Author name: 9u50fv

supply-chains,-ai,-and-the-cloud:-the-biggest-failures-(and-one-success)-of-2025

Supply chains, AI, and the cloud: The biggest failures (and one success) of 2025

2025 year end, AI, Apple, Biz & IT, Cloud, Security, signal messenger, supply chain attacks / /

The past year has seen plenty of hacks and outages. Here are the ones topping the list.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

In a roundup of the top stories of 2024, Ars included a supply-chain attack that came dangerously close to inflicting a catastrophe for thousands—possibly millions—of organizations, which included a large assortment of Fortune 500 companies and government agencies. Supply-chain attacks played prominently again this year, as a seemingly unending rash of them hit organizations large and small.

For threat actors, supply-chain attacks are the gift that keeps on giving—or, if you will, the hack that keeps on hacking. By compromising a single target with a large number of downstream users—say a cloud service or maintainers or developers of widely used open source or proprietary software—attackers can infect potentially millions of the target’s downstream users. That’s exactly what threat actors did in 2025.

Poisoning the well

One such event occurred in December 2024, making it worthy of a ranking for 2025. The hackers behind the campaign pocketed as much as $155,000 from thousands of smart-contract parties on the Solana blockchain.

Hackers cashed in by sneaking a backdoor into a code library used by developers of Solana-related software. Security firm Socket said it suspects the attackers compromised accounts belonging to the developers of Web3.js, an open source library. They then used the access to add a backdoor to a package update. After the developers of decentralized Solana apps installed the malicious update, the backdoor spread further, giving the attackers access to individual wallets connected to smart contracts. The backdoor could then extract private keys.

There were too many supply-chain attacks this year to list them all. Some of the other most notable examples included:

  • The seeding of a package on a mirror proxy that Google runs on behalf of developers of the Go programming language. More than 8,000 other packages depend on the targeted package to work. The malicious package used a name that was similar to the legitimate one. Such “typosquatted” packages get installed when typos or inattention lead developers to inadvertently select them rather than the one they actually want.
  • The flooding of the NPM repository with 126 malicious packages downloaded more than 86,000 times. The packages were automatically installed via a feature known as Remote Dynamic Dependencies.
  • The backdooring of more than 500 e-commerce companies, including a $40 billion multinational company. The source of the supply-chain attack was the compromise of three software developers—Tigren, Magesolution (MGS), and Meetanshi—that provide software that’s based on Magento, an open source e-commerce platform used by thousands of online stores.
  • The compromising of dozens of open source packages that collectively receive 2 billion weekly downloads. The compromised packages were updated with code for transferring cryptocurrency payments to attacker-controlled wallets.
  • The compromising of tj-actions/changed-files, a component of tj-actions, used by more than 23,000 organizations.
  • The breaching of multiple developer accounts using the npm repository and the subsequent backdooring of 10 packages that work with talent agency Toptal. The malicious packages were downloaded roughly 5,000 times.

Memory corruption, AI chatbot style

Another class of attack that played out more times in 2025 than anyone can count was the hacking of AI chatbots. The hacks with the farthest-reaching effects were those that poisoned the long-term memories of LLMs. In much the way supply-chain attacks allow a single compromise to trigger a cascade of follow-on attacks, hacks on long-term memory can cause the chatbot to perform malicious actions over and over.

One such attack used a simple user prompt to instruct a cryptocurrency-focused LLM to update its memory databases with an event that never actually happened. The chatbot, programmed to follow orders and take user input at face value, was unable to distinguish a fictional event from a real one.

The AI service in this case was ElizaOS, a fledgling open source framework for creating agents that perform various blockchain-based transactions on behalf of a user based on a set of predefined rules. Academic researchers were able to corrupt the ElizaOS memory by feeding it sentences claiming certain events—which never actually happened—occurred in the past. These false events then influence the agent’s future behavior.

An example attack prompt claimed that the developers who designed ElizaOS wanted it to substitute the receiving wallet for all future transfers to one controlled by the attacker. Even when a user specified a different wallet, the long-term memory created by the prompt caused the framework to replace it with the malicious one. The attack was only a proof-of-concept demonstration, but the academic researchers who devised it said that parties to a contract who are already authorized to transact with the agent could use the same techniques to defraud other parties.

Independent researcher Johan Rehberger demonstrated a similar attack against Google Gemini. The false memories he planted caused the chatbot to lower defenses that normally restrict the invocation of Google Workspace and other sensitive tools when processing untrusted data. The false memories remained in perpetuity, allowing an attacker to repeatedly profit from the compromise. Rehberger presented a similar attack in 2024.

A third AI-related proof-of-concept attack that garnered attention used a prompt injection to cause GitLab’s Duo chatbot to add malicious lines to an otherwise legitimate code package. A variation of the attack successfully exfiltrated sensitive user data.

Yet another notable attack targeted the Gemini CLI coding tool. It allowed attackers to execute malicious commands—such as wiping a hard drive—on the computers of developers using the AI tool.

Using AI as bait and hacking assistants

Other LLM-involved hacks used chatbots to make attacks more effective or stealthier. Earlier this month, two men were indicted for allegedly stealing and wiping sensitive government data. One of the men, prosecutors said, tried to cover his tracks by asking an AI tool “how do i clear system logs from SQL servers after deleting databases.” Shortly afterward, he allegedly asked the tool, “how do you clear all event and application logs from Microsoft windows server 2012.” Investigators were able to track the defendants’ actions anyway.

In May, a man pleaded guilty to hacking an employee of The Walt Disney Company by tricking the person into running a malicious version of a widely used open source AI image-generation tool.

And in August, Google researchers warned users of the Salesloft Drift AI chat agent to consider all security tokens connected to the platform compromised following the discovery that unknown attackers used some of the credentials to access email from Google Workspace accounts. The attackers used the tokens to gain access to individual Salesforce accounts and, from there, to steal data, including credentials that could be used in other breaches.

There were also multiple instances of LLM vulnerabilities that came back to bite the people using them. In one case, CoPilot was caught exposing the contents of more than 20,000 private GitHub repositories from companies including Google, Intel, Huawei, PayPal, IBM, Tencent, and, ironically, Microsoft. The repositories had originally been available through Bing as well. Microsoft eventually removed the repositories from searches, but CoPilot continued to expose them anyway.

Meta and Yandex caught red-handed

Another significant security story cast both Meta and Yandex as the villains. Both companies were caught exploiting an Android weakness that allowed them to de-anonymize visitors so years of their browsing histories could be tracked.

The covert tracking—implemented in the Meta Pixel and Yandex Metrica trackers—allowed Meta and Yandex to bypass core security and privacy protections provided by both the Android operating system and browsers that run on it. Android sandboxing, for instance, isolates processes to prevent them from interacting with the OS and any other app installed on the device, cutting off access to sensitive data or privileged system resources. Defenses such as state partitioning and storage partitioning, which are built into all major browsers, store site cookies and other data associated with a website in containers that are unique to every top-level website domain to ensure they’re off-limits for every other site.

A clever hack allowed both companies to bypass those defenses.

2025: The year of cloud failures

The Internet was designed to provide a decentralized platform that could withstand a nuclear war. As became painfully obvious over the past 12 months, our growing reliance on a handful of companies has largely undermined that objective.

The outage with the biggest impact came in October, when a single point of failure inside Amazon’s sprawling network took out vital services worldwide. It lasted 15 hours and 32 minutes.

The root cause that kicked off a chain of events was a software bug in the software that monitors the stability of load balances by, among other things, periodically creating new DNS configurations for endpoints within the Amazon Web Services network. A race condition—a type of bug that makes a process dependent on the timing or sequence of events that are variable and outside the developers’ control—caused a key component inside the network to experience “unusually high delays needing to retry its update on several of the DNS endpoint,” Amazon said in a post-mortem. While the component was playing catch-up, a second key component—a cascade of DNS errors—piled up. Eventually, the entire network collapsed.

AWS wasn’t the only cloud service that experienced Internet-paralyzing outages. A mysterious traffic spike last month slowed much of Cloudflare—and by extension, the Internet—to a crawl. Cloudflare experienced a second major outage earlier this month. Not to be outdone, Azure—and by extension, its customers—experienced an outage in October.

Honorable mentions

Honorable mentions for 2025 security stories include:

  • Code in the Deepseek iOS app that caused Apple devices to send unencrypted traffic, without first being encrypted, to Bytedance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok. The lack of encryption made the data readable to anyone who could monitor the traffic and opened it to tampering by more sophisticated attackers. Researchers who uncovered the failure found other weaknesses in the app, giving people yet another reason to steer clear of it.
  • The discovery of bugs in Apple chips that could have been exploited to leak secrets from Gmail, iCloud, and other services. The most severe of the bugs is a side channel in a performance enhancement known as speculative execution. Exploitation could allow an attacker to read memory contents that would otherwise be off-limits. An attack of this side channel could be leveraged to steal a target’s location history from Google Maps, inbox content from Proton Mail, and events stored in iCloud Calendar.

Proving that not all major security stories involve bad news, the Signal private messaging app got a major overhaul that will allow it to withstand attacks from quantum computers. As I wrote, the elegance and adeptness that went into overhauling an instrument as complex as the app was nothing short of a triumph. If you plan to click on only one of the articles listed in this article, this is the one.

Photo of Dan Goodin

Dan Goodin is Senior Security Editor at Ars Technica, where he oversees coverage of malware, computer espionage, botnets, hardware hacking, encryption, and passwords. In his spare time, he enjoys gardening, cooking, and following the independent music scene. Dan is based in San Francisco. Follow him at here on Mastodon and here on Bluesky. Contact him on Signal at DanArs.82.

Supply chains, AI, and the cloud: The biggest failures (and one success) of 2025 Read More »

the-science-of-how-(and-when)-we-decide-to-speak-out—or-self-censor

The science of how (and when) we decide to speak out—or self-censor

censorship, Human behavior, mathematical modeling, psychology, Science, Social Media / /

The US has adopted more of a middle ground approach, essentially letting private companies decide what they wanted to do. Daymude and his co-authors wanted to investigate these markedly different approaches. So they developed a computational agent-based simulation that modeled how individuals navigate between wanting to express dissent versus fear of punishment. The model also incorporates how an authority adjusts its surveillance and its policies to minimize dissent at the lowest possible cost of enforcement.

“It’s not some kind of learning theory thing,” said Daymude. “And it’s not rooted in empirical statistics. We didn’t go out and ask 1000 people, ‘What would you do if faced with this situation? Would you dissent or self-censor?’ and then build that data into the model. Our model allows us to embed some assumptions about how we think people behave broadly, but then lets us explore parameters. What happens if you’re more or less bold? What happens if punishments are more or less severe? An authority is more or less tolerant? And we can make predictions based on our fundamental assumptions about what’s going to happen.”

Let one hundred flowers bloom

According to their model, the most extreme case is an authoritarian government that adopts a draconian punishment strategy, which effectively represses all dissent in the general population. “Everyone’s best strategic choice is just to say nothing at this point,” said Daymude. “So why doesn’t every authoritarian government on the planet just do this?” That led them to look more closely at the dynamics. “Maybe authoritarians start out somewhat moderate,” he said. “Maybe the only way they’re allowed to get to that extreme endpoint is through small changes over time.”

Daymude points to China’s Hundred Flowers Campaign in the 1950s as an illustrative case. Here, Chairman Mao Zedong initially encouraged open critiques of his government before abruptly cracking down aggressively when dissent got out of hand. The model showed that in such a case, dissenters’ self-censorship gradually increased, culminating in near-total compliance over time.

But there’s a catch. “The opposite of the Hundred Flowers is if the population is sufficiently bold, this strategy doesn’t work,” said Daymude. “The authoritarian can’t find the pathway to become fully draconian. People just stubbornly keep dissenting. So every time it tries to ramp up severity, it’s on the hook for it every time because people are still out there, they’re still dissenting. They’re saying, ‘Catch us if you dare.’”

The science of how (and when) we decide to speak out—or self-censor Read More »

lawsuit-over-trump-rejecting-medical-research-grants-is-settled

Lawsuit over Trump rejecting medical research grants is settled

dei, funding, grant evaluation, grants, NIH, peer review, Policy, research funding, Science / /

The case regarding cancelled grants moved relatively quickly. By June, a District Court judge declared that the federal policy “represents racial discrimination” and issued a preliminary order that would have seen all the cancelled grants restored. In his written opinion, Judge William Young noted that the government had issued its directives blocking DEI support without even bothering to define what DEI is, making the entire policy arbitrary and capricious, and thus in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. He voided the policy, and ordered the funding restored.

His decision eventually ended up before the Supreme Court, which issued a ruling in which a fragmented majority agreed on only a single issue: Judge Young’s District Court was the wrong venue to hash out issues of government-provided money. Thus, restoring the money from the cancelled grants would have to be handled via a separate case filed in a different court.

Critically, however, this left the other portion of the decision intact. Young’s determination that the government’s anti-DEI, anti-climate, anti-etc. policy was illegal and thus void was upheld.

Restoring reviews

That has considerable consequences for the second part of the initial suit, involving grants that were not yet funded and blocked from any consideration by the Trump Administration policy. With that policy voided, there was no justification for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) failing to have considered the grants when they were submitted. But, in the meantime, deadlines had expired, pools of money had been spent, and in some cases the people who submitted the grants had aged out of the “new investigator” category they were applying under.

