AllYouCanTech

Scientists Discover Most Extensive Black Hole Jets Ever Documented

**The Cosmic Extent of Supermassive Black Hole Jets: An Exciting Revelation**

Supermassive black holes, typically situated at the hearts of galaxies, are far more than mere passive celestial entities. Their powerful gravitational forces and the radiation they emit while consuming surrounding matter significantly influence the galaxies they occupy. These black holes have the ability to push away gas and dust that could otherwise create stars, thus restricting the growth of their host galaxies. Nonetheless, their impact may reach well beyond the confines of their galaxies, as new findings suggest.

A recent investigation has revealed the largest known jets emerged from a supermassive black hole, stretching an incredible 23 million light-years (seven megaparsecs). These jets are so expansive that they could feasibly deliver material to neighboring galaxies and even traverse the cosmic web of dark matter that shapes the Universe.

### Enormous Jets: Their Formation

Jets originate in the tumultuous environment surrounding a black hole. As matter spirals into the black hole, it becomes ionized and superheated, resulting in the formation of robust electromagnetic fields. These fields function as natural particle accelerators, propelling jets of particles at velocities nearing the speed of light. Subsequently, these jets interact with surrounding matter, generating shockwaves that further accelerate and heat the material, leading to substantial outflows.

Usually, black holes generate two jets, one at each pole, moving in opposite directions. These jets have been detected across a range of scales, from those created by stellar-mass black holes to the supermassive black holes that drive quasars, the brightest entities in the Universe.

### The Revelation of Porphyrion

The identification of the largest known jets stemmed from a systematic search for extensive jets employing the LOFAR (Low-Frequency Array) observatory, which examines the Northern Hemisphere’s skies at radio wavelengths. The data gathered by LOFAR was evaluated using a blend of machine learning techniques and collaboration from citizen scientists. This initiative recognized over 11,000 jets spanning distances of at least one megaparsec (around 3.26 million light-years). Among these, the most extensive jet system, named **Porphyrion** after a colossus from Greek mythology, was detected.

Subsequent observations aided in identifying the galaxy accountable for these jets. Two possible candidates were noted, but one galaxy exhibited lobes aligned with the jets, making it the most probable source. This galaxy is approximately 10 times more massive than the Milky Way, and its light has been traveling for about 6 billion years to reach us, indicating that we are observing it as it existed midway through the Universe’s history.

### The Scale and Energy of Porphyrion

According to the galaxy’s distance, researchers estimate that Porphyrion’s jets appear to be 6.4 megaparsecs in length. However, this measurement presumes we are observing the jets from a perpendicular viewpoint. In actuality, the jets are probably angled, and their real length is estimated to exceed 7 megaparsecs.

The materials within the jets are moving at about 1.2% of the speed of light, implying that it has taken over half a billion years for the jets to attain their current dimensions. The energy contained in these jets is extraordinary—approximately 10^55 joules, akin to the energy emitted in collisions between entire galaxy clusters.

### Cosmological Significance

One of the most astonishing features of Porphyrion’s jets is their linearity. This indicates that the jets have not encountered major impediments, such as nearby galaxies or dense regions of intergalactic material. The researchers deduce that the host galaxy is probably situated within a filament of the cosmic web, an extensive network of dark matter that supplies the gravitational pull necessary for galaxy formation. The jets may have expelled material from this filament and are currently traveling through a comparatively empty section of space.

The finding of Porphyrion prompts fascinating inquiries regarding the influence of black hole jets on the Universe’s evolution. While considerable jets are not rare, Porphyrion is only faintly detectable with existing radio astronomy technologies. If it were marginally less energetic or situated further back in the Universe’s timeline, it might have remained unnoticed. Considering that the LOFAR survey only encompassed roughly 15% of the sky, it is plausible that many additional jets of comparable size exist yet to be discovered.

### The Effect of Black Hole Jets on the Universe

The presence of such immense jets implies that they could exert a significant influence on the growth and development of galaxies. By expelling material from dark matter filaments, these jets may offer feedback that modulates galaxy evolution. Furthermore, the magnitude of these jets indicates that material from one galaxy could be conveyed to another, potentially affecting the growth of distant galaxies.

In the Universe’s early stage, when dark matter filaments were nearer to each other, it is conceivable that some material was even transferred between filaments, transported by black hole jets. While it remains uncertain whether these jets were pivotal in shaping the Universe, the discovery of Porphyrion

Lawsuit Claims Amazon Deceives Customers with Misleading Fire TV Sale Pricing

### Amazon Confronts Lawsuit Over Alleged “Fake List Prices” on Fire TVs

Amazon, the online retail behemoth, is currently under a class-action lawsuit asserting that the company has been deceiving consumers with “fake list prices and claimed discounts” on its Fire TV offerings. The lawsuit, lodged in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington on September 12, 2024, alleges that Amazon has been artificially raising the “List Prices” of Fire TVs and associated bundles to fabricate the appearance of notable discounts, thus luring customers into purchases under misleading circumstances.

