Cybersecurity researchers have flagged several popular Google Chrome extensions that have been found to transmit data in HTTP and hard-code secrets in their code, exposing users to privacy and security risks. "Several widely used extensions [...] unintentionally transmit sensitive data over simple HTTP," Yuanjing Guo, a security researcher in the Symantec's Security Technology and Response team, said. "By doing so, they expose browsing domains, machine IDs, operating system details, usage analytics, and even uninstall information, in plaintext." The fact that the network traffic is unencrypted also means that they are susceptible to adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) attacks, allowing malicious actors on the same network such as a public Wi-Fi to intercept and, even worse, modify this data, which could lead to far more serious consequences. The list of identified extensions are below - SEMRush Rank (extension ID: idbhoeaiokcojcgappfigpifhpkjgmab) and PI Rank (ID: ccgdboldgdlngcgfdolahmiilojmfndl), which call the URL "rank.trellian[.]com" over plain HTTP Browsec VPN (ID: omghfjlpggmjjaagoclmmobgdodcjboh), which uses HTTP to call an uninstall URL at "browsec-uninstall.s3-website.eu-central-1.amazonaws[.]com" when a user attempts to uninstall the extension MSN New Tab (ID: lklfbkdigihjaaeamncibechhgalldgl) and MSN Homepage, Bing Search & News (ID: midiombanaceofjhodpdibeppmnamfcj), which transmit a unique machine identifier and other details over HTTP to "g.ceipmsn[.]com" DualSafe Password Manager & Digital Vault (ID: lgbjhdkjmpgjgcbcdlhkokkckpjmedgc), which constructs an HTTP-based URL request to "stats.itopupdate[.]com" along with information about the extension version, user's browser language, and usage "type" "Although credentials or passwords do not appear to be leaked, the fact that a password manager uses unencrypted requests for telemetry erodes trust in its overall security posture," Guo said. Symantec said it also identified another set of extensions with API keys, secrets, and tokens directly embedded in the JavaScript code, which an attacker could weaponize to craft malicious requests and carry out various malicious actions - Online Security & Privacy extension (ID: gomekmidlodglbbmalcneegieacbdmki), AVG Online Security (ID: nbmoafcmbajniiapeidgficgifbfmjfo), Speed Dial [FVD] - New Tab Page, 3D, Sync (ID: llaficoajjainaijghjlofdfmbjpebpa), and SellerSprite - Amazon Research Tool (ID: lnbmbgocenenhhhdojdielgnmeflbnfb), which expose a hard-coded Google Analytics 4 (GA4) API secret that an attacker could use to bombard the GA4 endpoint and corrupt metrics Equatio – Math Made Digital (ID: hjngolefdpdnooamgdldlkjgmdcmcjnc), which embeds a Microsoft Azure API key used for speech recognition that an attacker could use to inflate the developer's costs or exhaust their usage limits Awesome Screen Recorder & Screenshot (ID: nlipoenfbbikpbjkfpfillcgkoblgpmj) and Scrolling Screenshot Tool & Screen Capture (ID: mfpiaehgjbbfednooihadalhehabhcjo), which expose the developer's Amazon Web Services (AWS) access key used to upload screenshots to the developer's S3 bucket Microsoft Editor – Spelling & Grammar Checker (ID: gpaiobkfhnonedkhhfjpmhdalgeoebfa), which exposes a telemetry key named "StatsApiKey" to log user data for analytics Antidote Connector (ID: lmbopdiikkamfphhgcckcjhojnokgfeo), which incorporates a third-party library called InboxSDK that contains hard-coded credentials, including API keys. Watch2Gether (ID: cimpffimgeipdhnhjohpbehjkcdpjolg), which exposes a Tenor GIF search API key Trust Wallet (ID: egjidjbpglichdcondbcbdnbeeppgdph), which exposes an API key associated with the Ramp Network, a Web3 platform that offers wallet developers a way to let users buy or sell crypto directly from the app TravelArrow – Your Virtual Travel Agent (ID: coplmfnphahpcknbchcehdikbdieognn), which exposes a geolocation API key when making queries to "ip-api[.]com" Attackers who end up finding these keys could weaponize them to drive up API costs, host illegal content, send spoofed telemetry data, and mimic cryptocurrency transaction orders, some of which could see the developer's ban getting banned. Adding to the concern, Antidote Connector is just one of over 90 extensions that use InboxSDK, meaning the other extensions are susceptible to the same problem. The names of the other extensions were not disclosed by Symantec. "From GA4 analytics secrets to Azure speech keys, and from AWS S3 credentials to Google-specific tokens, each of these snippets demonstrates how a few lines of code can jeopardize an entire service," Guo said. "The solution: never store sensitive credentials on the client side." Developers are recommended to switch to HTTPS whenever they send or receive data, store credentials securely in a backend server using a credentials management service, and regularly rotate secrets to further minimize risk. The findings show how even popular extensions with hundreds of thousands of installations can suffer from trivial misconfigurations and security blunders like hard-coded credentials, leaving users' data at risk. "Users of these extensions should consider removing them until the developers address the insecure [HTTP] calls," the company said. "The risk is not just theoretical; unencrypted traffic is simple to capture, and the data can be used for profiling, phishing, or other targeted attacks." "The overarching lesson is that a large install base or a well-known brand does not necessarily ensure best practices around encryption. Extensions should be scrutinized for the protocols they use and the data they share, to ensure users' information remains truly safe." Found this article interesting? Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.