The proposed settlement essentially resets the clock on all of this; the blocked grants will be evaluated for funding as if it were still early 2025. “Defendants stipulate and agree that the end of Federal Fiscal Year 2025 does not prevent Defendants from considering and/or awarding any of the Applications,” it states. Even if the Notice of Funding Opportunity has since been withdrawn, the grant applications will be sent off for peer review.

Lawsuit over Trump rejecting medical research grants is settled Read More »

the-top-5-most-horrifying-and-fascinating-medical-cases-of-2025

The top 5 most horrifying and fascinating medical cases of 2025

Boerhaave syndrome, brucella suis, Brucellosis, Cholesterol, health, medical case reports, rat lungworm, toothpick / /

Florida man makes two appearances on the list.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

There were a lot of horrifying things in the news this year—a lot. But some of it was horrifying in a good way.

Extraordinary medical cases—even the grisly and disturbing ones—offer a reprieve from the onslaught of current events and the stresses of our daily lives. With those remarkable reports, we can marvel at the workings, foibles, and resilience of the human body. They can remind us of the shared indignities from our existence in these mortal meatsacks. We can clear our minds of worry by learning about something we never even knew we should worry about—or by counting our blessings for avoiding so far. And sometimes, the reports are just grotesquely fascinating.

Every year, there’s a new lineup of such curious clinical conditions. There are always some unfortunate souls to mark medical firsts or present ultra-rare cases. There is also an endless stream of humans making poor life choices—and arriving at an emergency department with the results. This year was no different.

The top five medical cases of 2025 were chosen using a blend of editorial judgment and reader interest. There’s a mix of cases stemming from poor life choices and just plain bad luck. Florida man makes two appearances (we’ll let you guess which of the aforementioned categories he fits into). There’s a puzzling, oozing, explosive vomiting, a bioterror bacterial surprise, and, of course, parasitic worms. Best of all, nobody died—a happy ending we could all use as this year draws to a close.

Without further ado …

5. Man eats dubious street food—ends up blowing apart his GI tract

Street food can be among a region’s best culinary offerings. No one can be blamed for partaking. But, it does come with some risks—namely, food poisoning. An unfortunate 59-year-old man fell ill after eating some street food in China. It wouldn’t be a remarkable story if it weren’t for the degree of trauma his ensuing illness created. The man vomited so fiercely that the force his body created to launch the offending substance up and as far away as possible—presumably to another dimension—blew apart his esophagus (the muscular tube that conveys food between the throat and stomach).

Such organ-shattering is called Boerhaave syndrome, which is rare. If it isn’t treated quickly, it has a 60 percent to 100 percent fatality rate. The man, luckily, received care within a few hours of the blast, though his chest was already filling with fluid and his right lung was collapsing. He was rushed to emergency surgery and eventually made a full recovery. However, it required 35 days in the hospital and an additional three months with a feeding tube before his esophagus completely healed. It remains unclear what street food sparked the detonation, but presumably, it is one he won’t eat again.

4. Burning in woman’s legs turned out to be slug parasites migrating to her brain

For days, a 30-year-old woman in New England experienced searing pain that crept up her body, starting with her legs, then moving up her trunk and to her arms. She went to two different emergency departments seeking relief. But doctors at each found no clear explanation for her pain and sent her home with only a recommendation to see her primary doctor. The condition continued to worsen. After waking up in a mental fog, she was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital, where doctors discovered that she was infected with parasitic worms.

The pain and burning sensations the woman had experienced moving up her body was from worm larvae traveling along her peripheral nerves to get to her brain. The parasite behind the infection was the nematode Angiostrongylus cantonensis, also known as rat lungworm. This delightful parasite typically circulates between rats—its primary host—and slugs and snails. Infected rats poop out larvae, which are picked up by slugs and snails. Late-stage larvae develop in the slugs and snails, then move back to rats, who get infected by eating the infected mollusks. Back in the rat, the larvae make their way to the rat’s brain, where they become adults. Then they relocate to the lungs (hence the name) to mate.

Humans accidentally get infected by eating raw vegetables containing or contaminated by infected slugs or snails, or by eating undercooked creatures that eat slugs or snails, such as land crabs, freshwater prawns, or frogs. In the woman’s case, doctors suspected she got infected from eating raw seafood and salads on a recent trip to Hawaii, where the parasite is a known threat. Luckily, the woman was treated for the infection and made a full recovery.

3. Man gets drunk, wakes up with a medical mystery that nearly kills him

It’s not every day a person gets drunk and wakes up with a medical case so enigmatic that a master clinician with an expertise in medical reasoning is called in to help crack it. But a 36-year-old did just that in a case published this year in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The man showed up at the hospital with abdominal pain, a crackling in his lungs, bacteria in his blood, liver abnormalities, an injury in his small intestine, and a blood clot in his right kidney—and no clear idea of how any of those things happened or how they were connected.

In the case report, doctors lay out how they identified all of the aspects of his condition and then how master clinician Gurpreet Dhaliwal of the University of California, San Francisco, unraveled how they fit together.

Providing a fascinating look into diagnostic sleuthing, Dhaliwal reasoned out that it all came down to beers and a toothpick. The man—who had a history of binge drinking—got drunk, ate something, and accidentally swallowed a toothpick, Dhaliwal surmised. While still drunk, the man aspirated some of the food, causing his lung infection. The toothpick, meanwhile, pierced his small intestine near his right kidney, causing the injury and the blood clot. The injury then became infected, causing sepsis and his liver abnormalities.

After Dhaliwal came to his conclusion, medical imaging found the toothpick. After it was removed, the man made a full recovery.

2. Florida man eats feral pig meat, contracts rare biothreat bacteria

I promised Florida man made the list—and of course, he’s near the top. In this case, a Florida man was gifted the bloody meat of a feral pig, which he handled with his bare hands before cooking and eating it. In doing so, he inadvertently exposed himself to a highly infectious bacterium considered a potential bioterror threat. The man developed an insidious infection that lurked in his heart implant and took doctors nearly two years to properly diagnose.

The bacterium at hand is Brucella suis, which typically infects pigs. The bacterium is not particularly deadly, but it can spread by air and only takes a few bacterial cells to cause an infection, making it a good potential weapon. In 1954, B. suis became the first biological agent to be weaponized by the US government as part of its offensive biological warfare program.

Once the man’s infection was finally diagnosed, he was treated with an effective antibiotic regimen to clear it. He also got a new heart implant and made a full recovery. Unfortunately, due to the high infectiousness of the germ, doctors had to reach out to all the man’s previous health care providers and clinical lab workers to warn them of the exposure. Three lab workers were found to have had a high-risk exposure and had to undergo months monitoring and post-exposure prophylaxis.

1. Florida man eats diet of butter, cheese, beef; cholesterol oozes from his body

While that Florida man’s case was … unusual, it mostly stems to some bad luck—who among us hasn’t occasionally forgotten to check our gifted feral pig meat for bioterror threats? By contrast, this year’s top medical case goes to another Florida man, whose life choices are definitely in question.

In January, we shared the case of a Florida man who adopted a daily diet of six to nine pounds of cheese, sticks of butter, and hamburgers that had additional fat incorporated into them. He made the medical literature after eight months, when he showed up to cardiologists with cholesterol literally oozing out of his hands, feet, and elbows.

As the cholesterol was trying to escape his body, it created painless, yellowish nodules filled with lipids. The condition is called xanthoma and most often presents with nodules around the eye.

The cardiologists tested the man’s blood cholesterol levels and found that they exceeded 1,000 mg/dL. For context, the target level of total cholesterol for good cardiovascular health is under 200 mg/dL, while 240 mg/dL or over is considered high.

It’s unclear how things ended up for the man, but at least his doctors did not report that he died—at least not yet. Generally, xanthoma itself is benign; his cholesterol levels, on the other hand, put him at significant risk of cardiovascular disease. Still, he suggested to his doctors that he was pleased with his dairy-heavy diet, which he described as a “carnivore diet.” He claimed he lost weight, had more energy, and improved his “mental clarity.”

With that, we sign off on the medical line-up of 2025 and look forward to what medical horrors 2026 will hold—and what Florida man will do next.

Photo of Beth Mole

Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes.

The top 5 most horrifying and fascinating medical cases of 2025 Read More »

dating-roundup-#8:-tactics

Dating Roundup #8: Tactics

Dating / /

Here’s to everyone having a great 2026 in all ways, so I figured what better way to end the year than with a little practical advice. Like everything else, dating is a skill. Practice makes perfect. It helps to combine it with outside analysis, to help you on your quest to Just Do Things.

A common theme in these roundups is that the best thing you can do as a young man, to get better at dating and set yourself up for success, is to get out there and engage in deliberate practice.

Cartoons Hate Her: Today I wrote about some of the worst dating advice that young men get. Namely, the advice to delay dating or relationships until they’ve “built themselves,” usually into their 30s.

Getting dating experience- even when it clearly doesn’t matter- builds social skills and confidence. It’s not something you want to deliberately defer. Dating *isworking on yourself.

Zac Hill: Hard true and also generally applicable. Niko Canner told me a variant of this when I was about to work at Bridgewater to ‘acquire skills’:

“what job are you acquiring skills for?”

“basically my current job”

“we’ll just keep doing that job, and you’ll acquire those skills!”

I didn’t date at all until well into my 20s because of reasons, so I have some experience with this, and it is absolutely was the opposite of correct ‘building myself’ strategy. Totally counterproductive. Even in terms of otherwise building yourself, the skills you get dating will help you elsewhere, and also motivate you and direct you. There are of course temporary exceptions if you go deep into a startup or something, but yeah, absolutely get out there.

As a woman, you typically (by all reports) have no trouble getting reps as such, but there is still the danger that you waste those reps if you keep repeating the same procedures without learning how to improve, which could be in any number of ways including selection.

Note that reps applies the whole way through, and don’t forget to postmortem.

Eliezer Yudkowsky: The way to get good at sex is the same as the way to get good at any other process: Once you’re done, roll out the whiteboard and together do a no-fault analysis of what went wrong, what went right, and what could’ve been done differently.

Reactions divided into “lol u autists” and “well yes that is how it works” and my friends it is the second class that has acquired dangerously high sexual capabilities

le petit postmortem

Sofia: Both reactions are correct

Aella: this is unironically the method behind the best sex of my life.

Brooke Bowman: in a romantic context, what does it mean to ‘shoot your shot’? i’m curious what the range of actions the phrase implies is

is it like confessing your feelings/asking on a date or do you also think dropping your handkerchief counts.

I believe it means, both in romantic and non-romantic contexts: Create common knowledge that you are shooting your shot, that you are interested, and that failing to respond positively is a rejection, such that you cannot easily ‘shoot your shot’ again.

Thus, anything can count, including dropping a handkerchief, if both parties know the other is sufficiently advanced.

However, many people especially guys are highly clueless or ambiguously might be clueless, leading to a lot of thinking you shot your shot when you definitely haven’t shot your shot. The threshold is common knowledge, not merely that they pick up on you giving them an opening. That doesn’t count and does not close the book, you have only shot your shot when they know that you know that they know, and so on.

If you are going to keep interacting in the future, beware ‘wasting your shot’ where you create common knowledge without giving yourself much chance to succeed. By definition you only get one shot (or at least, subsequent shots by default will at least be harder). However, that too can have advantages, as now you can move on having shot your shot, and you do create some amount of positive selection, and the act of creating common knowledge means they could reopen things in the future.

Any time someone says ‘I don’t see how this can backfire’ you definitely shouldn’t take their advice until you’ve figured out how it can backfire.

Liron Shapira: As a nerdy dating expert, I consider

Bryan Caplan

‘s handholding tactic to be the best practice for shy men looking to get into a romantic relationship (and not be stuck in the friend zone).

Could this somehow backfire? I claim it can’t. Let’s game it out.

The suggestion isn’t that you do more requested hand holding while dating, it is to use this request as an escalation move out of a potential friend zone.

The theory is that your romantic intent here is obvious, expressed in a non-creepy way, thus creating common knowledge, but it is not explicit so it is deniable common knowledge so you can still retreat to a friendship on a fail, she’ll at least be impressed you tried and maybe she eventually decides to return interest even if she doesn’t now, and probably she actually says yes and you can keep building from there.

This is in contrast to Bryan’s advice to do this on all first dates, or at least to establish you are indeed on one, and as a way of establishing common knowledge of the situation and failing fast.

The part I 100% agree with is, provided you are interested, you are better off doing something rather than doing nothing, whether on an existing date or not. Shoot your shot, whatever your shot may be. And yes, if you’re too shy or unskilled to take a better or more subtle shot, then this is a shot one can take take.

That doesn’t mean it should be this shot. So, let us count the ways this can backfire.

  1. She says no, where on a better executed move she would have said yes. Then it is much harder for you to try again, indeed the whole point here is that you wouldn’t try again. Skill absolutely matters, and this by design is a case of you only get one shot. Contra Liron, no, you’re not going to get a yes a majority of the time.

    1. In addition to it coming off weird or as representing a lack of skill or awareness, this can be seen as insufficiently ambiguous or too far up the escalation ladder if you go too early.

    2. One thing is if she’s looking for a more casual vibe, going for ‘romantic coded’ actions like holding hands too early can give the ick when you were live. There’s a Sex and the City where exactly this ask is an instant dealbreaker, even after they’ve slept together, because it was a failure to read the room.