#### The Claims

The lawsuit, led by claimant David Ramirez, contends that Amazon has been advertising Fire TVs at inflated “List Prices” that do not accurately represent the true market value or recent sales patterns of the products. Ramirez states that he acquired a 50-inch 4-Series Fire TV in February 2024 for $299.99, which was promoted as being 33% off its “List Price” of $449.99. However, per the lawsuit, this “List Price” was deceptive since the TV had not been sold at that price for a considerable duration.

At the moment, the same 50-inch 4-Series Fire TV continues to be featured on Amazon as having a “Limited time deal” of $299.98, alongside a “List Price” of $449.99. The lawsuit argues that Amazon’s pricing methods infringe upon Washington’s **Consumer Protection Act**, which forbids misleading business practices.

#### Price Monitoring Data

To substantiate the allegations, the lawsuit cites information from **Camelcamelcamel**, a well-known price-monitoring site that tracks Amazon’s pricing history. According to Camelcamelcamel, the lowest identified price for the 50-inch 4-Series Fire TV was $280 in July 2024. The site also indicates that the TV’s average price has hovered around $330.59, with the $300 price point or lower being available numerous times during 2023 and 2024. The TV was last sold at the $449.99 “List Price” in October 2023, with only brief instances in July and August 2024 where it was offered at that rate.

This information contradicts Amazon’s assertion that the “List Price” reflects the suggested retail price or the price at which the item was sold in the preceding 90 days. Amazon’s website features an information icon adjacent to “List Prices” that states:

> “The List Price is the suggested retail price of a new product as provided by a manufacturer, supplier, or seller. Except for books, Amazon will display a List Price if the product was purchased by customers on Amazon or offered by other retailers at or above the List Price in at least the past 90 days. List prices may not necessarily reflect the product’s prevailing market price.”

Nonetheless, the lawsuit claims that Amazon’s depiction of these List Prices is inaccurate and misleading, as the TVs in question were not sold at the promoted List Prices within the last 90 days.

#### Amazon’s Reaction

When approached by **Ars Technica**, a representative from Amazon opted not to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings. The lawsuit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, along with an injunction to stop Amazon from perpetuating these alleged misleading practices.

#### “Amazon Deceives Its Customers”

The lawsuit further claims that Amazon’s strategy of inflating List Prices generates a “false sense of urgency” for consumers, convincing them they are securing a limited-time offer. This method, the lawsuit posits, coerces customers into spending more than they would have otherwise.

The legal filing additionally accuses Amazon of employing these strategies to artificially boost demand for Fire TVs, enabling the company to sustain elevated prices for the products. The lawsuit asserts that Amazon has utilized these deceptive practices across at least 15 different Fire TV models and bundles.

In certain instances, the lawsuit asserts, the List Price was only accessible for “an exceedingly short duration, in some cases as brief as a single day.” This further reinforces the claim that the List Prices were not genuine reflections of the product’s actual market value or recent sales trends.

#### Prior Legal Cases

This is not Amazon’s first encounter with legal challenges regarding its pricing methods. In 2021, the firm was sued in California for allegedly employing deceptive reference prices. In that instance, Amazon consented to pay $2 million in fines and restitution. The California suit similarly accused Amazon of inflating List Prices to make discounts appear more significant than they truly were.

Other technology companies have also faced penalties for comparable practices. For instance, **Dell Australia** was fined AUD $10 million (roughly $6.49 million) in 2023 for making false and misleading claims about discount prices for additional computer monitors. The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission determined that Dell had raised the initial prices of the monitors to enhance the perceived value of the discounts.

#### Safeguarding Consumers

iPhone 16 Launches Wireless Recovery Mode for Phone-to-Phone Restoration of Inoperable Devices

# Apple’s iPhone 16 Unveils Wireless Recovery Mode: A Revolutionary Approach to Device Restoration

Apple has established itself as a leader in both hardware and software innovation, and the latest **iPhone 16** and **iPhone 16 Pro** models reinforce this reputation. Among the multiple features launched with these devices, one particularly shines for its ability to simplify the user experience: **wireless recovery mode**. This groundbreaking feature enables users to restore their iPhones without requiring a physical connection to a Mac or PC, representing a notable change in the iPhone recovery process.

## What is Recovery Mode?

For those who might not be aware, recovery mode serves as a safety net integrated into iPhones for restoring devices when issues arise—such as during a failed software update or a severe system failure. Historically, when an iPhone goes into recovery mode, it becomes inoperable until it is linked to a computer using a cable. The computer then fetches the required iOS software and firmware to reset the device to its factory state. Although this method can be a convenient alternative to visiting an Apple Store, it necessitates having a functional Mac or PC and a suitable cable, which might not always be on hand.