Despite what some experts have characterized as an environment increasingly hostile to AI R&D, North America continues to receive the bulk of AI venture dollars, according to data from investment tracker PitchBook. Between February and May of this year, VCs poured $69.7 billion into North America-based AI and machine learning startups across 1,528 deals. That’s compared with $6.4 billion that VC firms invested in European AI ventures across 742 deals across the same period. Asia-based startups have fared a bit worse than their European counterparts, according to PitchBook. Between February and May, VCs invested just $3 billion in Asia-based AI startups across 515 deals. Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. has dramatically cut funding to scientific grants related to basic AI research, made it more difficult for foreign students specializing in AI to study in the U.S., and threatened to dismantle university-housed AI labs by freezing billions of dollars in federal funds. The administration’s trade policies, meanwhile, including its retaliatory tariffs, have led to a chaotic market unfavorable for risky new AI ventures. In a post on X in March, AI pioneer and Nobel Laureate Geoffrey Hinton called for billionaire Elon Musk, who until recently advised Trump’s cost-cutting group, the Department of Government Efficiency, to be expelled from the British Royal Society “because of the huge damage he is doing to scientific institutions in the U.S.” One might expect that Europe, which has pledged to become a global leader in AI, would attract more venture capital in light of Trump’s controversial policies in the U.S., which have created uncertainty and confusion for founders, investors, and researchers alike. Moreover, the EU has committed hundreds of billions of euros to support the development of AI within its member countries and already has a number of successful, well-funded AI startups in its ranks (see Mistral, H, and Aleph Alpha, to name a few). But that anticipated shift in global investment hasn’t come to pass. There isn’t any sign of a mass VC exodus to the bloc, or of significant upticks in AI funding overseas — at least not yet. Techcrunch event Save now through June 4 for TechCrunch Sessions: AI Save $300 on your ticket to TC Sessions: AI—and get 50% off a second. Hear from leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic, Khosla Ventures, and more during a full day of expert insights, hands-on workshops, and high-impact networking. These low-rate deals disappear when the doors open on June 5. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW The same is true for China, which has spawned high-profile AI startups like DeepSeek and Butterfly Effect — the company behind the agentic platform Manus — but where VC activity in the country and the broader Asian region remains relatively austere. (Export controls impacting the ability of certain Asian countries to procure AI chips are almost certainly a factor.) In 2024, North American startups secured 75.6% of all VC AI funding — $106.24 billion. That share has only increased this year. So far in 2025, North American AI investments represent 86.2% ($79.74 billion) of all VC funding for AI globally. It paints a somewhat surprising picture. Even amid mounting political and regulatory headwinds under Trump’s second term, the U.S. remains the undisputed center for AI capital, meaning investors, fatigued as they may be by the administration’s unpredictability, are still counting on U.S. innovation to deliver the biggest returns, at least for now.

Posted on : June 5, 2025 By Tech World Times AI  Rate this post Artificial intelligence tools now touch nearly every corner of modern business, from customer service and marketing to supply chain management and HR. These powerful technologies promise speed, accuracy, and insight, but their missteps can cause more than temporary inconvenience. A single AI-driven error can result in regulatory investigations, civil lawsuits, or public scandals that threaten the foundation of a business. Understanding how legal exposure arises from AI mistakes—and how a skilled attorney protects your interests—is no longer an option, but a requirement for any forward-thinking business owner. What Types of AI Errors Create Legal Liability? AI does not think or reason like a human; it follows code and statistical patterns, sometimes with unintended results. These missteps can create a trail of legal liability for any business owner. For example, an online retailer’s AI recommends discriminatory pricing, sparking allegations of unfair trade practices. An HR department automates hiring decisions with AI, only to face lawsuits for violating anti-discrimination laws. Even an AI-driven chatbot, when programmed without proper safeguards, can inadvertently give health advice or misrepresent product claims—exposing the company to regulatory penalties. Cases like these are regularly reported in Legal news as businesses discover the high cost of digital shortcuts. When Is a Business Owner Liable for AI Mistakes? Liability rarely rests with the software developer or the tool itself. Courts and regulators expect the business to monitor, supervise, and, when needed, override AI decisions. Suppose a financial advisor uses AI to recommend investments, but the algorithm suggests securities that violate state regulations. Even if the AI was “just following instructions,” the advisor remains responsible for client losses. Similarly, a marketing team cannot escape liability if their AI generates misleading advertising. The bottom line: outsourcing work to AI does not outsource legal responsibility. How Do AI Errors Harm Your Reputation and Operations? AI mistakes can leave lasting marks on a business’s reputation, finances, and operations. A logistics firm’s route-optimization tool creates data leaks that breach customer privacy and trigger costly notifications. An online business suffers public backlash after an AI-powered customer service tool sends offensive responses to clients. Such incidents erode public trust, drive customers to competitors, and divert resources into damage control rather than growth. Worse, compliance failures can result in penalties or shutdown orders, putting the entire enterprise at risk. What Steps Reduce Legal Risk From AI Deployments? Careful planning and continuous oversight keep AI tools working for your business—not against it. Compliance is not a “set it and forget it” matter. Proactive risk management transforms artificial intelligence from a liability into a valuable asset. Routine audits, staff training, and transparent policies form the backbone of safe, effective AI use in any organization. You should review these AI risk mitigation strategies below. Implement Manual Review of Sensitive Outputs: Require human approval for high-risk tasks, such as legal filings, financial transactions, or customer communications. A payroll company’s manual audits prevented the accidental overpayment of employees by catching AI-generated errors before disbursement. Update AI Systems for Regulatory Changes: Stay ahead of new laws and standards by regularly reviewing AI algorithms and outputs. An insurance brokerage avoided regulatory fines by updating their risk assessment models as privacy laws evolved. Document Every Incident and Remediation Step: Keep records of AI errors, investigations, and corrections. A healthcare provider’s transparency during a patient data mix-up helped avoid litigation and regulatory penalties. Limit AI Access to Personal and Sensitive Data: Restrict the scope and permissions of AI tools to reduce the chance of data misuse. A SaaS provider used data minimization techniques, lowering the risk of exposure in case of a system breach. Consult With Attorneys for Custom Policies and Protocols: Collaborate with experienced Attorneys to design, review, and update AI compliance frameworks. How Do Attorneys Shield Your Business From AI Legal Risks? Attorneys provide a critical safety net as AI integrates deeper into business operations. They draft tailored contracts, establish protocols for monitoring and escalation, and assess risks unique to your industry. In the event of an AI-driven incident, legal counsel investigates the facts, manages communication with regulators, and builds a robust defense. By providing training, ongoing guidance, and crisis management support, attorneys ensure that innovation doesn’t lead to exposure—or disaster. With the right legal partner, businesses can harness AI’s power while staying firmly on the right side of the law. Tech World TimesTech World Times (TWT), a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com