  2. She says no, where on a better executed move that did not force clarity you would have gotten a maybe or a soft no that lets you stay in the game. Forcing clarity can work against you. This is fine if you’re shooting a bunch of shots, but not if this is an especially valuable shot to shoot.

  3. She says no, and rather than being impressed she is not impressed or weirded out, thus leaving the friendship in a worse position. Cost of shooting shots, but that’s one way in which it is not riskless, and the less ambiguous and more awkward the shot the greater the risk of this.

  4. She says yes, but it’s awkward in context, and so on.

Again, I don’t want to discourage anyone too much here. It is far from the worst move, and again something beats nothing. But we don’t believe in misleading anyone.

Bumbadum (2.1m views): This type of behavior killed romance and I hate you people for it.

I hate the knowledge that millions of young men cannot hope to ever express love in the purest most beautiful way because you disgusting whores will post it on social media and mock in private.

Young men lost the ability to express those feelings. To write, to feel, to be comfortable. They have to bury deep down and hide it from the world less they be cruelly mocked.

You disgusting hags lost the ability to ever see it. You disgusting cretins all wish to have a Notebook love story meanwhile any feeling of that unconditional love is met with mockery.

I hate you all.

I am getting DM’s that essentially describe romance movie plotlines that end with “but she hated romance”

Unfortunately Rona Wang (understandably) took her Twitter private by the time I got to this, so I couldn’t gather more context there, but there are some obvious notes here.

  1. The context is that she was the only girl at the hackathon. That’s a context where you don’t open at all, in any form, without strong indications of interest. If this was done in an ordinary mixed context, presumably that would be different.

  2. This is a clear NRN (no reply necessary) opening, which makes it less of a problem than opening moves that require a response, but even outside of the gender imbalance context I wouldn’t call it ‘romance.’

  3. You think this thread is bad for the guy who passed her the note?

As in, no one knows who passed this note. He’s fine. And indeed, you have a play available, which is to reply with some version of ‘I am the guy who sent the note, she didn’t reply so I’m still single, I live in city and my DMs are open.’ Yes, many of the DMs won’t be kind, but if you’re okay with that, 61 million views on OP and it only takes one hit. If the context was different such that you looked better, you’re all set.

Then on Nicole’s post (original had 5m views):

  1. Pretty sure it worked.

  2. Many of the comments assume that it didn’t and it was awful, but that it is odd given that the document says that it worked.

  3. This is indeed a high risk, high reward play, because you are putting her on the spot and if the answer isn’t an enthusiastic yes then oh boy is it no, you haven’t given her an out, the same way you really, really don’t want to propose and get anything but a yes.

  4. Third date is almost always going to be too early to do this, and also as executed it risks coming off as rather creepy and weird, even if you did read the room right.

  5. So it’s almost always a bad play as executed.

Allyson Taft’s screenshotted post: A guy did this to my best friend on a 3rd date, and we started calling him “Mr. Check Yes or No” in the group chat, and she never saw him again.

Pat Stedman: Only works if she is already eager to be your girlfriend. NEVER do this stuff if there is any uncertainty, it will work against you.

Brandon Burr: Stories like this are why a lot of guys in the dating world stopped trying to be romantic. It’s punished severely by a lot of women, unfortunately.

Allyson Taft: I believe it. I think being able to read the room is an important skill for everyone, always, but especially in dating.

Mimetic Value: You’re overanalyzing it and took it too seriously. This is exactly what I’d do if the date is NOT going well. It’s for giving her a final chance to confirm that he didn’t accidentally write her off too soon. He was already mentally checked out.

Allyson Taft: He sure called her a lot afterwards for being checked out lmao.

Also known as, it’s good to be romantic, but you have to do a decent job of it. And you don’t want to put them to a decision like this unless you’re fine with being dumped if the answer isn’t an enthusiastic yes. The rest of the dinner was presumably also romantic, and was presumably a good idea if it had ended without this.

I’m not pretending I am the best at being romantic, but don’t give up on the idea.

What are or should be the rules around confirming a date?

A better question is, how should you navigate such situations yourself?

Because rules, shumules. Play to win.

So first off, the background and various reactions.

Brooke Lin (19m views): From a friend and for context the previous convo was sunday night but who is in the wrong here?

We got an update folks.

Liron Shapira: Lol I used to give male dating advice, and one of the major focus areas was “flake defense”.

(Flake defense turned out critical for meeting my wife.)

The purple person here, who took the lead on the invite, should’ve demonstrated their attractive flake-defense skill afterwards.

Cate Hall: People have this all wrong. We should be encouraging this kind of behavior. Just think how much time this guy saved.

Allie: Ladies: if you say yes to a date, you’ve agreed to go on the date

Playing games like “he needs to confirm or it doesn’t count!!!” because TikTok told you to is a really dumb way to waste your time

Be picky about things that matter, but quit making up rules to be upset about.

Autistotle: “Making up rules to be upset about” is at least half of all dating discourse.

Lovable rogue: honestly as a guy who confirms *everytime, women still flake ~10-15% of the time. we should be trying to make the date happen not shit test each other!

Shailesh: I always confirmed the previous evening. Yoo many times when they cancelled when I checked up 1 hr-30 min before.

Mason: Maybe the real problem with the apps is that nobody is actually very excited about the person they’re about to go on a date with at all. You are supposed to be looking forward to the date more than, like, a dentist appointment.

Jordan Braunstein: I think everyone is underestimating the absolute scourge of flakiness among both young men and women. There’s no real social penalty for it anymore.

If there’s a good chance the other person will flake, it becomes game theoretically rational to mitigate that risk by having extra confirmations or readily available backup plans.

Gingercap: I kind of got the impression that being too excited about a date is kind of cringe and comes off as desperate.

Noodle: Ehh when I was dating I made the mistake to get ready for the date only to be stood up or ghosted. Nothing wrong with confirming a date because its embarrassing to be waiting around forever for no reason.

Tetraspace: If you’re going “yay I don’t have to go to the date :)” instead of “oh man I wanted to go to the date :(” something has went wrong earlier than the morning of the date

There are remarkably deep strategic and mechanism design considerations here. What the rules ‘should’ be is again not so relevant, nor is ‘who is at fault’ per se.

So here are some various thoughts.

  1. If you are happy or righteous or similar about being able to cancel the date when they don’t confirm, you shouldn’t have said yes in the first place.

  2. The flake rate, on all sides, is sufficiently high that the default should now be to confirm on the day of the date. The cost of confirmation is low. In general as the asker it is your job to ensure the date actually happens.

  3. I can believe that we have reached the point where the flake rate when not getting confirmation is high enough that it is reasonable for the person asked to require confirmation and to treat this as a default dynamic.

  4. If you require confirmation, ideally you should note that you require confirmation, or better yet proactively ask for it if you don’t get it. But there are selection effect and signaling reasons to not do this. Either way, once you know you’re not going to show, you should explicitly cancel, not silently flake.

  5. If you don’t say you require confirmation, and don’t show without it, you flaked.

  6. Flaking is in general extremely poor form and should be treated as a very expensive action in all contexts, romantic or otherwise, especially without notice and especially without apologies.

  7. If your lack of confirmation causes flaking, that is often favorable selection. If their lack of confirmation causes you to flake, that is also favorable selection.

  8. If lack of same day confirmation causes flaking on a first date, that is still an unforced error by all involved. In other circumstances, either subsequent dates or non-romantic contexts, this is often not true.

  9. Confirmation can give both parties an out, so it serves a useful purpose when someone is getting pressured, but it is bad to give people an easy flake out because people will constantly cancel plans of all kinds when they shouldn’t.

  10. If this is a ‘test of enthusiasm’ or otherwise phrased or presented in ways similar to the OP then I would consider it a red flag.

My revealed preference at the time was not to go at all, have no real options for going and make no effort to go. Neither of these options was remotely on the table, although I would like to think I would have happily accepted either of them.

So I’m not sure I’m the best person to judge the options?

Romy: imagine you’re a high school senior and it’s prom season. would you rather go with a 10 who will definitely not have sex with you, or a 7 who definitely will?

Kip: I chose the no sex option because I didn’t want to have sex yet in high school

Ronny: lol a 7 who will *definitelyhave sex with you is a disturbing option in that case.

I was thinking in terms of ‘you have no future with either of them, everyone is going to say goodbye and head off to college.’ If there is a real future involved then that should presumably dominate the question either way. As does the question of whether anyone believes in the pairing, including especially the two of you.

What does one make of what was intended to be a singles event in which the men ended up playing board games and getting to know each other, while the women talked and got to know each other?

Tracing Woodgrains: dudes rock

there’s actually a lot to be said about the framing of the paragraph — the women preferred to talk, the men preferred board games, the women lamented that the men didn’t talk with them bc they didn’t feel like playing board games with the men

both are good activities!

Ben Hoffman: This feels like a good example of the sort of information I’d have responded wrongly to, before I learned that if a woman keeps complaining about men doing X, that’s most likely an expression of preference for the sorts of men who do X, not an offer to transact with men who don’t.

The article of course framed this as the guys refusing to interact with the women, rather than both sides choosing distinct activities, and also it seeming still great?

It seems like a good use of an evening to play board games where I meet new friends, or I sit around and talk and meet new friends, whether or not I am single. We all need more friends. The woman here says she left with potential new friends too.

It does seem like it should not be a stable equilibrium. Why didn’t any of the women join the board games? Why didn’t any of the men go monopolize all the women? Both seem like highly overdetermined strategies, at least on repeated play, if things aren’t already going great.

Knowing how to dance, especially as a guy, remains a cheat code. It’s not as effective as it used to be because opportunities come up less often, and certainly it’s optional, but it is still very clearly a cheat code.

Cartoons Hate Her asserts it no longer works because if you dance like no one’s watching, your assumptions might be wrong, and then someone might film you and put it on the internet and suddenly everyone’s watching. Why take the risk?

The answer is because that risk is dumb. This is similar to worries about children being kidnapped by strangers. No one is filming you and even if they are no it is not going to go viral, and if it does you will probably be fine or even benefit.

Brittany Hugoboom advises you to approach the truly beautiful women who seem out of your league but aren’t the type that thrive on and seek out attention, because often no one else will shoot their shot and you end up with little competition while everyone else goes for the ‘beautiful mid.’

The comments are full of the usual ‘you don’t get it men are afraid to approach women due to potential retaliation’ but this completely misses the point here, which is that men are (statistically speaking) approaching the wrong women. There’s also a bunch of ‘oh we assume she already has someone or always has options’ whereas the whole point of the post is this often isn’t true, unless she’s willing and able to initiate, at least sufficiently to indicate the coast is clear.

Yes, of course she (and most other women) can get infinite attention on apps, but most strongly prefer to get approached organically if at all possible.

Ask for and set up what you want and you’re more likely to get it.

Salia: Pandemic of underfucked women.

Eoin Walsh: The Men are not in vegan restaurants in downtown Manhattan.

Sasha Chapin: So I have no desire to comment on the culture war issues at play. I will note that I have had the following conversation with a number of women asking for advice, like, a half dozen

Them: “I want men to take charge and act like men”

Me: “Do you prompt that with receptive energy?”

Them: “…what?”

Meanwhile, women I know who understand how to do this have zero trouble! Seduction is a two-way game. A couple of women have taken my advice on this and found it life-altering.

In general, you will have a much better time in life if you assume that it is your responsibility to prompt the interactions you would like to have.

Annals of people taking this advice seriously:

This person just gave me permission to mention that she’s been in a relationship for a month and it appears to be going well so far.

The higher the stakes the better the first date idea, so sure, go for it. Waiting in line for a while also gives you a forced time excuse to talk.

Signull: If you want an elite-tier first date idea, here’s the cheat code: Buy tickets to a comedy show in NYC and deliberately show up disgustingly early so you get planted in the front row like sacrificial offerings.

If the two of you can survive 90 minutes of being roasted by several lonely, depressed comics in graphic tees who pretty much look homeless, congrats, that’s basically a huge relationship stress test.

Whatever comes after (assuming you didn’t get a reality check) will feel like easy mode.

I was the depressed comic.

Grace Jarvis: if a woman tells you you have “nice hands” she is doing everything in her power not to fuck you senseless please release her from her torment her friends are receiving the kinds of messages someone in prison would send

Grave Jarvis (14 months later): the person who kinda inspired this tweet and I have been together for over a year now

by “kinda inspired” I mean, I thought “oh he has nice hands” and then I didn’t say anything because of the implication and wrote down the funniest hyperbolic version

Ted Knutson: Can confirm with large sample size that this is true.

A very wise rule. If you don’t want to get feedback from someone, don’t date them, definitely don’t marry them, and probably don’t be friends with or work with them.

Chris Lakin: The reason that RLHF doesn’t work for your personality is there are very few people you want feedback from

Jakeup: only marry someone whose feedback you want as your reward function.

Chris Lakin: only date people whose feedback you want as your reward function.

Now imagine being an LLM and having to get feedback from *shuddereveryone.

Brittany Hugoboom says focus on the basics that matter. You need shared values and a baseline level of physical attraction, and a few key traits, the rest is more of a bonus. Sorting for other things, as dating apps lead you towards, is in her model largely a trap.

Brittany Hugoboom:

• Men, look for courage, justice, ambition, and discipline.

• Women, look for benevolence, loyalty, and a kind heart.

I always say: the best case scenario is finding love young. Not because it’s the only way. But because when you’re young, you’re more adaptable.