## The New Wireless Recovery Mode

With the introduction of the iPhone 16 and 16 Pro, Apple has rolled out a **wireless recovery option** that does away with cables and computers. Instead, when an iPhone 16 activates recovery mode, it can wirelessly interact with another nearby Apple device, like an iPhone or iPad, to download the essential software and firmware files. This functionality was first highlighted by [9to5Mac](https://9to5mac.com/2024/09/17/iphone-16-firmware-restored-wirelessly/), which assessed the system and validated its effectiveness.

The operation is simple: when an iPhone 16 is set to recovery mode, bringing it close to another working Apple device will allow the functional device to download the required files and wirelessly send them to the iPhone needing recovery, thus making the process independent of a physical computer connection.

### How It Works

The wireless recovery mode utilizes **RecoveryOS**, the same infrastructure that Apple employs to restore firmware on the Apple Watch and Apple TV. When the iPhone 16 enters recovery mode, it transmits a signal detectable by nearby Apple devices. The operational device functions as a conduit, obtaining the necessary software and firmware from Apple’s servers and wirelessly relaying it to the iPhone undergoing recovery.

This development is a marked enhancement over the conventional procedure, as it eradicates the reliance on cables and computers, thus making the restoration process simpler and more viable for users. It reflects Apple’s ongoing commitment to wireless solutions, as demonstrated by other recent advancements.

## A Broader Trend Toward Wireless Solutions

This isn’t Apple’s first endeavor toward wireless iPhone management. Earlier this year, the company unveiled a new update mechanism in its retail stores, enabling iPhones to receive the latest software updates **while remaining in their packaging**. This guarantees that customers get devices equipped with the most current software, even if they have been stored for an extended period post-manufacture. This feature, reported by

Elon Musk Contemplates Legal Measures Against FAA After Suggested $633,000 Penalty for SpaceX

### FAA Imposes Fine on SpaceX for Alleged Launch License Breaches: An In-Depth Analysis of the Conflict

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a landmark penalty of $633,009 against SpaceX for purportedly breaching its launch authorization guidelines during two distinct rocketflights in 2023. The infractions reportedly took place during a Falcon 9 launch in June and a Falcon Heavy launch in July, both originating from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. This proposed fine signifies the largest civil penalty ever enforced by the FAA’s commercial spaceflight division, reflecting increasing friction between the regulatory agency and SpaceX, a firm recognized for its swift innovation and regular launches.

### The Suspected Infractions

As per the FAA, SpaceX committed its launch license violations on two significant occasions:

1. **Unapproved Launch Control Facility**: In the June 18, 2023, Falcon 9 launch carrying an Indonesian communications satellite, SpaceX utilized a new launch control area at its Hangar X site at Kennedy Space Center. This facility hadn’t received FAA authorization for operational use. Furthermore, SpaceX neglected to perform a readiness poll two hours prior to launch, a vital safety protocol included in its FAA-sanctioned launch procedures.

2. **Unauthorized Fuel Depot**: In an additional incident during a Falcon Heavy launch in July 2023, SpaceX operated an unapproved propellant depot at Launch Complex 39A. The firm had sought an amendment to its launch license to acknowledge the change in ground fuel facilities, but the FAA did not authorize the request before the launch. Regardless, SpaceX continued with the mission.

The FAA alleges that SpaceX had been alerted prior to both launches that the requested adjustments to its launch operations and facilities would not be approved promptly, yet the company proceeded with the launches anyway.

### SpaceX’s Reaction and Legal Proceedings

Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX, swiftly reacted to the FAA’s proposed fines, denouncing the agency for “regulatory overreach” and pledging to pursue legal recourse. Musk, who has frequently criticized various regulatory agencies, declared on his social media outlet X (previously Twitter) that SpaceX would initiate a lawsuit against the FAA. He characterized the fines as an instance of “lawfare,” suggesting the use of judicial systems to annoy or undermine an organization.

This is not the first instance of conflict between SpaceX and the FAA. Just a week prior, the company accused the agency of delaying the upcoming test flight of its Starship rocket, citing “unreasonable and maddening justifications.” The FAA, however, affirmed that the delay resulted from the necessity for a more comprehensive regulatory assessment, as SpaceX plans to undertake a novel procedure: bringing the Starship rocket’s Super Heavy booster back to its launch pad in South Texas.

### The FAA’s Responsibilities and Challenges

The FAA supervises the safety of commercial spaceflight activities within the United States. Its principal objective is to ensure that launches and reentries do not endanger public safety, national security, or foreign policy interests. The agency also grants licenses to commercial space entities, including SpaceX, and enforces adherence to safety standards.

