printers, which heat the plastic and extrude it in a computer-controlled way to fabricate new plastic parts. The Platinum color, which Apple used in its desktop and portable computer lines starting with the Apple IIgs in 1986, has become synonymous with a distinctive era of classic Macintosh aesthetic. Over time, original Macintosh plastics have become brittle and discolored with age, so matching the "original" color can be a somewhat challenging and subjective experience. A close-up of "Retro Platinum" PLA filament by Polar Filament. Credit: Polar Filament Strosnider, who runs a website about his extensive vintage computer collection in Ohio, worked for years to color-match the distinctive beige-gray hue of the Macintosh Platinum scheme, resulting in a spool of hobby-ready plastic by Polar Filament and priced at per kilogram. According to a forum post, Strosnider paid approximately to develop the color and purchase an initial 25-kilogram supply of the filament. Rather than keeping the formulation proprietary, he arranged for Polar Filament to make the color publicly available. "I paid them a fee to color match the speaker box from inside my Mac Color Classic," Strosnider wrote in a Tinkerdifferent forum post on Tuesday. "In exchange, I asked them to release the color to the public so anyone can use it." A spool of "Retro Platinum" PLA filament by Polar Filament. Credit: Polar Filament The development addresses a gap in the vintage computing community, where enthusiasts sometimes struggle to find appropriately colored materials for restoration projects and new accessories. The new filament is an attempt to replace previous options that were either expensive, required international shipping, or had consistency issues that Strosnider described as "chalky." The 1.75 mm filament works with standard 3D printers and is compatible with automated material systems used in some newer printer models. On Bluesky, Strosnider encouraged buyers to "order plenty, and let them know you want them to print it forever" to ensure continued production of the specialty color. Extruded nostalgia The timing of the filament's release coincides with growing interest in 3D-printed cases and accessories for vintage computer hardware. One example is the SE Mini desktop case, a project by "GutBomb" that transforms Macintosh SE and SE/30 logic boards into compact desktop computers that can connect to modern displays. The case, designed to be 3D-printed in multiple pieces and assembled, represents the type of project that benefits from color-accurate filament. A 3D-printed "SE Mini" desktop case that allows using a vintage compact Mac board in a new enclosure. Credit: Joe Strosnider The SE Mini case requires approximately half a spool of filament and takes a couple of days to print on consumer 3D printers. Users can outfit the case with modern components, such as Pico PSUs and BlueSCSI storage devices, while maintaining the classic Macintosh appearance. Why create new "retro" devices? Because it's fun, and it's a great way to merge technology's past with the benefits of recent tech developments. Projects like the Platinum PLA filament, the SE Mini case, and the dedication of hobbyists like Strosnider ensure that appreciation for Apple's computers of yore will continue for decades. Benj Edwards Senior AI Reporter Benj Edwards Senior AI Reporter Benj Edwards is Ars Technica's Senior AI Reporter and founder of the site's dedicated AI beat in 2022. He's also a tech historian with almost two decades of experience. In his free time, he writes and records music, collects vintage computers, and enjoys nature. He lives in Raleigh, NC. 3 Comments #endangered #classic #mac #plastic #color

T-Mobile is turning up the excitement with their ‘thankivesary’ celebration, marking 9 fantastic years of T-Mobile Tuesdays! 🎉 To show appreciation for their loyal customers, they’re dishing out some amazing deals, including a FREE drink at 7-Eleven and a mouth-watering Whopper Jr. from Burger King! 🍔🍹 Who doesn’t love a good meal on the house? Plus, snagging $5 movie tickets is the cherry on top for a perfect night out! As a huge fan of these weekly surprises, I can't wait to indulge in these delicious treats while enjoying some quality entertainment. It's a great reminder of how even small acts of gratitude can make our day just a little brighter. Cheers to more surprises, T-Mobile! 🎊 #TMobileTuesdays #Thankivesary #FreeFood #CustomerAppreciation #DealsAndSteals

Meta’s lawyers go up against the European Commission on Tuesday to challenge having part of the company’s social-networking business included in the bloc’s Big Tech market crackdown. #meta #challenge #tech #crackdown #platforms