If you both come from good families, they’ll cheer you on.

You can build something from the ground up, together.

Love after 30? Absolutely possible.

But if you’re young and thinking about love, don’t let the world scare you out of it. We’re often told to wait forever and then older generations wonder why the young is no longer finding love.

When you’re young, school is a great place to meet someone.

So is church. A party. An event. Through mutual friends. I’d argue even Twitter or Substack would be a better way to find someone than a dating app.

If you like someone’s mind and values, and also happen to like their photo, it’s perfect.

Her blog seems full of other similarly basic pieces of largely good advice.

Kira: LMFAOOOO

Mason: Honestly, “girl who gets bull-headed and wears cargo pants when he tells her to wear the dress” and “guy who told her to wear the dress but is amused by the cargo pants” are both lovable types

Mazel tov, be married 50 years and bicker about the throw pillows on your deathbed

She’s a terrible match for someone who takes this kind of thing personally, but it doesn’t look like she’s marrying that kind of guy

He looks absolutely thrilled

Marilyn Maupin: I got yelled at by so many people for saying they’ll be fine since she clearly understands what she did to herself

Mason: Seriously, as long as she’s laughing at herself instead of doubling down and insisting he’s the jerk for proposing to her in the cargo pants they’re fine. Twitter consists of the most disagreeable people in the world insisting that everyone shy of perfect agreeableness is ngmi

I’d be thrilled too. You have a much better story this way, and it probably went fine given she posted it like this. If she’s actually mad about it, then yeah, red flag, but at the best possible time.

Alberto De Lucca: My wife and I spoke many times about marrying. During one of these convos, I plain asked her: “do you want to marry me?” She said yes. I said, “ok, let’s do this.” We went out the next day and bought our rings (plus her engagement ring). We then planned to marry on her birthday party (a couple weeks in) but told no one. In fact, they thought I was going to propose to her.

Anyway. Party starts. She gets on a mic. “Thank you for coming to my birthday everyone.” I get on my knees behind her. Everyone starts doing the awws and whatnot. I do the deed. She says yes. Everyone’s happy. On cue, my mother asks: “so when’s the wedding?” We look at each other: “how about today? Is there anyone who can officiate this marriage?”

In walks the registrar with the papers. “I can, sure.” Waiters and personnel change the decor from a birthday party to a wedding party. We got married minutes later.

The look on the faces of our families is something I’ll never forget.

You can just do things.

Discussion about this post

Dating Roundup #8: Tactics Read More »

remembering-what-windows-10-did-right—and-how-it-made-modern-windows-more-annoying

Remembering what Windows 10 did right—and how it made modern Windows more annoying

microsoft, Tech, Windows, Windows 10, windows 10 22h2, Windows 11, windows 11 25h2 / /

Remembering Windows 10’s rollout can help diagnose what ails Windows 11.

If you’ve been following our coverage for the last few years, you’ll already know that 2025 is the year that Windows 10 died. Technically.

“Died,” because Microsoft’s formal end-of-support date came and went on October 14, as the company had been saying for years. “Technically,” because it’s trivial for home users to get another free year of security updates with a few minutes of effort, and schools and businesses can get an additional two years of updates on top of that, and because load-bearing system apps like Edge and Windows Defender will keep getting updates through at least 2028 regardless.

But 2025 was undoubtedly a tipping point for the so-called “last version of Windows.” StatCounter data says Windows 11 has overtaken Windows 10 as the most-used version of Windows both in the US (February 2025) and worldwide (July 2025). Its market share slid from just over 44 percent to just under 31 percent in the Steam Hardware Survey. And now that Microsoft’s support for the OS has formally ended, games, apps, and drivers are already beginning the gradual process of ending or scaling back official Windows 10 support.

Windows 10 is generally thought of as one of the “good” versions of Windows, and it was extremely popular in its heyday: the most widely used version of Windows since XP. That’s true even though many of the annoying things that people complain about in Windows 11 started during the Windows 10 era. Now that it’s time to write Windows 10’s epitaph, it’s worth examining what Microsoft got right with Windows 10, how it laid the groundwork for many of the things people dislike about Windows 11, and how Microsoft has made all of those problems worse in the years since Windows 11 first launched.

Windows 10 did a lot of things right

The Start menu in the first release of Windows 10. Windows 10 got a lot of credit for not being Windows 8 and for rolling back its most visible and polarizing changes.

Like Windows 7, Windows 10’s primary job was to not be its predecessor. Windows 8 brought plenty of solid under-the-hood improvements over Windows 7, but it came with a polarizing full-screen Start menu and a touchscreen-centric user interface that was an awkward fit for traditional desktops and laptops.

And the biggest thing it did to differentiate itself from Windows 8 was restore a version of the traditional Start menu, altered from its Windows XP or Windows 7-era iterations but familiar enough not to put people off.

Windows 10 also adopted a bunch of other things that people seemed to like about their smartphones—it initially rolled out as a free upgrade to anyone already running Windows 7 or Windows 8, and it ran on virtually all the same hardware as those older versions. It was updated on a continuous, predictable cadence that allowed Microsoft to add features more quickly. Microsoft even expanded its public beta program, giving enthusiasts and developers an opportunity to see what was coming and provide feedback before new features were rolled out to everybody.

Windows 10 also hit during a time of change at Microsoft. Current CEO Satya Nadella was just taking over from Steve Ballmer, and as part of that pivot, the company was also doing things like making its Office apps work on iOS and Android and abandoning its struggling, proprietary browser engine for Edge. Nadella’s Microsoft wanted you to be using Microsoft products (and ideally paying for a subscription to do so), but it seemed more willing to meet people where they were rather than forcing them to change their behavior.

That shift continued to benefit users throughout the first few years of Windows 10’s life. Developers benefited from the introduction and continuous improvement of the Windows Subsystem for Linux, a way to run Linux and many of its apps and tools directly on top of Windows. Microsoft eventually threw out its struggling in-house browser engine for a new version of the Edge browser built on Chromium—we can debate whether Chromium’s supremacy is a good thing for an open, standard-compliant Internet, but switching to a more compatible rendering engine and an established extension ecosystem was absolutely the more user-friendly choice. Both projects also signaled Microsoft’s growing engagement with and contributions to open-source projects, something that would have been hard to imagine during the company’s closed-off ’90s and ’00s.

Windows 10 wasn’t perfect; these examples of what it did right are cherry-picked. But part of the operating system’s reputation comes from the fact that it was originally developed as a response to real complaints and rolled out in a way that tried to make its changes and improvements as widely accessible as possible.

But Windows 10 laid the groundwork for Windows 11’s problems

Windows 10 asked you to sign in with a Microsoft account, but for most of the operating system’s life, it was easy to skip this using visible buttons in the UI. Windows 10 began locking this down in later versions; that has continued in Windows 11, but it didn’t originate there. Credit: BTNHD

As many things as Windows 10 did relatively well, most of the things people claim to find objectionable about Windows 11 actually started happening during the Windows 10 era.

Right out of the gate, for example, Windows 10 wanted to collect more information about how people were using the operating system—ostensibly in the name of either helping Microsoft improve the OS or helping “personalize” its ads and recommendations. And the transition to the “software-as-a-service” approach helped Windows move faster but also broke things, over and over again—these kinds of bugs have persisted on and off into the Windows 11 era despite Microsoft’s public beta programs.

Windows 10 could also get pushy about other Microsoft products. Multiple technologies, like the original Edge and Cortana, were introduced, pushed on users, and failed. The annoying news and weather widget on the taskbar was a late addition to Windows 10; advertisements and news articles could clutter up its lock screen. Icons for third-party apps from the Microsoft Store, many of them low-rent, ad-supported time-waster games, were added to the Start menu without user consent. Some users of older Windows versions even objected to the way that the free Windows 10 upgrade was offered—the install files would download themselves automatically, and it could be difficult to make the notifications go away.

Even the mandatory Microsoft Account sign-in, one of the most frequently complained-about aspects of Windows 11, was a Windows 10 innovation—it was easier to circumvent than it is now, and it was just for the Home edition of the software, but in retrospect, it was clearly a step down the road that Windows 11 is currently traveling.

Windows 11 did make things worse, though

But many of Windows 11’s annoyances are new ones. And the big problem is that these annoyances have been stacked on top of the annoying things that Windows 10 was already doing, gradually accumulating to make the new PC setup process go from “lightly” to “supremely” irritating.

The Microsoft Account sign-in requirement is ground zero for a lot of this since signing in with an account unlocks a litany of extra ads for Microsoft 365, Game Pass, and other services you may or may not need or want. Connecting to the Internet and signing in became a requirement for new installations of both the Home and the Pro versions of Windows 11 starting with version 22H2, and while workarounds existed then and continue to exist now, you have to know about them beforehand or look them up yourself—the OS doesn’t offer you an option to skip. Microsoft will also apparently be closing some of these loopholes in future updates, making circumvention even more difficult.

And if getting through those screens when setting up a new PC wasn’t annoying enough, Windows 11 will regularly remind you about other Microsoft services again through its Second Chance Out-Of-Box Experience screen, or SCOOBE. This on-by-default “feature” has offered to help me “finish setting up” Windows 11 installations that are years old and quite thoroughly set up. It can be turned off via a buried checkbox in the Notifications settings, but removing it or making it simpler to permanently dismiss from the SCOOBE screen itself would be the more user-friendly change, especially since Microsoft already bombards users with “helpful reminders” about many of these same services via system notifications.

Microsoft’s all-consuming pivot to generative AI also deserves blame. Microsoft’s Copilot push hasn’t stopped with the built-in app that gets a position of honor on the default taskbar—an app whose appearance and functionality have completely changed multiple times in the last couple of years as Microsoft has updated it. Microsoft changed the default Windows PC keyboard layout for the first time in 30 years to accommodate Copilot, and Copilot-branded features have landed in every Windows app from Word to Paint to Edge to Notepad. Sometimes these features can be uninstalled or turned off; sometimes they can’t.

It’s not just that Microsoft is squeezing generative AI into every possible nook and cranny in Windows; it’s that there seems to be no feature too intrusive or risky to make the cutoff. Microsoft nearly rolled out a catastrophically insecure version of Recall, a feature for some newer PCs that takes screenshots of your activity and records it for later reference; Microsoft gave its security an overhaul after a massive outcry from users, media, and security researchers, but Recall still rolled out.

The so-called “agentic” AI features that Microsoft is currently testing in Windows come with their own documented security and privacy risks, but their inclusion in Windows is essentially a foregone conclusion because Microsoft executives are constantly talking about the need to develop an “agentic OS.” There’s a fine line between introducing new software features and forcing people to use them, and I find that Microsoft’s pushiness around Windows 11’s AI additions falls on the wrong side of that line for me pretty much every single time.

Finally, while Windows 10 ran on anything that could run Windows 7 or 8, Windows 11 came with new system requirements that excluded many existing, functional PCs. The operating system can be installed unofficially on PCs that are several years older than the official cutoff, but only if you’re comfortable with the risks and you know how to get around the system requirements check.

Using people’s PCs as billboards to sell them new PCs feels tacky at best. Credit: Kyle Orland

I find the heightened requirements—implemented to improve security, according to Microsoft—to be more or less defensible. TPM modules enable seamless disk encryption, Secure Boot protects from threats that are otherwise invisible and hard to detect, and CPU makers like Intel and AMD only commit to supporting older processors with firmware-level security patches for so long, which is important in the era of hardware-level security exploits.

But the requirements don’t feel like something Microsoft has imposed to protect users from threats; they feel like something Microsoft is doing in order to upsell you to a new PC. Microsoft creates that impression when it shows Windows 10 users full-screen ads for new Copilot+ PCs, even when their systems are capable of upgrading to the new operating system directly. People are already primed to believe in “planned obsolescence,” the idea that the things they buy are designed to slow down or fail just in time to force them to buy new things; pushing people to throw out functioning PCs with full-screen ads does nothing to dispel this notion.

Windows 11 could still be great

I still believe that Windows 11 has good bones. Install the Enterprise version of the operating system and you’ll get a version with much less extra cruft on top of it, a version made to avoid alienating the businesses that pay good money to install Windows across large fleets of PCs. Microsoft has made huge strides in getting its operating system to run on Arm-based PCs. The Windows Subsystem for Linux is better than it’s ever been. I’m intrigued by the company’s efforts to make Windows a better operating system for gaming handhelds, Microsoft’s belated answer to Valve’s Steam Deck and SteamOS.

But as someone with firsthand experience of every era of Windows from 3.1 onward, I can say I’ve never felt as frustrated with the operating system as I have during Windows 11’s Copilot era. The operating system can be tamed with effort. But the taming has become an integral part of the new PC setup process for me, just as essential as creating the USB installer and downloading drivers and third-party apps. It’s something my PC needs to have done to it before it feels ready to use.

Windows 10 was far from perfect. But as we mark the first stage of its multi-year passing, it’s worth remembering what it did well and why people were willing to install it in droves. I’d like to see Microsoft recommit to a quieter, cleaner version of Windows that is more willing to get out of the way and just let people use their computers the way they want, the same way the company has tried to recommit to security following a string of embarrassing breaches. I don’t have much hope that this will happen, but some genuine effort could go a long way toward convincing Windows 10-using holdouts that the new OS actually isn’t all that bad.

Photo of Andrew Cunningham

Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue.