However, the FAA has found it challenging to keep up with SpaceX’s rapid launch schedule. SpaceX, which has transformed the space sector with its reusable rockets and frequent launches, has frequently clashed with the regulatory authority. The company, along with other advocates in the space industry, has called for enhanced funding and staffing for the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, which is tasked with overseeing spaceflight operations. In response, Congress approved an increase in funding for the office, raising its budget to $42 million for fiscal year 2024, which will enable the FAA to recruit 35 additional personnel, bringing its total workforce to 158.

Despite these initiatives, the FAA still encounters difficulties in regulating the fast-evolving commercial space market. The Biden administration has sought further funding for the FAA’s space office in fiscal year 2025, but the agency’s capability to keep up with SpaceX’s ambitious objectives continues to be a contentious issue.

### The Wider Landscape: SpaceX and Regulatory Conflicts

The discord between SpaceX and the FAA represents part of a larger pattern of regulatory tensions within the commercial space sector. SpaceX, in particular, has consistently tested the limits of what is achievable, both in technology and operations. This has resulted in recurrent confrontations with regulators whose responsibility is to ensure safety and compliance with established protocols.

Musk, who has publicly backed former President Donald Trump in the upcoming 2024 presidential election, has been an outspoken critic of various regulatory entities, including those governing labor, health, and, currently, spaceflight. Trump has suggested that, if he were to be reelected, he would appoint Musk to lead a “government efficiency commission,” a development that could complicate the dynamics between SpaceX and federal regulators even further.

Tesla’s Supercharger Network Now Available for GM Electric Cars, Adapters Needed

**GM EVs Access Tesla Supercharger Network: A Major Milestone in EV Charging Infrastructure**

Starting today, General Motors (GM) electric vehicles (EVs) will have the opportunity to utilize Tesla’s extensive Supercharger network for the first time. This represents a significant development in the EV sector, as GM aligns itself with other automakers like Ford in utilizing Tesla’s vast array of fast chargers to improve the EV ownership journey. This initiative is part of a larger commitment to making charging more accessible and user-friendly for EV drivers throughout North America.

### A Transformative Partnership

In June 2023, GM finalized a groundbreaking agreement with Tesla, allowing its EV customers access to over 17,000 Tesla Superchargers across the continent. This deal follows a similar arrangement made by Ford, underscoring the increasing tendency of automakers to collaborate in enhancing EV infrastructure. As EV adoption grows, having access to reliable and extensive charging networks is essential for reducing range anxiety and motivating more consumers to transition to electric.

Wade Shaffer, Vice President of GM Energy, highlighted the significance of this collaboration:

> “Providing access to a greater number of publicly available fast chargers is yet another avenue through which GM is dedicated to elevating the customer experience and facilitating a smoother transition to electric.”

This initiative aligns with GM’s overarching strategy to promote the adoption of electric vehicles while improving the overall customer experience by expanding charging options.

### Which GM Models Are Included?

GM’s electric vehicle portfolio encompasses a variety of models, ranging from the well-received Chevrolet Bolt to the newer Ultium-based EVs from Chevy, Cadillac, and GMC brands. Particularly, the GMC Hummer EV, equipped with a substantial 205 kWh battery pack, stands out as one of the models that will gain access to Tesla’s Supercharger network. This is especially important for high-capacity battery vehicles like the Hummer EV, which demand substantial power for rapid charging.

### The Adapter Requirement

Although GM EVs can now utilize Tesla Superchargers, there is a stipulation: they will need an adapter to connect Tesla’s exclusive J3400 (formerly known as the North American Charging Standard, or NACS) plug to the Combined Charging System 1 (CCS1) ports available on GM vehicles. This adapter will retail for $225 and can be acquired through GM’s EV smartphone app.

In contrast, Ford provided its customers with a free adapter if they registered before a certain deadline in June. GM, however, has chosen to charge for the adapter, which may raise concerns among some customers. Besides acquiring the adapter, GM drivers will have to use the app to find Supercharger stations and settle their charging bills.

### Looking Forward: Native J3400 Ports

While the adapter serves as a temporary fix, GM intends to incorporate Tesla’s J3400 port directly into its future EV models. Beginning in 2024, GM vehicles will be designed with native J3400 ports, thereby eliminating the necessity for an adapter and optimizing the charging experience. This step is part of a broader industry movement towards standardizing charging ports, which could facilitate a more straightforward EV charging landscape and provide drivers greater convenience when charging at various networks.

### The Importance of Charging Infrastructure

As the EV market expands, the necessity for fast and reliable charging infrastructure is increasingly critical. Tesla’s Supercharger network is widely recognized as one of the most robust and dependable globally, providing swift charging capabilities and an effortless user experience. By gaining entry to this network, GM is tackling one of the main concerns of potential EV purchasers: the access to convenient charging alternatives.