Sangral Powered by Friendship™ Member Feb 17, 2022 8,649 From one of the biggest and most dedicated HDR analysis channels out there. Thought that's a big enough topic on its own, because of the analysis, for a separate thread. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N637VB4FYxg 450 nits maximum peak brightness (personal comparison, Switch OLED without any HDR has 340 nits, an LG C2 TV in HDR has 800 nits, Steam Deck OLED screen has 1000 nits, Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra 2600 nits.) Games like Zelda Breath of the Wild have raised blacks even in Docked HDR gameplay with a raised black level floor and the game looking washed out HDR docked can be good if games are optimized for it like Cyberpunk, which he refers to being exactly like on PS5 and PC, HDR wise or Fast Fusion as one of the rare games that actually have a good black level floor in HDR   Last edited: 39 minutes ago blueredandgold Member Oct 25, 2017 8,739 Could you please translate for those of us who haven't been able to watch or digest after we saw this posted in the other thread please?   gabdeg Member Oct 26, 2017 7,420 🐝 Sadly what I expected since the moment we learned it was edge-lit LCD. Would've at least expected nigher peak nits though.   Kouriozan Member Oct 25, 2017 25,072 A shame, because Switch 2 is like the first time I'll see HDR, as my old TV isn't compatible :/   Paper Cheese Member Oct 9, 2019 558 I've got to assume this is the sort of thing that most of us hi-fi tech illiterate lot won't notice until they bring out a better screen model in a few years.   Fortinbras Member Oct 27, 2017 2,073 Well that sucks but it's Nintendo...did anyone expect anything different? I'm only going to use it docked so hopefully they can fix the HDR via update.  Universal Acclaim Member Oct 5, 2024 2,482 Not surprised, but not a big issue for me personally.   Antony Member Oct 25, 2017 4,054 Ahhh the obligatory Nintendo Crap Display (Before You Buy a Whole New Model to Get a Decent One) it's positively tradition at this point   Friendly Bear Member Jan 11, 2019 4,162 I Don’t Care Where (Just Far) Even with an edge lit LCD, I was expecting brighter highlights. A lot of the preview event coverage made it sound like the screen was insanely bright, and that's clearly not the case.   NoSpin Member Nov 1, 2017 83 As so often with gaming, I am relieved to have this person to tell me the thing I am enjoying looking at is bad actually. :)   Mivey Member Oct 25, 2017 20,753 Paper Cheese said: I've got to assume this is the sort of thing that most of us hi-fi tech illiterate lot won't notice until they bring out a better screen model in a few years. Click to expand... Click to shrink... the raised blacks on dark content is pretty clear if you play in any kind of darker environment, if you have any kind of OLED screen to compare. Case in point, if you own a Switch 1 OLED, you'll notice the stark differences for certain kinds of content right away. OTOH, if you have been using a launch Switch 1 and never had any issues with how it looks, you'll be fine. Just make sure to stay away from OLED screen, lest you gain the ability to see the differences.   Decarb Member Oct 27, 2017 9,280 HDR on edge-lit LCD is kind of a scam anyway. Kouriozan said: A shame, because Switch 2 is like the first time I'll see HDR, as my old TV isn't compatible :/ Click to expand... Click to shrink... If you have a phone made in last couple of years you've probably seen HDR.   horkrux Member Oct 27, 2017 6,531 Well, kinda expected, so I'm not too bothered by it. Not like you can change it.   Maximo Member Oct 25, 2017 11,041 Nintendo saving that sweet sweet OLED for a refresh.   Buddy Member Oct 25, 2017 1,773 Germany I have mine in my hands right now.... don't know about HDR stuff too much but Mario Kart looks gorgeous on it.   DieH@rd Member Oct 26, 2017 12,083 Decarb said: HDR on edge-lit LCD is kind of a scam anyway. Click to expand... Click to shrink... ^ this.   cw_sasuke Member Oct 27, 2017 30,321 Most of this stuff was clear from the Preview Events, at least DF talked about it. Didn't seem to bother a majority of people playing though. Was pretty much set when it wasn't going to be OLED.  John Frost Member Oct 27, 2017 9,658 Canada Well, that's disappointing..   Milk Prophet of Truth Avenger Oct 25, 2017 4,301 NoSpin said: As so often with gaming, I am relieved to have this person to tell me the thing I am enjoying looking at is bad actually. :) Click to expand... Click to shrink... It's not a personal attack on you. Pointing out objective shortcomings about the technology is a good thing for consumers.   345 Member Oct 30, 2017 10,410 it's about as good as i was expecting. HDR on an LCD basically means "we're actually going to tune content for the screen's color gamut", and it does the job on that level. mario kart does look punchier and more vibrant than it would in SDR while obviously not offering the same contrast as an OLED. dunno who this guy is but if he's really "very disappointed" i'm not sure he knows very much about screens. i'm sure it's just ragebait  JimNastics Member Jan 11, 2018 1,607 345 said: 'm sure it's just ragebait Click to expand... Click to shrink... No way!! :D You could tell just from the thumbnail.  Aleh Member Oct 27, 2017 20,238 "crap display" is a huge exaggeration. Everyone who has actually seen it in person says it looks really good, HDR isn't everything, however disappointing that is.   cw_sasuke Member Oct 27, 2017 30,321 Milk said: It's not a personal attack on you. Pointing out objective shortcomings about the technology is a good thing for consumers. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Seems to be on par what you would get with an LCD. The OG Switch 1 has a bad LCD Screen, the OG Steam Deck has an even worse.....this video is making it seem like Switch 2 Screen is as bad as these screens or even worse. When it seems to be quite solid for an LCD, but in certain areas it can compete with an OLED.  Alex840 Member Oct 31, 2017 5,373 And yet most of the games media doing previews have been like "oh I can barely tell the difference compared to the OLED". Am really sad they took a step back with this, how much more could an OLED screen have cost them?  Universal Acclaim Member Oct 5, 2024 2,482 SDR low brightness in a dark room then   Dranakin Member Oct 27, 2017 2,999 Ooof. Although, I will admit, I probably can't tell between good and bad sceens. I mean, I have the Ayaneo Pocket DMG and everyone says it's an amazing screen. It looks normal to me? Alex840 said: Am really sad they took a step back with this, how much more could an OLED screen have cost them? Click to expand... Click to shrink... An OLED 120hz? The Odin 2 Portal has one (smaller size and without VRR), but I don't have a sense of the component cost.  Kabuki Waq Member Oct 26, 2017 6,034 The screen is a pretty big downgrade from oled but a huge upgrade from the OG. I really miss the perfect blacks. MKW is gorgeous but would have looked so much better on an oled screen  Harmen Member Aug 30, 2023 1,462 The HDR and lifted black should not come as a surprise. But the video doesn't really analyze why it would be below average for an LCD screen? Colours? Pixel response time? For example the original Switch 1 LCD look reaaally bad to me these days, but my Steam Deck LCD screen (similar resolution) looks good to me outside of raised blacks in dark scenes (which I do get used to).   nogoodnamesleft Member Oct 25, 2017 8,605 Yep. I fucking knew it. Knew it was going to be trash. LCD is trash as a standard (yes miniled included with its trash ass pixel response time) Will wait for oled version.  