Remembering what Windows 10 did right—and how it made modern Windows more annoying Read More »

how-ai-coding-agents-work—and-what-to-remember-if-you-use-them

How AI coding agents work—and what to remember if you use them

agentic AI, AI, AI agents, AI coding, AI work, Anthropic, Biz & IT, Claude Code, Codex, context windows, large language models, machine learning, openai, Programming, software development, vibe coding / /

Agents of uncertain change

From compression tricks to multi-agent teamwork, here’s what makes them tick.

AI coding agents from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google can now work on software projects for hours at a time, writing complete apps, running tests, and fixing bugs with human supervision. But these tools are not magic and can complicate rather than simplify a software project. Understanding how they work under the hood can help developers know when (and if) to use them, while avoiding common pitfalls.

We’ll start with the basics: At the core of every AI coding agent is a technology called a large language model (LLM), which is a type of neural network trained on vast amounts of text data, including lots of programming code. It’s a pattern-matching machine that uses a prompt to “extract” compressed statistical representations of data it saw during training and provide a plausible continuation of that pattern as an output. In this extraction, an LLM can interpolate across domains and concepts, resulting in some useful logical inferences when done well and confabulation errors when done poorly.

These base models are then further refined through techniques like fine-tuning on curated examples and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), which shape the model to follow instructions, use tools, and produce more useful outputs.

A screenshot of the Claude Code command-line interface.

A screenshot of the Claude Code command-line interface. Credit: Anthropic

Over the past few years, AI researchers have been probing LLMs’ deficiencies and finding ways to work around them. One recent innovation was the simulated reasoning model, which generates context (extending the prompt) in the form of reasoning-style text that can help an LLM home in on a more accurate output. Another innovation was an application called an “agent” that links several LLMs together to perform tasks simultaneously and evaluate outputs.

How coding agents are structured

In that sense, each AI coding agent is a program wrapper that works with multiple LLMs. There is typically a “supervising” LLM that interprets tasks (prompts) from the human user and then assigns those tasks to parallel LLMs that can use software tools to execute the instructions. The supervising agent can interrupt tasks below it and evaluate the subtask results to see how a project is going. Anthropic’s engineering documentation describes this pattern as “gather context, take action, verify work, repeat.”

If run locally through a command-line interface (CLI), users give the agents conditional permission to write files on the local machine (code or whatever is needed), run exploratory commands (say, “ls” to list files in a directory), fetch websites (usually using “curl”), download software, or upload files to remote servers. There are lots of possibilities (and potential dangers) with this approach, so it needs to be used carefully.

In contrast, when a user starts a task in the web-based agent like the web versions of Codex and Claude Code, the system provisions a sandboxed cloud container preloaded with the user’s code repository, where Codex can read and edit files, run commands (including test harnesses and linters), and execute code in isolation. Anthropic’s Claude Code uses operating system-level features to create filesystem and network boundaries within which the agent can work more freely.

The context problem

Every LLM has a short-term memory, so to speak, that limits the amount of data it can process before it “forgets” what it’s doing. This is called “context.” Every time you submit a response to the supervising agent, you are amending one gigantic prompt that includes the entire history of the conversation so far (and all the code generated, plus the simulated reasoning tokens the model uses to “think” more about a problem). The AI model then evaluates this prompt and produces an output. It’s a very computationally expensive process that increases quadratically with prompt size because LLMs process every token (chunk of data) against every other token in the prompt.

Anthropic’s engineering team describes context as a finite resource with diminishing returns. Studies have revealed what researchers call “context rot”: As the number of tokens in the context window increases, the model’s ability to accurately recall information decreases. Every new token depletes what the documentation calls an “attention budget.”

This context limit naturally limits the size of a codebase a LLM can process at one time, and if you feed the AI model lots of huge code files (which have to be re-evaluated by the LLM every time you send another response), it can burn up token or usage limits pretty quickly.

Tricks of the trade

To get around these limits, the creators of coding agents use several tricks. For example, AI models are fine-tuned to write code to outsource activities to other software tools. For example, they might write Python scripts to extract data from images or files rather than feeding the whole file through an LLM, which saves tokens and avoids inaccurate results.

Anthropic’s documentation notes that Claude Code also uses this approach to perform complex data analysis over large databases, writing targeted queries and using Bash commands like “head” and “tail” to analyze large volumes of data without ever loading the full data objects into context.

(In a way, these AI agents are guided but semi-autonomous tool-using programs that are a major extension of a concept we first saw in early 2023.)

Another major breakthrough in agents came from dynamic context management. Agents can do this in a few ways that are not fully disclosed in proprietary coding models, but we do know the most important technique they use: context compression.

The command line version of OpenAI codex running in a macOS terminal window.

The command-line version of OpenAI Codex running in a macOS terminal window. Credit: Benj Edwards

When a coding LLM nears its context limit, this technique compresses the context history by summarizing it, losing details in the process but shortening the history to key details. Anthropic’s documentation describes this “compaction” as distilling context contents in a high-fidelity manner, preserving key details like architectural decisions and unresolved bugs while discarding redundant tool outputs.

This means the AI coding agents periodically “forget” a large portion of what they are doing every time this compression happens, but unlike older LLM-based systems, they aren’t completely clueless about what has transpired and can rapidly re-orient themselves by reading existing code, written notes left in files, change logs, and so on.

Anthropic’s documentation recommends using CLAUDE.md files to document common bash commands, core files, utility functions, code style guidelines, and testing instructions. AGENTS.md, now a multi-company standard, is another useful way of guiding agent actions in between context refreshes. These files act as external notes that let agents track progress across complex tasks while maintaining critical context that would otherwise be lost.

For tasks requiring extended work, both companies employ multi-agent architectures. According to Anthropic’s research documentation, its system uses an “orchestrator-worker pattern” in which a lead agent coordinates the process while delegating to specialized subagents that operate in parallel. When a user submits a query, the lead agent analyzes it, develops a strategy, and spawns subagents to explore different aspects simultaneously. The subagents act as intelligent filters, returning only relevant information rather than their full context to the lead agent.

The multi-agent approach burns through tokens rapidly. Anthropic’s documentation notes that agents typically use about four times more tokens than chatbot interactions, and multi-agent systems use about 15 times more tokens than chats. For economic viability, these systems require tasks where the value is high enough to justify the increased cost.

Best practices for humans

While using these agents is contentious in some programming circles, if you use one to code a project, knowing good software development practices helps to head off future problems. For example, it’s good to know about version control, making incremental backups, implementing one feature at a time, and testing it before moving on.

What people call “vibe coding”—creating AI-generated code without understanding what it’s doing—is clearly dangerous for production work. Shipping code you didn’t write yourself in a production environment is risky because it could introduce security issues or other bugs or begin gathering technical debt that could snowball over time.

Independent AI researcher Simon Willison recently argued that developers using coding agents still bear responsibility for proving their code works. “Almost anyone can prompt an LLM to generate a thousand-line patch and submit it for code review,” Willison wrote. “That’s no longer valuable. What’s valuable is contributing code that is proven to work.”

In fact, human planning is key. Claude Code’s best practices documentation recommends a specific workflow for complex problems: First, ask the agent to read relevant files and explicitly tell it not to write any code yet, then ask it to make a plan. Without these research and planning steps, the documentation warns, Claude’s outputs tend to jump straight to coding a solution.

Without planning, LLMs sometimes reach for quick solutions to satisfy a momentary objective that might break later if a project were expanded. So having some idea of what makes a good architecture for a modular program that can be expanded over time can help you guide the LLM to craft something more durable.

As mentioned above, these agents aren’t perfect, and some people prefer not to use them at all. A randomized controlled trial published by the nonprofit research organization METR in July 2025 found that experienced open-source developers actually took 19 percent longer to complete tasks when using AI tools, despite believing they were working faster. The study’s authors note several caveats: The developers were highly experienced with their codebases (averaging five years and 1,500 commits), the repositories were large and mature, and the models used (primarily Claude 3.5 and 3.7 Sonnet via Cursor) have since been superseded by more capable versions.

Whether newer models would produce different results remains an open question, but the study suggests that AI coding tools may not always provide universal speed-ups, particularly for developers who already know their codebases well.

Given these potential hazards, coding proof-of-concept demos and internal tools is probably the ideal use of coding agents right now. Since AI models have no actual agency (despite being called agents) and are not people who can be held accountable for mistakes, human oversight is key.

Photo of Benj Edwards

Benj Edwards is Ars Technica’s Senior AI Reporter and founder of the site’s dedicated AI beat in 2022. He’s also a tech historian with almost two decades of experience. In his free time, he writes and records music, collects vintage computers, and enjoys nature. He lives in Raleigh, NC.

How AI coding agents work—and what to remember if you use them Read More »

the-splay-is-a-subpar-monitor-but-an-exciting-portable-projector 

The Splay is a subpar monitor but an exciting portable projector 

Monitors, Projectors, Reviews, Tech / /

Splay can be a monitor and takes a lot of the stress out of projectors, too.

Arovia Splay

The Arovia Splay in monitor mode. Credit: Scharon Harding

The Arovia Splay in monitor mode. Credit: Scharon Harding

Since I’m fascinated by new display technologies and by improving image quality, I’ve never been a fan of home projectors. Projectors lack the image quality compared to good TVs and monitors, and they’re pretty needy. Without getting into the specific requirements of different models, you generally want a darker room with a large, blank wall for a projector to look its best. That can be a lot to ask for, especially in small, densely decorated homes like mine.

That said, a projector can be a space-efficient alternative to a big-screen TV or help you watch TV or movies outside. A projector can be versatile when paired with the right space, especially if that projector makes sure the “right space” is included in the device.

The Splay was crowdfunded in 2021, and its maker, Arovia, describes it as the “first fully collapsible monitor and projector.” In short, it’s a portable projector with an integrated fabric shroud that can serve as a big-screen (24.5 or 34.5 inches diagonally, depending on the model) portable monitor. Or, you can take off the fabric shroud and use the Splay as an ultra-short-throw projector and cast a display that measures up to 80 inches diagonally onto a wall.

At its core, the Splay is a projector, meaning it can’t compete with high-end LCD-LED or OLED monitors. It costs $1,300; the device is currently sold out, but an Arovia representative told me that it will be restocked this month.

Here’s how the device works, per one of Arovia’s patents:

The … collapsible, portable display device, has a housing member having a sliding member aligned on the exterior of the housing member, and sliding along the exterior of said housing member between two operating positions, a collapsible screen containing one or more sheets of flexible, wrinkle resistant silicone or rubber materials containing optical enhancing components and capable of displaying an image when in an expanded operating position, and multiple collapsible members connected to said screen …

Arovia’s representative pointed to the Splay being used for mobile workspaces, gaming, and enterprise use cases, like trade shows.

Because it uses lightweight and springy fabric materials and bendable arms, the whole gadget can be folded into an included case that’s 4×4 inches and weighs 2.5 pounds. Once extended to its max size, the device is a bit unwieldy; I had to be mindful to avoid poking or tearing the fabric when I set up the device.

Still, it can be rather advantageous to access such large display options from something as portable as the collapsed Splay.

Splay as a monitor

The Splay isn’t what people typically picture when thinking of a “portable monitor.” It connects to PCs, iOS and Android devices, and gaming consoles via HDMI (or an HDMI adapter) and is chargeable via USB-C, so you can use it without a wall charger. But this isn’t the type of display you would set up at a coffee shop or even in a small home office.

Compared to a traditional portable monitor, the Splay is bulky. That’s partly because the display is bigger than a typical portable monitor (around 14 inches). Most of the bulk, however, comes from how much the back of the “monitor” protrudes (about 19 to 21 inches from the front of the display).

Profile view of the Arovia Splay

A profile view of the Splay in monitor mode.

Credit: Scharon Harding

A profile view of the Splay in monitor mode. Credit: Scharon Harding

When extended, the device is mostly fabric, but its control center, where there is a power button, sharpness adjuster, and controls for brightness, and the integrated speakers go back pretty far (about 6.25 inches) even before you insert an HDMI or USB-C cable.

You will also want to use the Splay with a tripod (a small, tabletop one’s included) so that it’s at a proper height and you can swivel and tilt the display.

The Arovia Splay's control center.

The Splay’s control center.

Credit: Scharon Harding

The Splay’s control center. Credit: Scharon Harding

That all makes the Splay cumbersome to find space for and, once opened, to transport. Once I set it up, I wasn’t eager to pack it away or to bring it to another room.

Still, the Splay is a novel attempt at bringing a monitor-sized display to more areas. Despite its bulky maximum size, it weighs little and doesn’t have to be plugged into a wall.

Splay claims the monitor has a max brightness of 760 nits. When I used the display in a well-lit room or in a sunny room, it still looked sufficiently bright, even when perpendicular to a window. All colors were somewhat washed out compared to how they appear on my computer monitor but were still acceptable for a secondary display. If I look closely enough, though, I can see the subtle texture of the fabric in the image.

Arovia Splay showing an image.

The Splay also supports portrait mode.

Credit: Scharon Harding

The Splay also supports portrait mode. Credit: Scharon Harding

The Splay struggles mightily with text. It’s not sharp enough, so trying to read more than a couple of sentences on the Splay was a strain. This could be due to the projector technology, as well as the lower pixel density. With a display resolution equivalent to 1920×1080, the 24.5-inch “portable monitor” has a pixel density of 89.9 pixels per inch.

Arovia Splay with text on it

The Splay displaying an Ars Technica article.