For GM, this partnership serves as a strategic initiative to boost the attractiveness of its electric vehicles. By granting access to Tesla’s Superchargers, GM can present its customers with a more comprehensive charging solution, potentially drawing more buyers to its EV offerings.

### Conclusion

GM’s integration into Tesla’s Supercharger network signifies an important milestone in the advancement of electric vehicle infrastructure. As additional automakers forge partnerships to broaden charging networks and standardize charging technologies, the transition to electric vehicles becomes increasingly seamless for consumers. Although GM drivers currently need to purchase an adapter, the upcoming incorporation of Tesla’s J3400 port into GM vehicles is set to simplify the charging process even more.

With the EV market poised for continued expansion, collaborations like that of GM and Tesla are vital for ensuring that charging infrastructure keeps pace with rising demand. As more drivers opt for electric, the accessibility of fast and reliable charging options will be pivotal in shaping the future of mobility.

European Court Revokes €1.5 Billion Penalty Imposed on Google

**Google Triumphs in Appeal Against €1.5 Billion EU Competition Penalty: A Win Amid Persistent Oversight**

In a notable legal success for Google, the tech behemoth has effectively overturned a €1.5 billion penalty enforced by the European Commission, signaling a crucial point in the continuing regulatory confrontations between major tech firms and European regulators. The fine, first imposed in 2019, was part of an extensive initiative by the EU to limit anti-competitive conduct within the digital advertising sector.

### The Central Case

The penalty arose from accusations that Google had exploited its leading position in the online advertising arena by enforcing restrictive terms in its contracts with third-party sites. These terms, according to the European Commission, essentially hindered competing advertisers from engaging fairly in the marketplace. The commission contended that Google’s conduct persisted for a decade, from 2006 to 2016, and justified a substantial penalty due to the “serious and sustained nature” of the violation.

Margrethe Vestager, who served as the EU’s competition leader at that time, spearheaded the case. She maintained that Google’s methods had suppressed competition and innovation, especially in the realm of text-based search advertising. The €1.5 billion penalty aimed to deliver a stern warning to Google and similar tech corporations regarding the implications of monopolistic practices.

### The General Court’s Verdict

However, on Wednesday, the EU’s General Court in Luxembourg issued a judgment that annulled the penalty. Although the court acknowledged several of the European Commission’s evaluations concerning Google’s anti-competitive conduct, it determined that the commission had not adequately weighed all pertinent factors, notably the length of the unfair contractual terms.

The ruling signifies a partial win for Google, which contended that the penalty was excessive and that it had already made modifications to its contracts in 2016, prior to the commission’s ruling. Google expressed its contentment with the decision, stating, “We are pleased that the court has recognized errors in the original decision and annulled the fine.”

### The Wider Landscape: Google’s Legal Confrontations in Europe

This case forms part of numerous high-profile legal confrontations between Google and the European Commission. In recent years, the EU has imposed fines totaling approximately €8.25 billion on the tech giant for various anti-competitive actions.

In a different case, the European Court of Justice upheld a €2.4 billion fine against Google for misusing its market power by favoring its shopping services over competitors. This ruling was viewed as a significant win for the European Commission and an important precedent in the oversight of digital markets.

Despite these legal hurdles, critics argue that the EU’s antitrust measures have been insufficiently swift and effective in countering the dominance of tech behemoths like Google. The online advertising market, in particular, remains heavily dominated by Google, raising alarms about the lack of competition and potential negative consequences for consumers and smaller enterprises.

### What Lies Ahead for Google and the EU?

The European Commission is anticipated to contest the General Court’s ruling, indicating that the legal struggle is far from concluded. In a statement, the commission expressed it would “carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.”

Meanwhile, Brussels continues to assess Google’s supremacy in the ad tech field. Last year, the European Commission suggested that dismantling the company might be the sole viable option to restore competition in the sector. Although no final resolution has been reached, the prospects of further penalties and regulatory measures are substantial.

Margrethe Vestager, a prominent critic of Big Tech’s market strategies, is poised to depart from her position as the EU’s antitrust authority in the upcoming weeks. Reflecting on her time in office, she noted, “It is thought-provoking that those who have made it in the marketplace still feel that they should not compete on the merits.”

### Conclusion

Google’s successful appeal against the €1.5 billion penalty stands out as a significant win for the corporation, yet it is unlikely to signify the conclusion of its legal predicaments in Europe. As the EU continues to contend with the challenges of Big Tech’s market dominance, the implications of this case will probably affect future regulatory undertakings and influence the overarching discourse regarding competition in the digital economy.

The persistent scrutiny of Google and other tech giants highlights the intensifying conflict between innovation and regulation in the digital era. As Europe aims to create a more equitable landscape for smaller competitors, the lingering question remains: can regulators adapt at the same speed as the rapidly changing tech industry?