Not A Super Announcement Trump pulls Isaacman nomination for space. Source: “NASA is f***ed” "NASA's budget request is just a going-out-of-business mode" without Isaacman. Eric Berger – May 31, 2025 5:22 pm | 178 Jared Isaacman during training at SpaceX before the Polaris Dawn mission. Credit: SpaceX Jared Isaacman during training at SpaceX before the Polaris Dawn mission. Credit: SpaceX Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The Trump administration has confirmed that it is pulling the nomination of private astronaut Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. First reported by Semafor, the decision appears to have been made because Isaacman was not politically loyal enough to the Trump Administration. "The Administrator of NASA will help lead humanity into space and execute President Trump’s bold mission of planting the American flag on the planet Mars," Liz Huston, a White House Spokesperson, said in a statement released Saturday. "It's essential that the next leader of NASA is in complete alignment with President Trump’s America First agenda and a replacement will be announced directly by President Trump soon." The US Senate Commerce Committee approved Issacman's nomination by a vote of 19 to 9 one month ago, advancing his candidacy to the floor of the US Senate, with unanimous support from Republicans in that April vote. Approval was anticipated after the Memorial Day holiday. But the tide started to turn against Isaacman late this past week, with the first rumblings of problems coming on Friday, May 30. Not MAGA enough On Saturday, far-right political activist Laura Loomer said on X, "Deep State operatives are trying to derail President Trump’s NASA Administrator pick Jared Isaacman before his Senate confirmation vote this week." This was the first public sign that Isaacman's candidacy was imperiled. So what happened? The waters of MAGA run murky, and the political machinations of the Trump administration are abstruse. However, the timing of Isaacman's derailment coincides with the recent departure of SpaceX founder Elon Musk from Washington. Musk had a central role in the Trump Administration during its first four months. In an interview on Tuesday, Musk told Ars that he has now "significantly" reduced his involvement in politics. Musk was a key factor behind Isaacman's nomination as NASA administrator, and with his backing, Isaacman was able to skip some of the party purity tests that have been applied to other Trump administration nominees. One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats. He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget. Musk's role in the government was highly controversial, winning him enemies both among opponents of Trump's "Make America Great Again" agenda as well as inside the administration. One source told Ars that, with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination. The loss of Isaacman is almost certainly a blow to NASA, which faces substantial budget cuts. The Trump Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2026, released Friday, seeks billion for the agency next year—a 24 percent cut from the agency's budget of billion for FY 2025. Going out of business? Isaacman is generally well-liked in the space community and is known to care deeply about space exploration. Officials within the space agency—and the larger space community—hoped that having him as NASA's leader would help the agency restore some of these cuts. Now? "NASA is f---ed," one current leader in the agency told Ars on Saturday. "NASA's budget request is just a going-out-of-business mode without Jared there to innovate," a former senior NASA leader said. The Trump administration did not immediately name a new nominee, but two people told Ars that former US Air Force Lieutenant General Steven L. Kwast may be near the top of the list. Now retired, Kwast has a distinguished record in the Air Force and is politically loyal to Trump and MAGA. However, his background seems to be far less oriented toward NASA's civil space mission and far more focused on seeing space as a battlefield—decidedly not an arena for cooperation and peaceful exploration. Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston. 178 Comments #trump #pulls #isaacman #nomination #space

You cross the finish line after what feels like a perfect 10-mile run and your watch beeps triumphantly, displaying that beautiful round number: 10.00 miles. You're already composing your social media post in your head. Then you upload to Strava and—betrayal. Your activity shows 9.99 miles. It might seem like a bug, but as Strava explains, it's very much by design.Welcome to the "Strava Tax," the phenomenon that has spawned memes, advice, and probably a few extra loops around parking lots as runners desperately try to hit that magical round number.What's really happening when Strava rounds down?The Strava Tax isn't actually Strava being petty or skimming distance off your achievements. It's more of a collision between mathematical precision and the messy reality of how different devices handle GPS data.Here's the thing: when your watch displays 10.00 miles, that's often not what it actually recorded. The raw GPS data might show 9.993 miles, 9.996 