Credit: Scharon Harding

The Splay displaying an Ars Technica article. Credit: Scharon Harding

Considering there are portable monitors that are in the 24-inch size range and easier to set up, it’s hard to see a reason to opt for a Splay—unless you also want a projector.

Splay as a projector

To use the Splay as a projector, you have to unzip the fabric shroud and pull the device out of its four-armed holster. Once set up, the Splay works as an ultra-short-throw pico projector with automatic keystone projection, which helps ensure that the display looks like a rectangle instead of a trapezoid or parallelogram.

The Splay as a portable projector.

The Splay as a portable projector.

Credit: Scharon Harding

The Splay as a portable projector. Credit: Scharon Harding

Arovia claims the projector can reach up to 285 lumens and display an image that measures up to 80 inches diagonally.

Now, we start to see the Splay’s value. Unlike other projectors, the Splay remains useful in tight, crowded spaces. Not only does the Splay wrap up neatly for transport, but the integrated screen means you never have to worry about whether you’ll have the right space for the projector to work properly.

There’s always a need for portable displays, and different use cases warrant exploring new approaches and form factors. While there are simpler 24-inch portable monitors with better image quality, the Splay brings remarkable portability and independence to portable projectors.

The Splay is niche and expensive, which is probably why the product’s website currently focuses on more B2B applications, like sports coaches and analysts using it to review footage and data. Similar to the big-screen tablets on wheels that more companies have been making lately, for now, the Splay will probably find the most relevance among businesses or public sector entities.

However, I’m inclined to think about how the Splay’s unique properties could apply to personal projectors. The Splay is a subpar “portable monitor,” but its duality makes it a more valuable projector. There are still too many obstacles preventing me from regularly using a projector, but the Splay has at least shown me that projectors can pack more than I expected.

Photo of Scharon Harding

Scharon is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica writing news, reviews, and analysis on consumer gadgets and services. She’s been reporting on technology for over 10 years, with bylines at Tom’s Hardware, Channelnomics, and CRN UK.

The Splay is a subpar monitor but an exciting portable projector  Read More »

discworld,-daleks,-and-deep-13:-a-geeky-holiday-tv-and-movie-watchlist

Discworld, Daleks, and Deep 13: A geeky holiday TV and movie watchlist

babylon 5, Christmas, culture, Daria, discworld, Doctor Who, Features, film, Gremlins, Mystery Science Theater 3000, star wars, terry pratchett, The Chronicles of Narnia, Tokyo Godfathers, TV / /

There’s obviously more to Christmas flicks than Netflix romcoms.

I promise that most of this list is better than the Star Wars Holiday Special. Credit: Disney

‘Tis the season for all kinds of festive titles to start appearing in our to-watch queues. For folks who celebrate Christmas in any form, there are a million different movies and TV specials vying for your attention. There are the beloved favorites that we’ll make the time to revisit year after year, plus the seemingly endless number of new titles arriving on the various streaming services this season.

But in all honesty, most of these movies are made for and by the mainstream. So if you don’t want a broad family slapstick or yet another big city girl going back to her small town to learn the meaning of Christmas, here are a few options to bring some geekiness to your screen. Make the season nerdy and bright!

Let’s get it out of the way immediately: Star Wars Holiday Special

It’s almost too bizarre to be believed, but yes, this was a thing that existed, and it lives on in legend. The cast of Star Wars returned for this TV special, where the gang goes to the Wookie planet Kashyyyk to celebrate Life Day. They’re joined by some surprising guests. Golden Girls icon Bea Arthur is in it alongside The Honeymooners’ Art Carney, acclaimed multi-disciplinary performer Diahann Carroll, and the band Jefferson Starship.

Let’s not mince words. The holiday special is bad. But it’s bad in a strangely riveting way that’s kind of hard not to enjoy. And at least it falls chronologically before The Empire Strikes Back, so you can immediately cleanse your viewing palate with one of the series’ best after one of its lowest moments. And the ice planet of Hoth practically makes Empire a Christmas movie of its own, so commit to the double feature for a full night of sci-fi.

Babylon 5‘s surprising “Fall of Night”

For most TV shows, a holiday episode is an outlier that exists separately from the main story arcs. Not so for Babylon 5. “Fall of Night” closes the show’s second season, and it manages to tie together many of the loose ends in a satisfying conclusion while also blending in many of the themes you’d expect from a Christmas episode.

It’s a bit unusual, but it’s definitely a Christmas episode. Credit: Warner Bros Discovery

There’s angelic intervention and gift-giving between Sheridan and Ivanova alongside the heavier topics of interstellar politics. The references to World War II aren’t terribly subtle, but the desperate yearning for peace in the galaxy also makes this a solid choice for science fiction fans to queue up this season.

Doctor Who, many times over

The Time Lords have gifted viewers with more than a dozen festive episodes over the many iterations of Doctor Who. Fans of the old-school series only have one true Christmas episode from the original 1960s run to check out: “The Feast of Steven.” In the modern era, though, the holidays are often when a Doctor passes the mantle to the next in line, so there are plenty of chances to cap off the starring actor’s work in fine style.

Current viewers may most closely connect the Christmas specials to the David Tennant era thanks to episodes like “The Christmas Invasion,” “The Runaway Bride,” and the epic two-parter “The End of Time.” Matt Smith also takes a turn in several strong holiday outings, particularly “The Time of the Doctor.”

The Doctor walks through a Christmas scene

Just one of several Doctor Who Christmas episodes. Credit: BBC

This is one of the few television series to treat New Year’s Eve as a winter holiday worthy of its own showpieces, particularly in the past few years. Jodie Whittaker got the NYE treatment with a trio of Dalek-centric stories, most notably with the very funny “Eve of the Daleks” episode.

Hogfather, for a Terry Pratchett Christmas

The wildly funny fantasy author Terry Pratchett is beloved by many readers for his sprawling Discworld novels. A few directors have made the leap from page to screen with Pratchett’s stories, and Hogfather is one of the best adaptations. That could be partly because Death and Susan are two of the best characters in the whole Discworld universe, and they figure prominently in this Christmas tale. They’re also perfectly cast: Susan is played by Michelle Dockery before her rise to Downton Abbey fame, and Death is voiced by stage and screen actor Ian Richardson.

Terry Pratchett. That’s all you likely need to know. Credit: Sky One

In this Discworld take on Christmas, a shadowy group called The Auditors orders the kidnapping of the Hogfather (who bears no small resemblance to Santa Claus). To avert a holiday catastrophe, Death himself takes over the role of delivering presents on Hogswatchnight. This two-part TV movie captures all the irreverent humor that has won Pratchett so many fans over the years, and it’s a must-watch for anyone who adores that peculiar world atop the Great A’Tuin and its quartet of elephants.

Gremlins, the dark horse cult classic option

Gremlins is a cult classic for a reason and one of the more enduring movies for those who aren’t looking for everything to be bright, cheery fun during the holidays.

A gremlin with a Christmas hat

Fun fact: This film managed to scandalize so much that it partially led to the creation of the PG-13 rating. Credit: Disney

You can read it as a send-up of Christmas consumerism, a wacky horror-comedy flick, an impressive showcase of movie puppetry, or all three at once. Plus, it’s just so very, very ’80s. I doubt I have to say much more to sell you on it, because I’d guess most Ars readers already watch it on the regular.

Mystery Science Theater 3000, naturally

Whether it’s in the Satellite of Love or the Gizmoplex, the hilarious brains behind Mystery Science Theater 3000 can spoof any and all terrible movies, including the festive ones. I often enjoy some MST3K as a kickoff to the holiday season with the group’s Thanksgiving shows, but there’s also plenty of bad movie fun to be had in December.

There are a few standouts for true Christmas movie episodes. Experiment 321 sees Joel and bots watching Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, a truly terrible flick from the 1960s in which a Martian leader captures old Saint Nick to try and make the children on the red planet happier. For Mike fans, check out experiment 521, where the film is Santa Claus and even the host skits have a festive theme. Finally, from the Netflix era, Jonah and the bots suffer through The Christmas That Almost Wasn’t in experiment 1113. All three are excellent episodes despite the movies being the cinematic equivalent of a lump of coal in your stocking.

Joel and the bots by a Christmas tree

Joel doesn’t exactly exude holiday cheer, but that’s kind of the joke. Credit: Satellite of Love

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Some of the other experiments have movies set at Christmastime or sneak in occasional festive jokes from the cast. And if that’s still not enough to satisfy, there’s also nearly endless fodder you can find digging through the RiffTrax library—they even spoofed the Star Wars Holiday Special.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (with some Turkish delight)

Many directors have created their own spin on this C.S. Lewis story over the decades, and any of them make for a quality addition to your holiday lineup. It works for any attitude toward holiday time. If you prefer to be agnostic about it, just soak up the winter vibes created by the White Witch and maybe treat yourself to some Turkish delight while you watch. If you’re all about the presents, be sure to watch one of the versions that adheres to the books by having Father Christmas make an appearance. And if you want to honor the religious history, then enjoy the lion Aslan as a non-too-subtle analog for Jesus.

A character from Narnia

The classic BBC series probably won’t work for younger audiences today, but you had to be there, and some of us were indeed there. Credit: BBC

I’m partial to the 1988 BBC adaptation because it was the first one I saw, but the 2005 Disney film is pretty decent as well. Or, if you’ve already seen all of the Doctor Who specials enough times to quote them verbatim, make your viewing choice based on the acting crossovers, because something about Aslan seems to draw performers with ties to that show. In the animated 1979 version, Whovian actor Stephen Thorne voiced the lion, while Ronald Pickup played him in the 1988 adaptation and its sequels.

8-Bit Christmas, A Christmas Story for the ’80s

Remaking a classic is a bold endeavor. We’ve seen many an effort fall flat, especially when the source material is a near-perfect comedy like A Christmas Story. But against the odds, 8-Bit Christmas pulls off the high-wire act with charm and warmth. This version reframes the dream of the unattainable Christmas present by leaping forward a few decades. Rather than Ralphie’s quest for the Red Ryder rifle, Jake wants the latest and greatest in gaming: a Nintendo Entertainment System.

Now, if you were a gamer in your youth, there are some scenes here that will speak to your soul. There’s an early moment where Jake and the other kids on his suburban block are hanging out in the basement of one lucky boy who has an NES of his own. They’re gathered shoulder to shoulder around the tube TV, arguing over who should get the controller next. Every detail in this scene, from the sweaters and the set dressing to the look of rapture as the kids experience the power of a new console for the first time is just perfection.

A kid celebrates playing Nintendo

The film is at least a great concept, and it delivers pretty well on it. Credit: HBO Max

There are also other cute ’80s nods; for instance, while Jake is lusting after an NES, his sister wants a Cabbage Patch doll with the same single-minded desire. Those of us who grew up in the ’80s know that feeling well. Heck, those of us who were huddled over our browsers refreshing in a panic hoping to snag the Switch 2 just earlier this year know that feeling. This geeky tale was a pleasant surprise to find among the modern-day Christmas movie productions.

The otaku choice: Tokyo Godfathers

The otaku nerds surely already know this one well, but I would be remiss not to include this anime masterwork. It’s a poignant addition to anyone’s Christmas viewing list, geek or otherwise. The film is by legendary manga artist and anime director Satoshi Kon, and it received a new English dub a few years ago that’s particularly recommended.

The film is dripping with atmosphere and creative ideas. Credit: Sony

As with so many of the best movies, it’s probably best to go in without knowing too much. The first key point is: It’s a story of three people living on the streets of Tokyo on Christmas Eve. And the second is: while the phrase is trite, Tokyo Godfathers genuinely can and will make you laugh and make you cry.

In Daria, “Depth Takes a Holiday”

In the ’90s, Daria Morgendorffer was the queen of the teenage outcasts, even though she would have hated having that title. The irreverent animated series from MTV holds up impressively well under modern scrutiny. (Although yes, in most available ways to rewatch it, the licensed music is gone. Just cue up the most important tracks you remember when you watch.)

For such an offbeat program, it’s surprising that Daria did, in fact, include a festive episode called “Depth Takes a Holiday.” In this break from the show’s usual reality, several holidays in human form appear in the Lawndale suburb, causing chaos and playing some rock music. Daria eventually agrees to help restore the natural order of things and get these holidays back to their home on Holiday Island, which is just as cliquey and pointless as Lawndale High.

Daria meets surreal mythical characters

It’s a controversial episode, but it has its merits. Credit: Paramount

“Depth Takes a Holiday” is pretty dang weird, and it’s a love-it or hate-it point in the third season. But I say it’s all the more reason to spend December revisiting some of my favorite Daria episodes alongside this. For those in the hate-it camp, you’ll enjoy the other episodes even more in contrast. And if you’re in the love-it audience, mark your calendar to also watch it on Guy Fawkes Day.

Honorable mention: A Christmas Carol audiobook

I realize that an audiobook is not viewing, but any Star Trek fan worth their replicator-made salt should have this title in their Christmas rotation. Patrick Stewart did take a turn in a Hollywood production of this classic tale in 1999, and that’s a plenty good adaptation.

But why settle for one of the great thespians and geek icons playing just a single role? Stewart also narrated an audiobook version of A Christmas Carol, and it is simply stellar. He gets to provide incredible voices for each character, plus he gets really into all the eerier parts of Charles Dickens’ holiday ghost story. Queue this up in your headphones on a snowy winter’s night, close your eyes, and you can really imagine that Captain Picard is personally reading you a bedtime story.