cw_sasuke Member Oct 27, 2017 30,321 Aleh said: "crap display" is a huge exaggeration. Everyone who has actually seen it in person says it looks really good, HDR isn't everything, however disappointing that is. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Focus of the whole channel is HDR. Dude is likely just used to comparing HDR content on very expensive OLED Screens. So HDR bad = everything trash for him. Something that won't be the case for 99% of users out there. Its the single voter issue again, disregarding everything else because of one focus point and expecting every one to feel the same way about it.  Serif Member Oct 31, 2024 410 Alex840 said: Am really sad they took a step back with this, how much more could an OLED screen have cost them? Click to expand... Click to shrink... An OLED 1080p HDR VRR 120 Hz screen does not sound like it would be cost-effective. It makes sense to establish baseline specs like 120 Hz support for developers to target and upgrade to OLED in the future instead of trying to add 120 Hz support later on.  fourfourfun Member Oct 27, 2017 9,149 England Aleh said: "crap display" is a huge exaggeration. Everyone who has actually seen it in person says it looks really good, HDR isn't everything, however disappointing that is. Click to expand... Click to shrink... If you're an enthusiast display platform, you're going to be benchmarking against the absolute best. So comparatively it could not be as good. Obviously it doesn't take into account what the entire platform delivers as a whole and the price it was trying to hit. It's a rather zoomed in look at just one thing.  RailWays One Winged Slayer Avenger Oct 25, 2017 18,449 Still sounds like an upgrade from the launch Switch LCD, though those nits are pretty low   Koklusz Member Oct 27, 2017 3,971 blueredandgold said: Could you please translate for those of us who haven't been able to watch or digest after we saw this posted in the other thread please? Click to expand... Click to shrink... The screen is bad, and the native HDR implementation in the games he tested is shoddy.   NoSpin Member Nov 1, 2017 83 Milk said: It's not a personal attack on you. Pointing out objective shortcomings about the technology is a good thing for consumers. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I didn't see it as a personal attack, I just imagined him reviewing the Game Boy Pocket or the OG DS screes and how disappointed he would have been, whilst we were all busy enjoying video games.  Wasp Member Oct 29, 2017 351 It's a shame they couldn't release an OLED SKU at launch. I would have happily paid an extra $100 for an OLED model and I'm sure many are the same. I know I'll be keeping my box in pristine condition to get maximum value when I trade the console in for a Switch 2 OLED in hopefully a few years.  Last edited: 51 minutes ago pswii60 Member Oct 27, 2017 28,932 The Milky Way This means that for handheld purposes, Switch 2 is actually a downgrade on Switch 1 OLED, for any games that aren't taking advantage of the additional power/resolution. So basically, you might want to hold on to your Switch 1 OLED for all your pixel art indies, and any games not getting a patch/upgrade.  Shadow One Winged Slayer Member Oct 28, 2017 4,837 Kinda what I expected. Being LCD with HDR especially on portable device at that is never a good combo. I'll just play on my OLED TV when I want to get the full experience, which again, is what I expected. I hope it's a bit usable outside at least. I was hoping closer to 600 nits for that alone, as the Deck OLED is JUST usable on a sunny day. But you can't have everything I guess.  UnderJollyRoger Member Jun 16, 2023 648 Germany The screen is also my biggest concern of the unit. The og switch has an absolutely atrocious screen and LCDs just dont cut it anymore for me. The low nits will make it again pretty difficult to properly play outside. I am commuting a lot and sitting on a train with a bit of sun outside was already too much for the og switch. Here is hoping that an OLED variant will come earlier this time.  Milk Prophet of Truth Avenger Oct 25, 2017 4,301 NoSpin said: I didn't see it as a personal attack, I just imagined him reviewing the Game Boy Pocket or the OG DS screes and how disappointed he would have been, whilst we were all busy enjoying video games. Click to expand... Click to shrink... You're implying being critical means you're not also enjoying the video games. I'm critical of tons of my favorite games. I'm still having a fun time with the games 🤷  HandsomeCharles Member Oct 26, 2017 4,717 Disappointing to hear, but as someone who thinks his OG switch's screen is fine, I'm sure it won't really bother me.   OP OP Sangral Powered by Friendship™ Member Feb 17, 2022 8,649 blueredandgold said: Could you please translate for those of us who haven't been able to watch or digest after we saw this posted in the other thread please? Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'm trying to add some bullet points to the OT.  Ghost Slayer Member Oct 30, 2017 1,433 is it like PS Portal LCD screen? Because I think the Portal LCD screen is really good   Decarb Member Oct 27, 2017 9,280 pswii60 said: This means that for handheld purposes, Switch 2 is actually a downgrade on Switch 1 OLED, for any games that aren't taking advantage of the additional power/resolution. So basically, you might want to hold on to your Switch 1 OLED for all your pixel art indies, and any games not getting a patch/upgrade. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Oh I don't think there's any doubt from pure IQ perspective its a downgrade from Switch 1 OLED. Even without HDR support at max brightness that screen pops like nothing else.   Maximo Member Oct 25, 2017 11,041 NoSpin said: I didn't see it as a personal attack, I just imagined him reviewing the Game Boy Pocket or the OG DS screes and how disappointed he would have been, whilst we were all busy enjoying video games. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This is a silly comparison since he's not reviewing a screen from 1996 when it first came out, screen technology has exploded since the first iPhone, seems like a needless jab.  Melhadf Member Dec 25, 2017 2,528 My understanding is that 400nits is the minimum for HDR. So it's technically HDR, but usually dismissed by purists as not "real HDR" such as this vid with his HDR10 testing (1000nits standard). So it's a definite improvement over SDR content, but Nintendo then used an LCD instead of OLED so it most likely looks worse than the OLED switch. Feels like Nintendo is using minimum HDR as a crutch to cheap out on the screen and people are saying it's not "TRUE HDR" even though it's completely within spec.  vegtro Member Oct 25, 2017 808 Aleh said: "crap display" is a huge exaggeration. Everyone who has actually seen it in person says it looks really good, HDR isn't everything, however disappointing that is. Click to expand... Click to shrink... When I first booted the Switch 2, I wanted to believe the screen will be ok from the news. Nope, the screen pretty much is pretty bad compared to OLED.   Alvis Saw the truth behind the copied door Member Oct 25, 2017 12,148 EU A bit of a shame, meh NoSpin said: As so often with gaming, I am relieved to have this person to tell me the thing I am enjoying looking at is bad actually. :) Click to expand... Click to shrink... Yes indeed, this dude is set on a mission to personally ruin your experience, and he's now crying in a corner knowing that he failed.   fourfourfun Member Oct 27, 2017 9,149 England Shadow said: But you can't have everything I guess. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I think that's the thing, they went for resolution and VRR as a priority. I'm sure I also read on here a while ago that it also centres around the availability of appropriate screens. OLED only became viable after a certain point.  Pargon Member Oct 27, 2017 14,110 I thought I had appropriately-low expectations, but I was thinking it would be a 600 nit 1800:1 panel. Not 450 nits and 900:1. The only thing "HDR" about it is probably that content will be authored to make use of a wider color gamut. 