miles, or 10.001 miles. Your watch rounds this to a nice, clean 10.00 for display purposes—because who wants to see 9.99634 miles on their wrist?So your watch and apps don't just display raw GPS data—they "improve" it. They smooth out GPS wobbles, correct for obvious errors, and sometimes add their own interpretations of where you actually went. Your Garmin might think you ran through that building, while your phone's GPS smooths your route to follow the sidewalk.Different manufacturers handle this data inconsistency in different ways. Even devices from the same manufacturer can display identical GPS data differently, depending on the model, firmware version, or even the specific algorithms running on each device. Some devices will show 1.00 km as soon as you hit 991 meters, while others wait until you actually complete a full kilometer. It's like having different definitions of what "close enough" means.Beyond that, mile definitions aren't actually universal. You'd think a mile is a mile, right? Not in the world of fitness devices. The precise definition is 1609.344 meters, but some devices use 1609 meters for simplicity. That small difference adds up over longer distances.But Strava takes a different approach. When displaying distances, Strava rounds down rather than using standard rounding rules. So that 9.993 miles becomes 9.99 miles on your activity page, not 10.00 miles.Why Strava rounds downStrava often sits in the middle of different manufacturers and devices. Imagine if Strava applied the same "enhancement" algorithms that your Garmin uses to data coming from an Apple Watch. The Apple data might get double-processed, potentially inflating distances. Or if it used Apple's data smoothing, it might actually reduce accuracy.Instead, Strava takes a conservative approach: it displays the data as close to raw as possible, using consistent rounding rules across all devices. This means sometimes your beautiful round numbers get truncated, but it also means a 10K from a Garmin is treated the same as a 10K from an Apple Watch.Zooming out, when it comes to fitness tracking, it's helpful to remember that the numbers we see are often more complicated than they appear. We all know GPS isn't perfect. Think about it: your device is trying to track your position using satellites 12,000+ miles above Earth. Trees, buildings, weather, and even solar activity can affect accuracy. How often to record points, how to connect the dots between points, how to filter out obvious errors, how to handle missing data—each manufacturer makes different choices. Strava's choice, in its own words, is to "err on the side of caution rather than let the accuracy of our records start to dilute."Tips to live with the Strava TaxAt the end of the day, there's a deeper reason why so many runners bond over Strava Tax memes. The Strava Tax taps into something more than just measurement accuracy—it hits our psychological relationship with round numbers. There's something deeply satisfying about completing exactly 10 miles, 5K, or 100 kilometers. These numbers feel complete, accomplished, worthy of celebration.When Strava displays 9.99 miles instead of 10.00, it doesn't just remove a hundredth of a mile—it removes the psychological satisfaction of hitting that milestone. It's the difference between "I ran 10 miles!" and "I ran...well, basically 10 miles."This is why you see runners doing extra loops around parking lots, cyclists riding circles in their driveways, and forum threads debating whether 9.99 miles "counts" as a 10-mile run. It's not really about the 0.01 miles—it's about the story we tell ourselves and others about our achievements.So what's a data-obsessed athlete to do? A few strategies:Embrace the range: Instead of fixating on hitting exactly 10.00 miles, think in ranges. A 9.98-10.02 mile run is essentially the same thing—you ran about 10 miles.Know your device: Learn how your specific watch or phone handles distance calculation. Some devices let you calibrate distance measurements or choose different GPS settings that might be more or less aggressive in their processing.Focus on trends: Day-to-day variations in distance measurement matter less than long-term trends. Are you running farther this month than last month? That's more meaningful than whether Tuesday's run was 5.99 or 6.01 miles.Plan ahead: If hitting exact distances is important to you, plan routes that give you a small buffer. Aim for 10.1 miles if you want to ensure you hit at least 10.0 on Strava.The Strava Tax might be annoying, but every time you glance at your watch and see a distance, remember: there's a satellite constellation, multiple algorithms, and several companies' worth of engineering decisions all working together to give you that number. And sometimes, despite all that technology, you still end up with 9.99 miles. But hey—you still ran the distance. The GPS satellites aren't judging you, and neither should you. #this #why #strava #rounds #down