—

*© 2024 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.*

“The Emergence of AI-Created Forgeries Signals the Start of the ‘Deep Skepticism’ Age”

### The Age of “Profound Uncertainty”: Tackling the Trials of AI-Crafted Media

In recent times, the swift progression of artificial intelligence (AI) has instigated notable transformations in how we produce, engage with, and interpret media. A significant concern arising from this technological shift is the emergence of photorealistic AI-created images and videos, commonly termed “deepfakes.” These AI-crafted creations are saturating social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, sparking a new level of skepticism regarding the legitimacy of digital content. This trend, which I refer to as “profound uncertainty,” is altering our interactions with media and prompting deep inquiries into truth, trust, and the trajectory of information.

—

### What is Profound Uncertainty?

Profound uncertainty signifies the increasing doubt towards genuine media owing to the advent of generative AI. As AI resources become more widely available and adept at generating highly believable fake content, individuals are more frequently questioning the reliability of what they encounter online. This skepticism brings notable ramifications: individuals are now more plausibly asserting that real incidents did not transpire, implying that documentary proof was fabricated using AI technology.

While the notion of profound uncertainty is not entirely novel, its tangible effects in the real world are coming into sharper focus. Since the term “deepfake” first appeared in 2017, AI-generated media has advanced swiftly, leading to numerous occasions where profound uncertainty has been weaponized. For instance, conspiracy theorists have alleged that President Joe Biden has been substituted by an AI-driven hologram, and former President Donald Trump has accused Vice President Kamala Harris of employing AI to falsify crowd sizes at her events. In another case, Trump dismissed a photo of himself with writer E. Jean Carroll, who successfully sued him for sexual assault, calling it an AI fabrication.

These instances underscore how profound uncertainty is leveraged to undermine legitimate evidence and manipulate public perception.

—

### The Surge of Deepfakes and the Endurance of Doubt

Doubt has historically served as a political instrument, stretching back to ancient periods. The contemporary manifestation of this strategy, propelled by AI, represents the latest development in a tactic designed to sow uncertainty, thus manipulating public opinion and obscuring the truth. AI has emerged as a modern tool for deceivers, enabling them to fabricate or alter images, audio, text, or videos that seem genuine.

The term “deepfake” was coined by a Reddit user who shared AI-generated pornography, swapping out the faces of performers for those of others. Since that time, the technology has evolved dramatically, allowing anyone to create convincing counterfeit media easily. In the 20th century, trust in media was partly rooted in the time, skill, and resources necessary to produce documentary images and films. Yet, as AI-generated content becomes increasingly widespread, that trust is diminishing.

This decline in trust reaches beyond political discussions and legal frameworks. It also impacts our collective comprehension of historical occurrences, which depend on media artifacts for documentation. As AI-generated content grows more advanced, our interpretation of truth in media must be reevaluated.

—

### Profound Uncertainty in the Judicial System

The rise of deepfakes is also fostering concerns within the legal system. In April 2024, a group of federal judges deliberated on the potential for AI-generated deepfakes to introduce false evidence or cast doubt on authentic evidence during court trials. The judges emphasized the hurdles of authenticating digital evidence in a time of increasingly sophisticated AI technology. While no immediate amendments to the rules were proposed, the conversation highlights the necessity of tackling AI-related challenges in legal contexts.

The capacity of deepfakes to undermine the integrity of the judicial system is a critical worry. If deepfakes can cast doubt on authentic evidence, it could result in wrongful convictions or acquittals, further diminishing public faith in the justice system.

—

### The Deceiver’s Dividend: A New Instrument for Misinformation

In 2019, legal scholars Danielle K. Citron and Robert Chesney introduced the term “deceiver’s dividend” to encapsulate the implications of profound uncertainty. The deceiver’s dividend denotes the ability of deceivers to discredit authentic evidence by asserting it was fabricated via AI. As society grows increasingly aware of the hazards posed by deepfakes, deceivers can manipulate this understanding to evade accountability for their deeds.

The deceiver’s dividend is particularly alarming as it intensifies distrust in conventional news outlets and undermines the pillars of democratic dialogue. As objective truths wane in influence, opinions often overshadow facts, creating a ripe environment for authoritarianism and the proliferation of misinformation.

—

### The Ramifications on Social Trust and Historical Narratives

Profound uncertainty extends beyond contemporary events and legal matters. It also possesses the potential to skew our comprehension of history. As AI-generated content becomes more commonplace, there exists a risk that future generations will find it difficult to differentiate between authentic and fabricated historical accounts. This could result in a situation where the legitimacy of historical events is called into question.