Drones Set To Deliver Benefits for Labor-Intensive Industries: Forrester By John P. Mello Jr. June 3, 2025 5:00 AM PT ADVERTISEMENT Quality Leads That Turn Into Deals Full-service marketing programs from TechNewsWorld deliver sales-ready leads. Segment by geography, industry, company size, job title, and more. Get Started Now. Aerial drones are rapidly assuming a key role in the physical automation of business operations, according to a new report by Forrester Research. Aerial drones power airborne physical automation by addressing operational challenges in labor-intensive industries, delivering efficiency, intelligence, and experience, explained the report written by Principal Analyst Charlie Dai with Frederic Giron, Merritt Maxim, Arjun Kalra, and Bill Nagel. Some industries, like the public sector, are already reaping benefits, it continued. The report predicted that drones will deliver benefits within the next two years as technologies and regulations mature. It noted that drones can help organizations grapple with operational challenges that exacerbate risks and inefficiencies, such as overreliance on outdated, manual processes, fragmented data collection, geographic barriers, and insufficient infrastructure. Overreliance on outdated manual processes worsens inefficiencies in resource allocation and amplifies safety risks in dangerous work environments, increasing operational costs and liability, the report maintained. “Drones can do things more safely, at least from the standpoint of human risk, than humans,” said Rob Enderle, president and principal analyst at the Enderle Group, an advisory services firm, in Bend, Ore. “They can enter dangerous, exposed, very high-risk and even toxic environments without putting their operators at risk,” he told TechNewsWorld. “They can be made very small to go into areas where people can’t physically go. And a single operator can operate several AI-driven drones operating autonomously, keeping staffing levels down.” Sensor Magic “The magic of the drone is really in the sensor, while the drone itself is just the vehicle that holds the sensor wherever it needs to be,” explained DaCoda Bartels, senior vice president of operations with FlyGuys, a drone services provider, in Lafayette, La. “In doing so, it removes all human risk exposure because the pilot is somewhere safe on the ground, sending this sensor, which is, in most cases, more high-resolution than even a human eye,” he told TechNewsWorld. “In essence, it’s a better data collection tool than if you used 100 people. Instead, you deploy one drone around in all these different areas, which is safer, faster, and higher resolution.” Akash Kadam, a mechanical engineer with Caterpillar, maker of construction and mining equipment, based in Decatur, Ill., explained that drones have evolved into highly functional tools that directly respond to key inefficiencies and threats to labor-intensive industries. “Within the manufacturing and supply chains, drones are central to optimizing resource allocation and reducing the exposure of humans to high-risk duties,” he told TechNewsWorld. “Drones can be used in factory environments to automatically inspect overhead cranes, rooftops, and tight spaces — spaces previously requiring scaffolding or shutdowns, which carry both safety and cost risks,” he said. “A reduction in downtime, along with no requirement for manual intervention in hazardous areas, is provided through this aerial inspection by drones.” “In terms of resource usage, drones mounted with thermal cameras and tools for acquiring real-time data can spot bottlenecks, equipment failure, or energy leakage on the production floor,” he continued. “This can facilitate predictive maintenance processes and [optimal] usage of energy, which are an integral part of lean manufacturing principles.” Kadam added that drones provide accurate field mapping and multispectral imaging in agriculture, enabling the monitoring of crop health, soil quality, and irrigation distribution. “Besides the reduction in manual scouting, it ensures more effective input management, which leads to more yield while saving resources,” he observed. Better Data Collection The Forrester report also noted that drones can address problems with fragmented data collection and outdated monitoring systems. “Drones use cameras and sensors to get clear, up-to-date info,” said Daniel Kagan, quality manager at Rogers-O’Brien Construction, a general contractor in Dallas. “Some drones even make 3D maps or heat maps,” he told TechNewsWorld. “This helps farmers see where crops need more water, stores check roof damage after a storm, and builders track progress and find delays.” “The drone collects all this data in one flight, and it’s ready to view in minutes and not days,” he added. Dean Bezlov, global head of business development at MYX Robotics, a visualization technology company headquartered in Sofia, Bulgaria, added that drones are the most cost and time-efficient way to collect large amounts of visual data. “We are talking about two to three images per second with precision and speed unmatched by human-held cameras,” he told TechNewsWorld. “As such, drones are an excellent tool for ‘digital twins’ — timestamps of the real world with high accuracy which is useful in industries with physical assets such as roads, rail, oil and gas, telecom, renewables and agriculture, where the drone provides a far superior way of looking at the assets as a whole,” he said. Drone Adoption Faces Regulatory Hurdles While drones have great potential for many organizations, they will need to overcome some challenges and barriers. For example, Forrester pointed out that insurers deploy drones to evaluate asset risks but face evolving privacy regulations and gaps in data standardization. Media firms use drones to take cost-effective, cinematic aerial footage, but face strict regulations, it added, while in urban use cases like drone taxis and cargo transport remain experimental due to certification delays and airspace management complexities. “Regulatory frameworks, particularly in the U.S., remain complex, bureaucratic, and fragmented,” said Mark N. Vena, president and principal analyst with SmartTech Research in Las Vegas. “The FAA’s rules around drone operations — especially for flying beyond visual line of sight [BVLOS] — are evolving but still limit many high-value use cases.” “Privacy concerns also persist, especially in urban areas and sectors handling sensitive data,” he told TechNewsWorld. “For almost 20 years, we’ve been able to fly drones from a shipping container in one country, in a whole other country, halfway across the world,” said FlyGuys’ Bartels. “What’s limiting the technology from being adopted on a large scale is regulatory hurdles over everything.” Enderle added that innovation could also be a hangup for organizations. “This technology is advancing very quickly, making buying something that isn’t instantly obsolete very difficult,” he said. “In addition, there are a lot of drone choices, raising the risk you’ll pick one that isn’t ideal for your use case.” “We are still at the beginning of this trend,” he noted. “Robotic autonomous drones are starting to come to market, which will reduce dramatically the need for drone pilots. I expect that within 10 years, we’ll have drones doing many, if not most, of the dangerous jobs currently being done by humans, as robotics, in general, will displace much of the labor force.” 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 Emerging Tech

It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

Despite what some experts have characterized as an environment increasingly hostile to AI R&D, North America continues to receive the bulk of AI venture dollars, according to data from investment tracker PitchBook. Between February and May of this year, VCs poured $69.7 billion into North America-based AI and machine learning startups across 1,528 deals. That’s compared with $6.4 billion that VC firms invested in European AI ventures across 742 deals across the same period. Asia-based startups have fared a bit worse than their European counterparts, according to PitchBook. Between February and May, VCs invested just $3 billion in Asia-based AI startups across 515 deals. Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. has dramatically cut funding to scientific grants related to basic AI research, made it more difficult for foreign students specializing in AI to study in the U.S., and threatened to dismantle university-housed AI labs by freezing billions of dollars in federal funds. The administration’s trade policies, meanwhile, including its retaliatory tariffs, have led to a chaotic market unfavorable for risky new AI ventures. In a post on X in March, AI pioneer and Nobel Laureate Geoffrey Hinton called for billionaire Elon Musk, who until recently advised Trump’s cost-cutting group, the Department of Government Efficiency, to be expelled from the British Royal Society “because of the huge damage he is doing to scientific institutions in the U.S.” One might expect that Europe, which has pledged to become a global leader in AI, would attract more venture capital in light of Trump’s controversial policies in the U.S., which have created uncertainty and confusion for founders, investors, and researchers alike. Moreover, the EU has committed hundreds of billions of euros to support the development of AI within its member countries and already has a number of successful, well-funded AI startups in its ranks (see Mistral, H, and Aleph Alpha, to name a few). But that anticipated shift in global investment hasn’t come to pass. There isn’t any sign of a mass VC exodus to the bloc, or of significant upticks in AI funding overseas — at least not yet. Techcrunch event Save now through June 4 for TechCrunch Sessions: AI Save $300 on your ticket to TC Sessions: AI—and get 50% off a second. Hear from leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic, Khosla Ventures, and more during a full day of expert insights, hands-on workshops, and high-impact networking. These low-rate deals disappear when the doors open on June 5. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW The same is true for China, which has spawned high-profile AI startups like DeepSeek and Butterfly Effect — the company behind the agentic platform Manus — but where VC activity in the country and the broader Asian region remains relatively austere. (Export controls impacting the ability of certain Asian countries to procure AI chips are almost certainly a factor.) In 2024, North American startups secured 75.6% of all VC AI funding — $106.24 billion. That share has only increased this year. So far in 2025, North American AI investments represent 86.2% ($79.74 billion) of all VC funding for AI globally. It paints a somewhat surprising picture. Even amid mounting political and regulatory headwinds under Trump’s second term, the U.S. remains the undisputed center for AI capital, meaning investors, fatigued as they may be by the administration’s unpredictability, are still counting on U.S. innovation to deliver the biggest returns, at least for now.

