Author name: DJ Henderson

reddit-blocks-internet-archive-to-end-sneaky-ai-scraping

Reddit blocks Internet Archive to end sneaky AI scraping

“Until they’re able to defend their site and comply with platform policies (e.g., respecting user privacy, re: deleting removed content) we’re limiting some of their access to Reddit data to protect redditors,” Rathschmidt said.

A review of social media comments suggests that in the past, some Redditors have used the Wayback Machine to research deleted comments or threads. Those commenters noted that myriad other tools exist for surfacing deleted posts or researching a user’s activity, with some suggesting that the Wayback Machine was maybe not the easiest platform to navigate for that purpose.

Redditors have also turned to resources like IA during times when Reddit’s platform changes trigger content removals. Most recently in 2023, when changes to Reddit’s public API threatened to kill beloved subreddits, archives stepped in to preserve content before it was lost.

IA has not signaled whether it’s looking into fixes to get Reddit’s restrictions lifted and did not respond to Ars’ request to comment on how this change might impact the archive’s utility as an open web resource, given Reddit’s popularity.

The director of the Wayback Machine, Mark Graham, told Ars that IA has “a longstanding relationship with Reddit” and continues to have “ongoing discussions about this matter.”

It seems likely that Reddit is financially motivated to restrict AI firms from taking advantage of Wayback Machine archives, perhaps hoping to spur more lucrative licensing deals like Reddit struck with OpenAI and Google. The terms of the OpenAI deal were kept quiet, but the Google deal was reportedly worth $60 million. Over the next three years, Reddit expects to make more than $200 million off such licensing deals.

Disclosure: Advance Publications, which owns Ars Technica parent Condé Nast, is the largest shareholder in Reddit.

Reddit blocks Internet Archive to end sneaky AI scraping Read More »

github-will-be-folded-into-microsoft-proper-as-ceo-steps-down

GitHub will be folded into Microsoft proper as CEO steps down

Putting GitHub more directly under its AI umbrella makes some degree of sense for Microsoft, given how hard it has pushed tools like GitHub Copilot, an AI-assisted coding tool. Microsoft has continually iterated on GitHub Copilot since introducing it in late 2021, adding support for multiple language models and “agents” that attempt to accomplish plain-language requests in the background as you work on other things.

However, there have been problems, too. Copilot inadvertently exposed the private code repositories of a few major companies earlier this year. And a recent Stack Overflow survey showed that trust in AI-assisted coding tools’ accuracy may be declining even as usage has increased, citing the extra troubleshooting and debugging work caused by “solutions that are almost right, but not quite.”

It’s unclear whether Dohmke’s departure and the elimination of the CEO position will change much in terms of the way GitHub operates or the products it creates and maintains. As GitHub’s CEO, Dohmke was already reporting to Julia Liuson, president of the company’s developer division, and Liuson reported to Core AI group leader Jay Parikh. The CoreAI group itself is only a few months old—it was announced by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella in January, and “build[ing] out GitHub Copilot” was already one of the group’s responsibilities.

“Ultimately, we must remember that our internal organizational boundaries are meaningless to both our customers and to our competitors,” wrote Nadella when he announced the formation of the CoreAI group.

GitHub will be folded into Microsoft proper as CEO steps down Read More »

ai-industry-horrified-to-face-largest-copyright-class-action-ever-certified

AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified

According to the groups, allowing copyright class actions in AI training cases will result in a future where copyright questions remain unresolved and the risk of “emboldened” claimants forcing enormous settlements will chill investments in AI.

“Such potential liability in this case exerts incredibly coercive settlement pressure for Anthropic,” industry groups argued, concluding that “as generative AI begins to shape the trajectory of the global economy, the technology industry cannot withstand such devastating litigation. The United States currently may be the global leader in AI development, but that could change if litigation stymies investment by imposing excessive damages on AI companies.”

Some authors won’t benefit from class actions

Industry groups joined Anthropic in arguing that, generally, copyright suits are considered a bad fit for class actions because each individual author must prove ownership of their works. And the groups weren’t alone.

Also backing Anthropic’s appeal, advocates representing authors—including Authors Alliance, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, and Public Knowledge—pointed out that the Google Books case showed that proving ownership is anything but straightforward.