Apple Suspends iPadOS 18 Update for M4 iPad Pro After Reports of Devices Turning Unusable

**Apple Suspends iPadOS 18 Deployment for M4 iPad Pros Due to Bricking Problems**

Apple has put a temporary stop to the deployment of the iPadOS 18 update for its M4 iPad Pro models, following feedback regarding the update causing some devices to become “bricked.” The company has ceased signing the update for these specific iPads, signifying that users will be unable to download or install the update, and Apple’s servers will not activate it if installed via other methods.

### The Situation at Hand

The choice to pause the update rollout arises after various users reported that their M4 iPad Pros became non-functional after installing iPadOS 18. Based on anecdotal evidence from users on platforms like [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/iPadOS/comments/1figlrs/ipados_18_bricked_my_m4_ipad/) and the

Lotus Reveals Daring Wedge-Shaped Concept for Upcoming Electric Sports Vehicle Despite Company Difficulties

**Lotus Theory 1: A Sneak Peek at the Future of Performance Automobiles**

Today, Lotus Cars introduced its newest concept model, the **Theory 1**, a bold wedge-shaped design that embodies the brand’s vision for the next generation of performance automobiles. Referred to as an “intelligent performance vehicle,” the Theory 1 merges state-of-the-art technology with Lotus’ rich legacy of innovation and performance. This concept sets forth a fresh design manifesto for the brand, highlighting a combination of digital and analog features aimed at elevating the driving experience.

### A New Chapter in Design and Performance

The Theory 1 transcends being merely a concept car—it’s a declaration of purpose from Lotus. As stated by Ben Payne, vice president of design at Lotus Group, the vehicle takes inspiration from the company’s 76-year legacy while challenging the limits of performance cars. “Our aim is to show that you don’t have to make compromises—with both digital and analog systems functioning seamlessly in the automotive future,” Payne expressed. The vision is to provide an engaging driving experience that merges raw passion, practicality, and connectivity.

Upon first inspection, the Theory 1’s silhouette may evoke thoughts of the Lamborghini Huracan, but such resemblances diminish when observed from different perspectives. A standout characteristic is the vehicle’s distinctive door design. Departing from traditional butterfly, dihedral, or gull-wing configurations, the Theory 1’s doors open backward, allowing passengers to enter directly. This creative design also guarantees that the doors can be opened in even the tightest of parking situations, merging style with utility.

### Aerodynamic Design and Engineering Mastery

Lotus has consistently prioritized aerodynamics, and the Theory 1 is no different. The front of the vehicle boasts a diffuser seamlessly incorporated into the nose, along with air curtains that direct airflow around its sides. The underbody is shaped to manage air efficiently, akin to a Formula 1 vehicle. This dedication is unsurprising, considering Lotus’ pioneering role in employing ground effect in F1 racing during the 1970s.

Beneath the sleek facade resides a 70 kWh lithium-ion battery, which, along with the motor, is considered a fully stressed component of the chassis. This engineering philosophy harkens back to Lotus’ F1 breakthroughs, particularly the groundbreaking Type 49, which utilized the engine as a stressed element of the chassis for the first time. In the Theory 1, the suspension connects directly to this assembly, eliminating the need for a subframe. The rear wing is also attached directly to the chassis, transmitting its aerodynamic load straight to the suspension.

Boasting a power output of **987 hp (736 kW)**, the Theory 1 performs impressively, although it doesn’t match the **1,971 hp (1,470 kW)** of Lotus’ inaugural electric supercar, the **Evija**. Nevertheless, the Theory 1 is designed to deliver thrilling performance while reflecting Lotus’ dedication to electric innovation.

### Unveiling Lotuswear: A Novel Aspect of Driver Connection

One of the most fascinating elements of the Theory 1 is its **Lotuswear** system, which aspires to create a deeper bond between the driver, passengers, and the road. Thankfully, this isn’t merely a collection of branded outfits, but rather a sophisticated system that customizes the driving experience. The car accommodates three occupants, reminiscent of the legendary McLaren F1, with the driver positioned centrally.

The seating is composed of an “adaptive soft and lightweight robotic textile” created by **MotorSkins**. This innovative material interacts with its occupants through inflatable pods in the seats and steering wheel, offering haptic feedback to enrich the driving encounter. The seats also come equipped with 3D-printed lattice headrests containing binaural speakers. These speakers can amplify the car’s speed-related sounds for an exhilarating ride or function as noise-cancelling devices to mitigate road and wind noise, based on the driver’s choice.

### Autonomous Features

Even as a high-performance sports car, the Theory 1 comes outfitted with a comprehensive array of sensors for autonomous driving. The vehicle includes four lidar sensors, six HD cameras, radar, and ultrasonic sensors, all connected to an **Nvidia Drive** car computer. This advanced sensor suite ensures that the Theory 1 is equipped for forthcoming autonomous driving technologies, while still concentrating on providing an enthralling driving experience.