PERFORMANCE ART With technical improvements, Pokemon Scarlet & Violet are utterly transformed on Nintendo Switch 2 What a difference a frame rate makes. On more powerful hardware, Pokemon Scarlet & Violet are practically different games Article by Alex Donaldson Assistant Editor Published on June 4, 2025 I can scarcely think of a game as hampered by its performance as the original Nintendo Switch release of Pokemon Scarlet & Violet. I can think of loads of games that perform worse, of course - broken, shattered releases - but I struggle to think of a great game so thoroughly compromised just from how it runs. That was the log behind my 2022 review of the games, where I called the games a “super-effective new vision” for the series but bemoaned how it ran. The game became famous for stop-motion windmills and distant cliffsides that looked like they’d fallen out of a Nintendo 64 game. The truth is, Scarlet & Violet’s brilliant design and peppy attitude deserved better. Now, three years on from release, Scarlet & Violet is about to get better with a Switch 2 update that I’m going to go ahead and call a total I was invited by The Pokemon Company to take an early look at the patched Switch 2 version of the game - which is always a sign of confidence, given I was quite a noisy detractor of the original game’s performance. I’m honestly not sure what to say other than: wow, what a difference. It is absolute night and day stuff. To the sort of people who say that frame rate doesn’t really matter, I challenge them to play Scarlet & Violet on Switch 2 and then go back to the original. I dare you. As friend of the site Joe says in Serebii's video preview embedded below, it ain’t doable. Watch on YouTube With a crisp presentation at a higher resolution and with a frame rate that as far as I can tell sits at a rock solid 60fps for the vast majority of the time, this is a world apart from the stomach-turning rollercoaster highs and lows of the original release. Distant Pokemon and world elements are no longer slideshows - yes, those infamous windmills are fixed! This isn’t just about technical bragging rights. The difference in how this game now runs is profound enough that it changes the flow and feel of the game. Scarlet & Violet were by design the most footloose and expansive Pokemon games of all time, channeling the open world chops of everything from Skyrim to Breath of the Wild into a Pokemon setting and setup. The performance was a drag on that - if the frame rate tanks every time you whip the camera around to see a nearby approaching threat or take in a distant vista, you’re ripped right out of the game. By stabilising everything, the performance is utterly transformed. Aside from the nebulous concept of ‘game feel’ being improved by the technical advancements, there are also real boons in terms of gameplay. Wild Pokemon spawn in and swarm across the rolling fields and the like in greater numbers. The subtle delay that you’d perceive, that hitch when encountering a wild Pokemon, is eliminated. Menus that were sluggish are now snappier and more responsive. Pokemon Box sprite icons now spring to life instantly. These are small quality of life changes that add up to something greater. Perhaps most importantly battles are now less plodding in their pace, which was frequently obliterated by certain move animations could send the frame rate crashing. It has to be said, it’s not all perfect. The level of detail settings remain pretty aggressive - which means as you’re galloping along at a glorious 60 frames atop your trusty Poke-steed, flowers and other micro detail pop in around you. It’s not ideal. Also, to be honest, the game now being technically accomplished does help to expose the art style for what it is - which is in need of a bit of tightening, I feel. The addition of HDR does really help the colorful exuberance of Paldea to shine, though. In all it’s a triumph, anyway. This is the game Scarlet & Violet should’ve been. Moreover, it feels like the most technically accomplished main-line Pokemon game… possibly ever? Certainly of the 3D era. As with 120fps mouselook Metroid, playing 3D Pokemon at 60fps feels like you’re doing something illegal, frankly. But this is now the way to play these excellent games - and with good-performing Pokemon games now on the table, my excitement for this year’s Pokemon Legends Z-A has skyrocketed.