In the Anthropic case, advocates for authors criticized Alsup for basically judging all 7 million books in the lawsuit by their covers. The judge allegedly made “almost no meaningful inquiry into who the actual members are likely to be,” as well as “no analysis of what types of books are included in the class, who authored them, what kinds of licenses are likely to apply to those works, what the rightsholders’ interests might be, or whether they are likely to support the class representatives’ positions.”

Ignoring “decades of research, multiple bills in Congress, and numerous studies from the US Copyright Office attempting to address the challenges of determining rights across a vast number of books,” the district court seemed to expect that authors and publishers would easily be able to “work out the best way to recover” damages.

AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified Read More »

james-lovell,-the-steady-astronaut-who-brought-apollo-13-home-safely,-has-died

James Lovell, the steady astronaut who brought Apollo 13 home safely, has died


Gemini and Apollo astronaut

Lovell was the first person to fly to the Moon twice.

Astronaut Jim Lovell takes a self-portrait aboard NASA’s Gemini 12 spacecraft during the final mission of the program in 1966. Credit: NASA

James Lovell, a member of humanity’s first trip to the moon and commander of NASA’s ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, has died at the age of 97.

Lovell’s death on Thursday was announced by the space agency.

“NASA sends its condolences to the family of Capt. Jim Lovell, whose life and work inspired millions of people across the decades,” said acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy in a statement on Friday. “Jim’s character and steadfast courage helped our nation reach the moon and turned a potential tragedy into a success from which we learned an enormous amount. We mourn his passing even as we celebrate his achievements.”

A four-time Gemini and Apollo astronaut, Lovell was famously portrayed in the 1995 feature film Apollo 13. The movie dramatized his role as the leader of what was originally planned as NASA’s third moon landing, but instead became a mission of survival after an explosion tore through his spacecraft’s service module.

“I know today when I came out many of you were expecting Tom Hanks, but you’re going to have to settle for little old me,” Lovell often said at his public appearances after the movie was released.

two men in tuxedos talk to each other while one stands and the other sits on a stage

Astronaut Jim Lovell (right) addressing Tom Hanks at the premiere of Apollo 13: The IMAX Experience at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in November 2002. Credit: collectSPACE.com

Practicing for the moon

Selected with NASA’s second group of astronauts in 1962, Lovell first launched aboard Gemini 7, the first mission to include a rendezvous with another crewed spacecraft (Gemini 6). Lifting off on a Titan II rocket on December 4, 1965, Lovell and the mission’s commander, Frank Borman, had one goal: to spend two weeks in Earth orbit in preparation for the later Apollo missions to the moon.

“It was very exciting to me,” said Lovell in a 1999 NASA oral history interview. “I mean, it was tedious work, you know, two weeks. We did have a break when [Wally] Schirra and [Tom] Stafford came up [on Gemini 6] and rendezvoused with us. And then they were up, I think, 24 hours and they went back down again. And we stayed up there for the full time. But it was quite rewarding.”

At 13 days, 18 hours, 35 minutes and one second, Gemini 7 was the longest space flight until a Russian Soyuz mission surpassed it in 1970. Lovell and Borman continued to hold the US record until the first crewed mission to Skylab, the nation’s first space station, in 1973.

Lovell then commanded Gemini 12, the final flight of the program, which launched on November 11, 1966. Only four days long, the mission stood out for demonstrating all of the skills needed to send astronauts to the moon, including rendezvousing and docking with an Agena target and the first successful spacewalks conducted by crewmate Buzz Aldrin.

“Buzz completed three spacewalks of about 5.5 hours and everything was fine,” said Lovell. “[We did] everything we were supposed to do, and [had] no problem at all. So, it was a major turning point in the ability to work outside a spacecraft.”

First and fifth

Lovell made his first trip to the moon as a member of the first-ever crew to fly to another celestial body. Reunited with Borman and joined by William “Bill” Anders, Lovell launched on Apollo 8 on December 21, 1968. The mission was also the first crewed flight of the Saturn V, the massive rocket designed to send astronauts from Earth to the moon.