Discworld, Daleks, and Deep 13: A geeky holiday TV and movie watchlist Read More »

odyssey-trailer-brings-the-myth-to-vivid-life

Odyssey trailer brings the myth to vivid life

Christopher Nolan, culture, Entertainment, film trailers, The Odyssey, Trailers, Universal Pictures / /

It’s difficult to underestimate the tremendous influence Homer’s epic has had on global culture. Nolan himself recalled seeing the Odyssey performed as a school play when he was just 5 or 6 years old. “I remember the Sirens and him being strapped to the mast and things like that,” he recently told Empire. “I think it’s in all of us, really. And when you start to break down the text and adapt it, you find that all of these other films—and all the films I’ve worked on—you know, they’re all from the Odyssey. It’s foundational.”

In addition to Damon, the cast includes Anne Hathaway as Penelope; Tom Holland as Odysseus’ son, Telemachus; Robert Pattinson as Antinous, one of Penelope’s many suitors; Jon Bernthal as the Spartan king, Menelaus; Benny Safdie as the Achaean commander during the Trojan War, Agamemnon; John Leguizamo as Odysseus’ faithful servant, Eumaeus; Himesh Patel as his second-in-command, Eurylochus; Will Yun Lee and Jimmy Gonzales as crew members; and Mia Goth as Penelope’s maid Melantho. We also have Zendaya as Athena, Charlize Theron as Circe, and Lupita Nyong’o in an as-yet-undisclosed role.

The Odyssey hits theaters on July 17, 2026.

Odyssey trailer brings the myth to vivid life Read More »

no-one-loves-president-trump-more-than-fcc-chairman-brendan-carr

No one loves President Trump more than FCC Chairman Brendan Carr

Anna Gomez, brendan carr, FCC, Features, Policy, president trump, tom wheeler / /

Trump’s biggest fan runs the FCC

Carr used to insist on FCC independence. Now he uses FCC to fight Trump’s battles.

President-elect Donald Trump speaks to Brendan Carr, his intended pick for Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, as he attends a SpaceX Starship rocket launch on November 19, 2024 in Brownsville, Texas. Credit: Getty Images | Brandon Bell

Before he became chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr seemed to be a big believer in the agency’s role as an independent branch of the federal government. According to the pre-2025 version of Brendan Carr, the White House interfered with the agency’s independence when a Democratic president publicly urged the FCC to adopt net neutrality rules.

When the Biden-era FCC reinstated Obama-era net neutrality rules in 2024, Carr alleged that President Biden “took the extraordinary step to pressure the FCC—an independent agency that is designed to operate outside undue political influence from the Executive Branch.” As evidence, Carr pointed to a 2021 executive order in which Biden called on agency heads to “consider using their authorities” for various types of pro-competitive policies, including the adoption of net neutrality rules.

Carr said that President Obama similarly “pressure[d] an independent agency into grabbing power that the Legislative Branch never said it had delegated.” Obama’s intrusion into this independence, according to Carr, came in November 2014 when the president released a two-minute video urging the agency to implement net neutrality rules and reclassify broadband providers as common carriers.

While the FCC was created as an independent agency, it isn’t apolitical. There are Republican and Democratic members, and by design, the president’s party has a majority. FCC policies change dramatically from one administration to the next.

But Carr couldn’t have been clearer about his belief that the president should not publicly urge the FCC to take specific actions. “The White House did not let the FCC chair do his job,” Carr said last year, referring to the events of 2014 and 2015 involving Obama and then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “The president intervened. He flipped him.”

But then Donald Trump won a second term in office and promoted Commissioner Carr to the position of FCC chairman in January 2025. A few weeks later, Trump issued an executive order declaring that historically independent agencies could no longer operate independently from the White House.

Carr’s devotion to President Trump

Trump has continued his longtime practice of publicly calling on FCC chairs to revoke broadcast licenses from news organizations that Trump dislikes. Former FCC chairs Jessica Rosenworcel and Ajit Pai rejected these calls when they led the agency. Carr has instead amplified Trump’s complaints and repeatedly threatened to revoke broadcast licenses through investigations into news distortion.

Carr, a longtime Trump supporter who sometimes wears a Trump-shaped lapel pin, wrote a Project 2025 chapter in 2023 describing how the FCC should be overhauled to achieve conservative priorities. It was never likely that he and Trump would differ much in their policy positions. But few, if any, leaders of historically independent agencies have aligned themselves with Trump as consistently and vocally as Carr has in his first year as FCC chairman.

Carr’s devotion to the president has been most obvious to the general public whenever he threatens broadcaster licenses. But Carr hardly seems independent of Trump when it comes to his other actions as head of the FCC. His press releases announcing various types of FCC decisions often praise Trump’s leadership and say the FCC is acting to advance a Trump priority.

“We are fully aligned with the agenda that President Trump is running,” Carr told The Wall Street Journal.

Far from insisting that the FCC make decisions independently, Carr has welcomed Trump’s direct orders. After Trump issued a December 11 executive order requiring the FCC to open a proceeding that could lead to preemption of state AI laws, Carr issued a statement saying that “the FCC welcomes President’s Trump’s direction.”

We emailed Carr in early December, requesting a phone interview or comments about whether he still believes the FCC should operate independently from the White House and did not receive a response. But on December 17, Carr confirmed during a Senate hearing that he no longer believes the FCC is independent from the White House.

“There’s been a sea change in the law since I wrote that sentence,” he said after being confronted with one of his previous statements describing the agency as independent. “The FCC is not an independent agency” because “the president can remove any member of the commission for any reason or no reason,” he said.

Wheeler, who is still active in tech and telecom policy at the Brookings Institution and Harvard Kennedy School, has watched the current FCC with dismay. “The FCC is a policy agency that exists in a political environment, and the Trump administration has turned it into a political agency existing in a policy environment,” Wheeler told Ars in a phone interview early this month.

Wheeler said he has “respect for Brendan, his brain, his political skills, his way of framing issues and expressing himself. I’m disappointed that he’s using them in the manner that he is, in just being a cipher for the MAGA agenda.”

Wheeler: Obama “never called me”

Congress created the FCC in 1934. As indications of its independence, the FCC has commissioners with specified tenures, a multimember structure, partisan balance, and adjudication authority. The agency can also issue regulations within limits set by Congress and courts.

US law lists 19 federal agencies, including the FCC, that are classified as “independent regulatory agencies.” The FCC’s independence was until recently acknowledged by the FCC itself, which said on its website that it is “an independent US government agency overseen by Congress.” Carr apparently wasn’t aware that the statement was still on the website until the December 17 Senate hearing. It was deleted quickly after Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) asked Carr, “Is your website wrong, is your website lying?”

Then-Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai smiling and talking to each other before a Congressional hearing.

Then-Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler (L) and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai talk before testifying to the House Judiciary Committee on March 25, 2015, in Washington, DC.

Then-Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler (L) and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai talk before testifying to the House Judiciary Committee on March 25, 2015, in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images | Chip Somodevilla

“Congress said, ‘you should be an independent agency,’ and Trump steps up and says, ‘no, you’re not an independent agency,’” Wheeler said. “Brendan apparently is going along with that if you judge from his trips to Mar-a-Lago and elsewhere.” Wheeler is also disappointed that after Trump’s executive order, “the Congress rolled over and just said, ‘oh, fine.’”

When Wheeler led a 2015 vote to implement net neutrality rules, Republicans in Congress claimed the agency was improperly influenced by Obama. “Five days of hearings under oath and an IG investigation that cleared me of wrongdoing,” Wheeler said, recalling the post-vote investigations by Congress and the FCC’s independent Inspector General’s office. “It was political. It was Republican-controlled committees who were looking for a reason to go after a Democratic-controlled FCC,” he said.

At the time, Wheeler told Congress there were “no secret instructions” from Obama. Wheeler said he treated Obama’s input “with respect” but also listened to “nearly four million Americans, who overwhelmingly spoke in favor of preserving a free and open Internet” in comments to the FCC.

Wheeler told Ars that during his term as FCC chairman, Obama “never called me.” Wheeler said that in his first week as chairman in 2013, “he said to me, ‘Tom, I will never call you. You’re an independent agency,’ and he was good to his word. Did he do a video? Yeah. Does he have a right to do a video? Of course.”

FCC decisions “coordinated through the White House”

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the FCC, said in a phone interview in early December that “it is appropriate for the president to have an opinion, even to put an opinion out there,” as Biden and Obama did on net neutrality. “The public statements are different than actions,” she said. “What we’re seeing now are direct actions to undermine our independence.”

Gomez said Trump’s frequent demands on the FCC to revoke broadcast licenses have a “more coercive effect” because of “the overall actions by this president to fire anyone that doesn’t do his will.” That includes Trump firing both Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission, another historically independent agency.

The Supreme Court has so far allowed the firing of former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter to stand while Slaughter’s lawsuit against Trump remains pending. At oral arguments, it appeared likely that the Supreme Court will rule that Trump can fire FTC commissioners.

At the December 17 Senate hearing, Carr cited the FTC case to support his view that the FCC isn’t independent. Carr said it used to be assumed that FCC commissioners would be protected from removal by the Supreme Court’s 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which unanimously held that the president can only remove FTC commissioners for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.

The Communications Act was passed one year before Humphrey’s Executor and did not include explicit protection from removal, but “the theory had been that courts would read for-cause removal into the [Communications] statute and that was the basis for that viewpoint,” Carr said. “I think now it’s clear that’s not the case, so formally speaking the FCC isn’t independent because we don’t have that key piece, which is for-cause removal protection.” Carr said “the sine qua non of independence” is having protection from removal by the president.

Gomez has said she doesn’t know why Trump hasn’t fired her yet. “That erosion of our independence is negative for a variety of reasons,” Gomez said. “What worries me is that we will continue to see this White House pressure the FCC to favor or punish certain companies, to influence media ownership or media coverage, and to shape what information reaches the public.”

Gomez said the agency this year started sending decisions to the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review before they are voted on. This practice is in line with one of the directives in the Trump executive order that declared independent agencies are no longer independent.

“We have a multi-member commission that makes these decisions, and somehow this is all getting coordinated through the White House before [the commissioners] vote on something. That is not independent,” Gomez said. While there were previously post-vote reviews, such as the standard reviews required under a 1980 law called the Paperwork Reduction Act, the OIRA process consists of “pre-clearance and approval of anything that we’re voting on. That is new,” Gomez said.

Gomez doesn’t know if those reviews have resulted in any significant changes to FCC actions before votes. “I’m not privy to that,” she said.

Carr heaps praise on Trump

Even before the Trump executive order that purported to eliminate the FCC’s independence, Carr attributed one of his first actions to an order from Trump. One day after the January 20 inauguration, Carr announced that he was ending the FCC’s promotion of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies. The press release said the FCC action was taken “pursuant to” Trump’s day-one executive order on DEI.

“Today, pursuant to the policies stated in the Executive Order, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced that he is ending the FCC’s promotion of DEI,” the January 21 press release said. In the months since, Carr has repeatedly demanded that companies end internal DEI practices in exchange for FCC merger approvals.

Carr’s press releases announcing FCC decisions have continued to praise Trump for his leadership of the country. Instead of stating that the FCC makes decisions independently, without “undue political influence from the Executive Branch,” Carr’s press releases often specifically describe FCC decisions as advancing Trump’s agenda.

“This action follows President Trump’s leadership and the Trump Administration’s decision to usher in prosperity through deregulation,” one such Carr press release said while announcing the “Delete, Delete, Delete” plan to eliminate many of the agency’s regulations.

Carr makes statements praising Trump both when he announces decisions on politically charged topics and when he announces decisions on more routine matters handled by the FCC. “With President Trump’s leadership, America is entering a new Golden Age of innovation in space—one where US businesses are going to dominate,” Carr said in October to explain why he was making changes to space licensing and spectrum use rules.

Carr: “Trump is fundamentally reshaping the media landscape”

Of course, Carr’s most controversial initiative almost certainly wouldn’t exist if not for President Trump’s frequent demands that news outlets be punished for supposed bias. Carr’s approach differs markedly from the two previous FCC chairs—Rosenworcel, a Democrat, and Pai, a Republican—who said the FCC should avoid regulating broadcast content in order to uphold the free speech protections in the First Amendment.

By contrast, Carr has repeatedly threatened to enforce the FCC’s previously dormant news distortion policy against broadcasters by taking away station licenses. Carr has made it clear in numerous public statements that he’s taking his cue from Trump.

“For years, people cowed down to the executives behind these companies based in Hollywood and New York, and they just accepted that these national broadcasters could dictate how people think about topics, that they could set the narrative for the country—and President Trump fundamentally rejected it,” Carr told Newsmax in July. “He smashed the facade that these are gatekeepers that can determine what people think. Everything we’re seeing right now flows from that decision by President Trump, and he’s winning. PBS has been defunded. NPR has been defunded. CBS is committing to restoring fact-based journalism… President Trump stood up to these legacy media gatekeepers, and now their business models are falling apart.”

Carr made that statement after approving CBS owner Paramount’s $8 billion merger with Skydance on the condition that the company install an ombudsman, which Carr described as a “bias monitor.” Carr only approved the transaction once Paramount reached a $16 million settlement with Trump, who sued the company because he didn’t like how CBS edited a pre-election interview with Kamala Harris.