### Will the Theory 1 Materialize?

At present, the Theory 1 serves mainly as a demonstration of Lotus’ technological advancements, with no imminent production plans. Since its acquisition by China’s **Geely Group** in 2017, Lotus has been developing four new vehicle platforms. Three of these—the **Evija**, the **Emira**, and the electric platform employed by the **Eletre SUV** and **Emeya sedan**—have already been launched. However, the fourth platform, an electric sports car developed in partnership

AT&T Penalized $13 Million for Data Breach Resulting in Unauthorized Sharing of Customer Billing Details with Vendor

# AT&T Penalized $13 Million for Data Breach Linked to Vendor Mismanagement

AT&T, a leading telecommunications provider in the U.S., has consented to a $13 million penalty due to a major data breach that compromised sensitive information of customers. This incident transpired when AT&T transmitted customer billing data to a third-party vendor for crafting personalized videos, yet neglected to confirm the vendor’s destruction of the data once it was deemed unnecessary. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) revealed the fine along with further penalties in a consent decree dated October 2024.

## Overview of the Breach Incident

From 2015 to 2017, AT&T provided customer data to a vendor, referred to as “Vendor X” in FCC records, for producing customized billing and promotional videos for its clientele. The data encompassed critical customer details including billing information, rate plans, and payment data. According to AT&T’s agreement with the vendor, the data was expected to be securely destroyed or returned by 2018 after fulfilling the contractual conditions.

Nonetheless, the vendor inadequately disposed of the information, which lingered within the vendor’s cloud settings for several years. In January 2023, a security lapse occurred when cyber criminals infiltrated the vendor’s cloud system and extracted customer data. This breach affected around 8.9 million AT&T wireless customers.

### Categories of Exposed Data

The data breach disclosed several types of customer information, such as:

– Line counts for all affected customers.
– Billing amounts and payment details.
– Rate plan titles and features for roughly 1% of the impacted customers.

AT&T affirmed that the exposed information did not include highly sensitive data like credit card details, Social Security numbers, or account passwords. The company informed the affected customers about the breach in March 2023 and indicated that no fraudulent activities related to the incident had been identified, such as SIM swaps or fraud involving equipment.

## AT&T’s Inadequate Data Protection Measures

The FCC’s investigation uncovered that AT&T neglected to ensure that the vendor and its subcontractor, known as “Supplier 1,” sufficiently safeguarded customer information. Even though AT&T performed several evaluations and reviews of the vendor and subcontractor from 2016 to 2020, it depended on their claims that the data was destroyed in compliance with the contract. This was later proven inaccurate, as the data still resided in the vendor’s cloud environment and was ultimately compromised in the breach.

The FCC stressed that telecom companies have a legal obligation to safeguard customer information and cannot merely rely on third-party vendors for data security. AT&T’s inability to guarantee data destruction or return as specified by the contract was crucial in the FCC’s decision to levy the fine.

## Implementation of Stricter Data Governance Policies

In line with the consent decree, AT&T has committed to adopting more rigorous protocols regarding sharing customer data with vendors. The forthcoming requirements, effective for three years, encompass:

– **Improved Vendor Oversight**: AT&T is mandated to conduct thorough evaluations when selecting vendors and ensure they implement suitable measures to protect customer information.
– **Data Retention and Disposal Policies**: Vendors will be required to comply with stricter guidelines regarding data retention and disposal to minimize the exposure of customer data to breaches.
– **Data Inventory Program**: AT&T needs to establish a program to oversee customer data shared with vendors, ensuring it is adequately managed and disposed of when no longer necessary.
– **Annual Compliance Reviews**: AT&T will be obligated to perform yearly audits to assess its adherence to the consent decree and confirm that vendors are conforming to the new data security stipulations.

The FCC indicated that meeting these new standards will likely necessitate significant investments from AT&T, given the company’s scale and extensive engagement with third-party vendors. However, the FCC clarified its intent to hold AT&T accountable for implementing the essential modifications to its data protection strategies.

## AT&T’s Reaction

In a response to Ars Technica, AT&T did not explicitly address the FCC’s claims regarding its failure to ensure the vendor maintained data protection. Nevertheless, the company released a statement recognizing the breach and detailing measures it is undertaking to enhance data security.

“A vendor we previously utilized encountered a security incident last year that exposed data related to some of our wireless customers. Although our systems were not compromised in this occurrence, we are enhancing our internal management of customer information, in addition to instituting new mandates on our vendors’ data management protocols,” AT&T articulated in its statement.

## Prior and Ongoing Data Breaches

The breach referenced in the FCC’s consent decree is not the sole instance of data leaks involving AT&T and its third-party vendors. In July 2024, AT&T confirmed that call and text records for nearly all its cellular customers were compromised in a hack of “AI data cloud” provider Snowflake. This incident heightened concerns regarding AT&T’s data management practices, particularly its dependence on