Few companies in the history of capitalism have amassed as much wealth and influence as Meta.A global superpower in the information space, Meta — the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads — has a market cap of $1.68 trillion at the time of writing, which for a rough sense of scale is more than the gross domestic product of Spain.In spite of its immense influence, none of its internal algorithms can be scrutinized by public watchdogs. Its host country, the United States, has largely turned a blind eye to its dealings in exchange for free use of Meta's vast surveillance capabilities.That lack of oversight coupled with Meta's near-omnipresence as a social utility has had devastating consequences throughout the world, manifesting in crises like the genocide of Muslims in Myanmar, or the systemic suppression of Palestinian rights organizations.How do you uncover the harms caused by one of the most powerful companies on earth? In the case of public violence, the evidence isn't hard to trace. However, Meta's unprecedented corporate dynasty also creates less obvious harms, which scores of scholars, researchers, and journalists are devoting entire careers to uncovering.One prominent group of said investigators is GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which recently released its annual report on social media safety, privacy, and expression for LGBTQ people.The report notes that Meta has undergone a "particularly extreme" ideological shift over the past year, adding harmful exceptions to its content moderation policies while disproportionately suppressing LGBTQ users and their content. The tech giant has also failed to give LGBTQ users sovereignty over their own personal data, which it collects, analyzes, and wields to generate huge profits.While Meta collects all of our data — from which it draws over 95 percent of its revenue — the practice is particularly harmful to LGBTQ users, who then have to contend with algorithmic biases, non-consensual outing, harassment, and in some countries state oppression."It's a dangerous time, certainly for trans people, who as a minority have been so ridiculously maligned, but also a dangerous time for gay people, openly bi[sexual] people, people who are different in any way," says Sarah Roberts, a UCLA professor and Director of the Center for Critical Internet Inquiry.To address these shortcomings and the dangers they introduce, GLAAD made a number of recommendations. One key suggestion was to improve moderation "by providing training for all content moderators focused on LGBTQ safety, privacy and expression." The media advocacy group doesn't mince words, adding that "AI systems should be used to flag for human review, not for automated removals."However, it doesn't look like Meta got the message.Weeks after GLAAD issued its findings, internal Meta documents leaked to NPR revealed the company's plan to hand 90 percent of its privacy and integrity reviews over to "artificial intelligence."This will impact nearly every new feature introduced to its platforms, where human moderators would typically evaluate new features for risks to privacy and safety, and the wellbeing of user groups like minors, immigrants, and LGBTQ people.Meta's internal risk assessment is an already opaque process, and Roberts notes that government attempts at risk oversight, like the EU's Digital Services Act, are likewise a labyrinth of filings which are largely dictated by the social media companies themselves. AI, chock full of biases and prone to errors — as admitted by Meta's own AI chief — is certain to make the situation even worse.Earlier this week, meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal revealed Meta's plans to fully automate advertising via the company's generative AI software, which will allow advertisers to "fully create and target ads" directly, with no human in the loop.This includes hyper-personalized ads, writes the WSJ, "so that users see different versions of the same ad in real time, based on factors such as geolocation."Data hoarders like Meta — which track you even when you're not using its platforms — have long been able to profile LGBTQ users based on gender identify and sexual orientation, including those who aren't publicly out.Removing any human from these already sinister practices serves to streamline operations and distance Meta from its own actions — "we didn't out gay users living under an oppressive government," the company can say, "even if our AI did." It's no coincidence that Meta had already disbanded its "Responsible AI" team as early as 2023.At the root of these decisions — Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's right wing turn notwithstanding — is the calculated drive to maximize revenue."If there's no reason to rigorously moderate harmful content, then why pay so many content moderators? Why engage researchers to look into the circulation of this kind of content?" observes Roberts. "There ends up being a real cost savings there.""One of the things I've always said is that content moderation of social media is not primarily about protecting people, it's about brand management," she told Futurism. "It's about the platform managing its brand in order to make the most hospitable environment for advertisers."Sometimes these corporate priorities line up with progressive causes, like LGBTQ user safety or voter registration. But when they don't, Roberts notes, "dollars are dollars.""We are looking at multibillion-dollar companies, the most capitalized companies in the world, who have operated with impunity for many, many years," she said. "How do you convince them that they should care, when other powerful sectors are telling them the opposite?"Share This Article

June 3, 20258 min readWhite House Budget Plan Would Devastate U.S. Space ScienceScientists are rallying to reverse ruinous proposed cuts to both NASA and the National Science FoundationBy Nadia Drake edited by Lee BillingsFog shrouds the iconic Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in this photograph from February 25, 2025. Gregg Newton/AFP via GettyLate last week the Trump Administration released its detailed budget request for fiscal year 2026 —a request that, if enacted, would be the equivalent of carpet-bombing the national scientific enterprise.“This is a profound, generational threat to scientific leadership in the United States,” says Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, a science advocacy group. “If implemented, it would fundamentally undermine and potentially devastate the most unique capabilities that the U.S. has built up over a half-century.”The Trump administration’s proposal, which still needs to be approved by Congress, is sure to ignite fierce resistance from scientists and senators alike. Among other agencies, the budget deals staggering blows to NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which together fund the majority of U.S. research in astronomy, astrophysics, planetary science, heliophysics and Earth science —all space-related sciences that have typically mustered hearty bipartisan support.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The NSF supports ground-based astronomy, including such facilities as the Nobel Prize–winning gravitational-wave detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), globe-spanning arrays of radio telescopes, and cutting-edge observatories that stretch from Hawaii to the South Pole. The agency faces a lethal 57 percent reduction to its $9-billion budget, with deep cuts to every program except those in President Trump’s priority areas, which include artificial intelligence and quantum information science. NASA, which funds space-based observatories, faces a 25 percent reduction, dropping the agency’s $24.9-billion budget to $18.8 billion. The proposal beefs up efforts to send humans to the moon and to Mars, but the agency’s Science Mission Directorate —home to Mars rovers, the Voyager interstellar probes, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Hubble Space Telescope, and much more —is looking at a nearly 50 percent reduction, with dozens of missions canceled, turned off or operating on a starvation diet.“It’s an end-game scenario for science at NASA,” says Joel Parriott, director of external affairs and public policy at the American Astronomical Society. “It’s not just the facilities. You’re punching a generation-size hole, maybe a multigenerational hole, in the scientific and technical workforce. You don’t just Cryovac these people and pull them out when the money comes back. People are going to move on.”Adding to the chaos, on Saturday President Trump announced that billionaire entrepreneur and private astronaut Jared Isaacman was no longer his pick for NASA administrator—just days before the Senate was set to confirm Isaacman’s nomination. Initial reports—which have now been disputed—explained the president’s decision as stemming from his discovery that Isaacman recently donated money to Democratic candidates. Regardless of the true reason, the decision leaves both NASA and the NSF, whose director abruptly resigned in April, with respective placeholder “acting” leaders at the top. That leadership vacuum significantly weakens the agencies’ ability to fight the proposed budget cuts and advocate for themselves. “What’s more inefficient than a rudderless agency without an empowered leadership?” Dreier asks.Actions versus WordsDuring his second administration, President Trump has repeatedly celebrated U.S. leadership in space. When he nominated Isaacman last December, Trump noted “NASA’s mission of discovery and inspiration” and looked to a future of “groundbreaking achievements in space science, technology and exploration.” More recently, while celebrating Hubble’s 35th anniversary in April, Trump called the telescope “a symbol of America’s unmatched exploratory might” and declared that NASA would “continue to lead the way in fueling the pursuit of space discovery and exploration.” The administration’s budgetary actions speak louder than Trump’s words, however. Instead of ushering in a new golden age of space exploration—or even setting up the U.S. to stay atop the podium—the president’s budget “narrows down what the cosmos is to moon and Mars and pretty much nothing else,” Dreier says. “And the cosmos is a lot bigger, and there’s a lot more to learn out there.”Dreier notes that when corrected for inflation, the overall NASA budget would be the lowest it’s been since 1961. But in April of that year, the Soviet Union launched the first human into orbit, igniting a space race that swelled NASA’s budget and led to the Apollo program putting American astronauts on the moon. Today China’s rapidprogress and enormous ambitions in space would make the moment ripe for a 21st-century version of this competition, with the U.S. generously funding its own efforts to maintain pole position. Instead the White House’s budget would do the exact opposite.