“You had to pinch yourself,” Lovell said of the journey out. “Hey, we’re really going to the moon!” I mean, “You know, this is it!”

a man is seen wearing a white coveralls and brown head cap inside a spacecraft

A still from a 16mm motion picture film shows Jim Lovell during the Apollo 8 mission, the first flight by humans to the moon. Credit: NASA

Lovell and his Apollo 8 crewmates were the first to see the far side of the moon with their own eyes and the first to witness “Earthrise”—the sight of our home planet rising above the lunar horizon—their photographs of such were later credited with inspiring the environmental movement.

“We were so curious, so excited about being at the moon that we were like three school kids looking into a candy store window, watching those ancient old craters go by from—only 60 miles [97 kilometers] above the surface,” said Lovell.

Splashing down on December 27, 1968, the Apollo 8 mission brought to a close a year that had otherwise been troubled with riots, assassinations, and an ongoing war. A telegram sent to the crew after they were home said, “You saved 1968.”

“I was part of a thing that finally gave an uplift to the American people about doing something positive, which was really—that’s why I say Apollo 8 was really the high point of my space career,” said Lovell.

Even before launching on Apollo 13 on April 11, 1970, Lovell had decided it was going to be his last. At 42, he was the first person to launch four times into space. Had the flight gone to plan, he would have become the fifth person to walk on the moon and the first to wear red commander stripes while do so.

a man in a white spacesuit stands in front of a launch pad where a rocket is being prepared for his mission

Jim Lovell, commander of the Apollo 13 mission, poses for a photo with his Saturn V rocket on the launch pad in April 1970. Credit: NASA

Instead, there was a “problem.”

“I don’t know why I did this, but I looked out the right window, and that’s when I saw that at a high rate of speed, gas was escaping from the spacecraft. You could see a little plume of it,” said Lovell in an April 2000 interview with collectSPACE. “I then glanced at the oxygen gauges and one read zero and another was in the process of going down.”

“That is when I really felt we were in a very dangerous situation,” he said.

Lovell and his Apollo 13 crewmates Fred Haise and John “Jack” Swigert splashed down safely on April 17, 1970. In total, Lovell logged 29 days, 19 hours and three minutes on his four spaceflights.

Lovell was the 22nd person to enter orbit, and the 28th to fly into space, according to the Association of Space Explorers’ Registry of Space Travelers.

From the cockpit to the board

Born on March 25, 1928, in Cleveland, Ohio, Lovell achieved Eagle Scout as a member of the Boy Scouts and studied engineering as part of the US Navy’s “Flying Midshipman” program at the University of Wisconsin in Madison from 1946 to 1948. Four years later, he was commissioned as an ensign and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

Lovell reported for flight training at Naval Air Station Pensacola in October 1952, and he was designated a naval aviator on February 1, 1954. He served at Moffett Field in Northern California and logged 107 deck landings during a deployment aboard the aircraft carrier USS Shangri-La.

In July 1958, Lovell graduated at the top of the class at the Naval Air Test Center (today, the US Naval Test Pilot School) at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland. He was one of 110 candidates to be considered for NASA’s original Mercury 7 astronauts but was turned away due to a temporary medical concern. Instead, Lovell became the program manager for the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II supersonic jet.

In 1962, Lovell was serving as a flight instructor and safety engineering officer at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach when he was chosen for the second class of NASA astronauts, the “Next Nine.”

In addition to his prime crew assignments, Lovell also served on the backup crews for the Gemini 4, Gemini 9, and Apollo 11 missions, the latter supporting Neil Armstrong as backup commander. He also served on a panel studying what could be done in case of an in-flight fire after a fire on the launch pad claimed the lives of the Apollo 1 crew in 1967.

After the Apollo 13 mission, Lovell was named the deputy director of science and applications at NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center (today, Johnson Space Center) before retiring from both the space agency and Navy on March 1, 1973. Lovell became chief executive officer of Bay-Houston Towing Company in 1975 and then president of Fisk Telephone Systems in 1977.

On January 1, 1981, Lovell joined Centel Corporation as group vice president for business communications systems and, 10 years later, retired as executive vice president and a member of the company’s board of directors.

For 11 years, from 1967 to 1978, Lovell served as a consultant and then chairman of the Physical Fitness Council (today, the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition). He was a member of the board for several organizations, including Federal Signal Corporation in Chicago from 1984 to 2003 and the Astronautics Corporation of America in Milwaukee from 1990 to 1999. He was also chairman of the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation from 1997 to 2005.