While the FCC order claimed the merger approval and ombudsman condition were unrelated to the Trump lawsuit, Carr repeatedly credited Trump for forcing changes at news broadcasters when giving interviews about that and other FCC actions. Carr uses similar language throughout these various interviews, saying that Trump “ran directly at” news organizations during his election campaign and “smashed the facade.”

“President Trump is fundamentally reshaping the media landscape,” he said in one interview. He said in another that “President Trump ran directly at the legacy mainstream media, and he smashed a facade that they’re the gatekeepers of truth.”

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul say Carr went too far

When Carr threatened the licenses of ABC stations over comments made by comedian Jimmy Kimmel, even some prominent Republicans said he went too far. “Brendan Carr has got no business weighing in on this,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said, calling Carr’s statement that ABC owner Disney must take action against Kimmel “absolutely inappropriate.”

Carr unconvincingly claimed that he never threatened ABC station licenses, even though he specifically said stations that continued to air Kimmel’s show were “running the possibility of fines or license revocations.” One person who didn’t buy Carr’s explanation was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). The senator from Texas didn’t like it when Carr told ABC and Disney that “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.”

Cruz said Carr’s “easy way or the hard way” statement was an obvious threat and “right outta Goodfellas.” Cruz would later say at the December 17 hearing that Congress should restrict the FCC’s power to intimidate news broadcasters. Cruz said, “the public interest standard and its wretched offspring, like the news distortion rule, have outlived whatever utility they once had and it is long past time for Congress to pass reforms.”

Even after bipartisan criticism, Carr refused to end his news distortion investigations. “How about no,” Carr wrote in November. “On my watch, the FCC will continue to hold broadcasters accountable to their public interest obligations.”

Wheeler: “Brendan needs to man up and own his decisions”

One of Carr’s defenses of his news distortion probes is that Rosenworcel’s FCC kept an advocacy group’s petition to deny a Fox station license renewal on the docket for over a year instead of dismissing it outright. Rosenworcel ultimately dismissed the petition, which alleged that Fox willfully distorted news with false reports of fraud in the 2020 election that Trump lost.

The petition pointed out that a judge presiding over a Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox found that Fox News aired false statements about Dominion. Fox subsequently agreed to a $788 million settlement.

Rosenworcel simultaneously dismissed the Fox petition and three complaints alleging anti-Trump or anti-conservative bias by ABC, CBS, and NBC, saying that all four requests “seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment.” Carr reinstated the conservative complaints against ABC, CBS, and NBC, but not the one against Fox.

Carr defended his actions by saying the Biden administration “weaponized our country’s communications laws,” and that his own FCC simply “put the CBS complaint on the same procedural footing that the Biden FCC determined it should apply to the Fox complaint.”

Wheeler said Carr shouldn’t blame his actions on his predecessors. “I own my decisions,” Wheeler said. “I think that Brendan needs to man up and own his decisions and quit this ‘what about.’ He’s always out there saying, ‘Well, what about what Jessica did or what about what Wheeler did?’… Is that the best he can do? I mean, take responsibility for your decisions and go forward.”

Gomez: “This administration has weaponized the FCC”

Gomez said that when Congress created the FCC’s predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, “it decided that it was too dangerous to have one person beholden to the president, to the whims of one person, in charge of the most important communication medium of the time, which was radio. So Congress decided, after deliberating it, to create a multi-member independent agency. And when it created the FCC, it did exactly that as well.”

Gomez continued: “[I]t has been important throughout history to keep that independence from political pressure. And what you’re seeing in this administration is completely different. This administration has weaponized the FCC in order to retaliate, pressure, and intimidate companies into doing its will.”

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez during a Bloomberg Television interview in New York, on Friday, Sept. 19, 2025.

Credit: Getty Images | Bloomberg

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez during a Bloomberg Television interview in New York, on Friday, Sept. 19, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | Bloomberg

Gomez said the weaponization is evident in how the FCC handles mergers and other transactions in which the agency decides whether to approve the transfer of licenses from one company to another. Carr has explicitly demanded that companies eliminate their DEI policies in exchange for approvals.

“This FCC has said that it will not approve a single license transfer for companies that have diversity, equity, and inclusion policies,” Gomez said, noting that the FCC’s anti-DEI policies were implemented right after Trump’s anti-DEI executive order. “That is why you see the FCC granting transfers of control immediately after getting letters from companies agreeing to drop their diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.”

Companies such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Skydance have ended DEI programs to gain Carr’s approval for transactions.

“We also saw that weaponization of the licensing authority with regard to the [FCC] pressuring EchoStar to give up its licenses,” Gomez said. “And that was done purposefully in order to ensure that other parties could get ahold of EchoStar’s licenses for spectrum.”

Trump intervened in EchoStar battle

SpaceX and AT&T struck deals to buy EchoStar spectrum licenses after Carr threatened to revoke the licenses. Trump intervened after Carr’s threat, as Bloomberg reported that Trump called Carr and summoned him to a White House meeting with EchoStar President Charlie Ergen and urged them to make a deal.

Carr’s pressuring of EchoStar was criticized by the Free State Foundation, a free-market group that usually supports Republican priorities at the FCC.

“Rescission of deadline extension orders granted months earlier undoubtedly creates a type of regulatory uncertainty,” the foundation said in reference to the FCC’s investigation into EchoStar. “Arbitrary and unforeseen” changes to rules or agency actions create instability in the market for wireless broadband deployment, it said.

Gomez said the FCC’s “authority rests on technical expertise, evidence, and the public record. When our agency’s decisions are insulated from partisan pressure, the public can trust the outcomes are driven by facts rather than politics.” She said it is also “important to maintain our global credibility because we have been viewed as a model for transparent, rule-based telecommunications regulation.”

Gomez, a telecommunications attorney, has worked in various private-sector and government roles over the past 30 years, including as deputy chief of the FCC International Bureau and senior legal adviser to then-FCC Chairman William Kennard during the Clinton administration. Prior to Biden’s nomination for her to serve as an FCC commissioner in 2023, she was at the US State Department as senior adviser for International Information and Communications Policy.

Executive order required review of FCC actions

Gomez said the FCC submitting decisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs before they’re voted on is a big change for an independent agency. Gomez said she’s deeply familiar with the OIRA process because of her previous work at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an executive branch agency that advises the president on telecom policy. She was the NTIA deputy administrator from 2009 to 2013.

The Trump executive order that purports to eliminate agency independence states that “all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register.”

In a section titled “OIRA Review of Agency Regulations,” the Trump executive order amends a definition of agency that was previously included in Section 3(b) of a 1993 executive order on regulatory reviews. The specified section in that Clinton executive order defined agency as “any authority of the United States that is an ‘agency’ under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies.” This carveout excluded independent agencies like the FCC from the requirement to submit draft regulatory actions for review.

The definition of “agency” in Trump’s executive order removes the language that excluded all independent regulatory agencies from OIRA requirements but includes a carveout for the Federal Reserve. Trump’s order also added the Federal Election Commission to the roster of agencies whose actions require OIRA review of significant actions, such as rulemakings.

While Gomez objects to the pre-clearance requirement, she noted that there are proper ways in which the FCC coordinates with executive branch agencies. For example, the FCC has a memorandum of understanding with the NTIA on how to coordinate spectrum management actions to prevent interference with federal systems that rely on specific radio frequencies.

“Another good use of coordination is in security, for example, when we coordinate with the security agencies to make sure that we are taking national security into consideration with our actions,” she said. “Our statute requires us to coordinate with the State Department and the Department of Justice… and that’s important to do in advance, and it’s good government.”

It’s also not uncommon for the FCC to receive advice from the current president’s administration through the NTIA, which expresses the executive branch’s views on telecom-policy matters in filings submitted in the public record. Those dockets attract filings from government agencies, companies, industry trade groups, advocacy groups, and anyone else who is interested in filing a comment, and the FCC takes the input into account before making decisions.

“What is improper,” Gomez said, “is when our decisions are being directed by this administration and impeding us from making our independent, expert-based judgment of how to manage resources and act in the public interest.”

Pai defied Trump, insisted on FCC independence

Carr was hired as a legal adviser by then-Commissioner Pai in 2014 and was briefly the FCC’s general counsel during Pai’s first year as chair in 2017. Carr became an FCC commissioner in August 2017 after a nomination by President Trump.

Carr and Pai have seemingly agreed on nearly everything to do with the FCC, with the most obvious exception being the regulation of broadcast media content. “I believe in the First Amendment,” Pai said in 2017, six days after Trump called for NBC license revocations. “The FCC under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment. And under the law, the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.”

In a January 2021 speech during his last week as FCC chairman, Pai discussed how he led a 2018 vote against Sinclair Broadcast Group’s proposed acquisition of Tribune Media Company because it would violate station ownership limits. Carr joined Pai in the unanimous vote.

“Sinclair is widely perceived to be a right-leaning broadcaster,” Pai said in the speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute. “And the perception is probably accurate, just as it is probably accurate to say that many of our nation’s broadcast networks lean to the left. But the last time I checked, the First Amendment still applies to broadcasters, which means Sinclair’s perceived political views and the content of its newscasts should be entirely irrelevant to the FCC’s decision-making process.”

Trump didn’t like Pai’s rejection of the Sinclair deal. The president tweeted in July 2018, “So sad and unfair that the FCC wouldn’t approve the Sinclair Broadcast merger with Tribune. This would have been a great and much needed Conservative voice for and of the People. Liberal Fake News NBC and Comcast gets approved, much bigger, but not Sinclair. Disgraceful!”

Reflecting on this incident and other Trump comments about the Sinclair rejection in his January 2021 speech, Pai said, “in terms of powerful opponents in Washington, it’s hard to top the president.” Pai told the audience “that you don’t demonstrate the FCC’s independence by saying you’re independent. You do it by acting independently… This decision may have won me few friends, but I’m proud I lived up to my oath and preserved the agency’s independence.”

It’s no secret

Wheeler and Pai often clashed over policy differences when they served on the commission together. Pai even accused Wheeler of taking orders from Obama on net neutrality. But Pai’s exit speech made a positive impression on Wheeler.

“I seem to recall that Pai at the end of his term made a speech in which he talked about some of the proudest things he had done was maintaining the independence of the agency and protecting the First Amendment speech rights of the people,” Wheeler said.

While federal agency operations can change in ways that aren’t readily visible to the public, the changes to agency independence in Trump’s second term haven’t been hidden. “One thing about this is so much is out in the open, which I think is an effort to normalize it,” Gomez said. “And we have to resist it.”

Gomez knows she might not be able to serve out her entire term given that Trump fired Democrats from the FTC. The risk would be particularly high if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor in the case filed by Slaughter. While the Senate has the authority to confirm or deny presidential nominations to the FCC and FTC, a Trump victory in the FTC case would give the president more power to dictate the membership of independent agencies.

“I don’t know why,” Gomez said when asked if she knows why Trump hasn’t fired her yet. “I don’t want to speculate. We’ll find out, I guess. But I’m focused on doing my work, and every day that I can continue to do my work and to speak out on behalf of consumers and the First Amendment is a good day.”

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

No one loves President Trump more than FCC Chairman Brendan Carr Read More »

how-europe’s-new-carbon-tax-on-imported-goods-will-change-global-trade

How Europe’s new carbon tax on imported goods will change global trade

carbon border adjustment mechanism, EU, European Union, global trade, Policy, syndication / /

In many countries, CBAM is also accelerating interest in renewable energy and greener industrial processes. Some see it not as a threat, but an opportunity to attract investment and position themselves as low-carbon manufacturing hubs.

However, this mechanism is still controversial. For businesses, CBAM is complex and administratively heavy. Firms need robust systems to measure embedded emissions, collect data from suppliers, and produce environmental product declarations. Many will also need new renewable energy contracts to cut their carbon footprint.

Around the world, CBAM has faced strong criticism. India and China describe it as “green protectionism,” arguing that it puts unfair pressure on developing economies. At the same time, the EU has not yet created dedicated funding to help exporters in lower-income countries adapt. Without this support, the mechanism may not achieve the desired results.

What about consumers?

Although CBAM is mainly aimed at industry, its ripple effects will reach consumers in the EU. Importers are unlikely to absorb the full additional cost, meaning prices are likely to rise—particularly for goods that rely heavily on steel, aluminium, or cement. This could mean Europe sees higher costs for cars, home appliances, electronics, building materials, and, indirectly, food production (through fertilizers).

At the same time, CBAM may bring more transparency. Because importers must report the emissions embedded in their goods, consumers may eventually have clearer information about the climate impact of what they buy.

The mechanism will also generate EU revenues from certificate sales. These are expected to support vulnerable households in many European countries, as well as funding clean technologies and improving energy efficiency. How the funds are used will be crucial to public acceptance of Europe’s new carbon tax.

Even before full implementation, CBAM is already reshaping supply chains and influencing government policies far beyond Europe’s borders. It may trigger trade disputes, push exporters to adopt carbon pricing, and highlight the need for more climate finance to support developing countries undergoing green industrial transitions.

For many European consumers, it’s likely to mean gradual price increases—and potentially, more climate-conscious purchasing decisions. Behind the scenes, it marks a significant shift in how global trade accounts for carbon—and how climate policy reaches into people’s everyday lives.

Simona Sagone, PhD Candidate, Green Finance, Lund University; University of Palermo. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How Europe’s new carbon tax on imported goods will change global trade Read More »