“The seesaw is sort of unbalanced,” says Tony Beasley, director of the NSF-funded National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). “On the one side, we’re saying, ‘Well, China’s kicking our ass, and we need to do something about that.’ But then we’re not going to give any money to anything that might actually do that.”How NASA will achieve a crewed return to the moon and send astronauts to Mars—goals that the agency now considers part of “winning the second space race”—while also maintaining its leadership in science is unclear.“This is Russ Vought’s budget,” Dreier says, referring to the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an unelected bureaucrat who has been notorious for his efforts to reshape the U.S. government by weaponizing federal funding. “This isn’t even Trump’s budget. Trump’s budget would be good for space. This one undermines the president’s own claims and ambitions when it comes to space.”“Low Expectations” at the High FrontierRumors began swirling about the demise of NASA science in April, when a leaked OMB document described some of the proposed cuts and cancellations. Those included both the beleaguered, bloated Mars Sample Return (MSR) program and the on-time, on-budget Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the next astrophysics flagship mission.The top-line numbers in the more fleshed-out proposal are consistent with that document, and MSR would still be canceled. But Roman would be granted a stay of execution: rather than being zeroed out, it would be put on life support.“It’s a reprieve from outright termination, but it’s still a cut for functionally no reason,” Dreier says. “In some ways, [the budget] is slightly better than I was expecting. But I had very low expectations.”In the proposal, many of the deepest cuts would be made to NASA science, which would sink from $7.3 billion to $3.9 billion. Earth science missions focused on carbon monitoring and climate change, as well as programs aimed at education and workforce diversity, would be effectively erased by the cuts. But a slew of high-profile planetary science projects would suffer, too, with cancellations proposed for two future Venus missions, the Juno mission that is currently surveilling Jupiter, the New Horizons mission that flew by Pluto and two Mars orbiters. (The Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan would survive, as would the flagship Europa Clipper spacecraft, which launched last October.) NASA’s international partnerships in planetary science fare poorly, too, as the budget rescinds the agency’s involvement with multiple European-led projects, including a Venus mission and Mars rover.The proposal is even worse for NASA astrophysics—the study of our cosmic home—which “really takes it to the chin,” Dreier says, with a roughly $1-billion drop to just $523 million. In the president’s proposal, only three big astrophysics missions would survive: the soon-to-launch Roman and the already-operational Hubble and JWST. The rest of NASA’s active astrophysics missions, which include the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), would be severely pared back or zeroed out. Additionally, the budget would nix NASA’s contributions to large European missions, such as a future space-based gravitational-wave observatory.“This is the most powerful fleet of missions in the history of the study of astrophysics from space,” says John O’Meara, chief scientist at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii and co-chair of a recent senior review panel that evaluated NASA’s astrophysics missions. The report found that each reviewed mission “continues to be capable of producing important, impactful science.” This fleet, O’Meara adds, is more than the sum of its parts, with much of its power emerging from synergies among multiple telescopes that study the cosmos in many different types, or wavelengths, of light.By hollowing out NASA’s science to ruthlessly focus on crewed missions, the White House budget might be charitably viewed as seeking to rekindle a heroic age of spaceflight—with China’s burgeoning space program as the new archrival. But even for these supposedly high-priority initiatives, the proposed funding levels appear too anemic and meager to give the U.S. any competitive edge. For example, the budget directs about $1 billion to new technology investments to support crewed Mars missions while conservative estimates have projected that such voyages would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more.“It cedes U.S. leadership in space science at a time when other nations, particularly China, are increasing their ambitions,” Dreier says. “It completely flies in the face of the president’s own stated goals for American leadership in space.”Undermining the FoundationThe NSF’s situation, which one senior space scientist predicted would be “diabolical” when the NASA numbers leaked back in April, is also unsurprisingly dire. Unlike NASA, which is focused on space science and exploration, the NSF’s programs span the sweep of scientific disciplines, meaning that even small, isolated cuts—let alone the enormous ones that the budget has proposed—can have shockingly large effects on certain research domains.“Across the different parts of the NSF, the programs that are upvoted are the president’s strategic initiatives, but then everything else gets hit,” Beasley says.Several large-scale NSF-funded projects would escape more or less intact. Among these are the panoramic Vera C. Rubin Observatory, scheduled to unveil its first science images later this month, and the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) radio telescope. The budget also moves the Giant Magellan Telescope, which would boast starlight-gathering mirrors totaling more than 25 meters across, into a final design phase. All three of those facilities take advantage of Chile’s pristine dark skies. Other large NSF-funded projects that would survive include the proposed Next Generation Very Large Array of radio telescopes in New Mexico and several facilities at the South Pole, such as the IceCube Neutrino Observatory.If this budget is enacted, however, NSF officials anticipate only funding a measly 7 percent of research proposals overall rather than 25 percent; the number of graduate research fellowships awarded would be cleaved in half, and postdoctoral fellowships in the physical sciences would drop to zero. NRAO’s Green Bank Observatory — home to the largest steerable single-dish radio telescope on the planet — would likely shut down. So would other, smaller observatories in Arizona and Chile. The Thirty Meter Telescope, a humongous, perennially embattled project with no clear site selection, would be canceled. And the budget proposes closing one of the two gravitational-wave detectors used by the LIGO collaboration—whose observations of colliding black holes earned the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics—even though both detectors need to be online for LIGO’s experiment to work. Even factoring in other operational detectors, such as Virgo in Europe and the Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector (KAGRA) in Japan, shutting down half of LIGO would leave a gaping blind spot in humanity’s gravitational-wave view of the heavens.“The consequences of this budget are that key scientific priorities, on the ground and in space, will take at least a decade longer—or not be realized at all,” O’Meara says. “The universe is telling its story at all wavelengths. It doesn’t care what you build, but if you want to hear that story, you must build many things.”Dreier, Parriott and others are anticipating fierce battles on Capitol Hill. And already both Democratic and Republican legislators have issued statement signaling that they won’t support the budget request as is. “This sick joke of a budget is a nonstarter,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, in a recent statement. And in an earlier statement, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the powerful Senate Committee on Appropriations, cautioned that “the President’s Budget Request is simply one step in the annual budget process.”The Trump administration has “thrown a huge punch here, and there will be a certain back-reaction, and we’ll end up in the middle somewhere,” Beasley says. “The mistake you can make right now is to assume that this represents finalized decisions and the future—because it doesn’t.”