Appearances and awards

From 1999 to 2006, Lovell helped run “Lovell’s of Lake Forest,” a restaurant that he and his family opened in Illinois. (The restaurant was then sold to Jay, Lovell’s son, but ultimately closed in 2015.)

In 1994, Lovell worked with Jeffrey Kluger to publish Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13, which was later retitled Apollo 13 after serving as the basis for the Ron Howard movie.

In addition to being played by Hanks and having a cameo in Apollo 13, Lovell was also portrayed by Tim Daly in the 1998 HBO miniseries From the Earth to the Moon and Pablo Schreiber in the 2018 Neil Armstrong biopic First Man. Lovell also made a cameo appearance in the 1976 movie The Man Who Fell to Earth.

a man in a blue flight suit and ball cap shakes hands with a man in a business suit outside under a clear blue sky

Jim Lovell, Apollo 13 commander, shakes hands with President Richard Nixon after being presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom at Hickham Air Force Base, Hawaii, in 1970. Credit: NASA

For his service to the US space program, Lovell was awarded the NASA Distinguished Service and Exceptional Service medals; the Congressional Space Medal of Honor, and Presidential Medal of Freedom. As a member of the Gemini 7, Gemini 12, and Apollo 8 crews, Lovell was bestowed the Harmon International Trophy three times and, with his Apollo 8 crewmates, the Robert J. Collier and Dr. Robert H. Goddard Memorial trophies and was named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year for 1968.

Lovell was inducted into the International Space Hall of Fame in 1982, the US Astronaut Hall of Fame in 1993, and National Aviation Hall of Fame in 1998.

A crater on the far side of the moon was named for Lovell in 1970. In 2009, he was awarded a piece of the moon as part of NASA’s Ambassador of Exploration Award, which Lovell placed on display at the Patuxent River Naval Air Museum in Lexington Park, Maryland.

A statue of Lovell with his two Apollo 13 crewmates stands inside the Saturn V building at Johnson Space Center’s George W.S. Abbey Rocket Park in Houston.

Lovell’s legacy

In 2005, Lovell donated his personal collection of NASA memorabilia to the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, where it is on display in the “Mission Moon” exhibition.

With Lovell’s death, only five out of the 24 people who flew to the moon during the Apollo program remain living (Buzz Aldrin, 95; Fred Haise, 91; David Scott, 93; Charlie Duke, 89; and Harrison Schmitt, 90).

Lovell is survived by his children, Barbara Harrison, James Lovell III, Susan Lovell, and Jeffrey Lovell; 11 grandchildren; and nine great-grandchildren. Lovell was preceded in death by his wife Marilyn Lovell and parents James Lovell, Sr, and Blanche Lovell (Masek).

“We are enormously proud of his amazing life and career accomplishments, highlighted by his legendary leadership in pioneering human space flight,” said Lovell’s family in a statement. “But, to all of us, he was dad, granddad and the leader of our family. Most importantly, he was our hero. We will miss his unshakeable optimism, his sense of humor and the way he made each of us feel we could do the impossible. He was truly one of a kind.”

A memorial service and burial will be held at the Naval Academy in Annapolis on a date still to be announced.

Photo of Robert Pearlman

Robert Pearlman is a space historian, journalist and the founder and editor of collectSPACE, a daily news publication and online community focused on where space exploration intersects with pop culture. He is also a contributing writer for Space.com and co-author of “Space Stations: The Art, Science, and Reality of Working in Space” published by Smithsonian Books in 2018. He is on the leadership board for For All Moonkind and is a member of the American Astronautical Society’s history committee.

James Lovell, the steady astronaut who brought Apollo 13 home safely, has died Read More »

for-giant-carnivorous-dinosaurs,-big-size-didn’t-mean-a-big-bite

For giant carnivorous dinosaurs, big size didn’t mean a big bite

“And then you have the Spinosaurus which was kind of weird in general,” Rowe says.  “There was a study by Dave Hone and Tom Holtz about how it was waiting on the shorelines, waiting for food to go by that it could fish out.” But Spinosaurus’ foraging wasn’t limited to fishing. There was a pterosaur found preserved in its stomach and there were iguanodon remains found in the maw of a Baryonyx, another large carnivore belonging to the same lineage as the Spinosaurus. “They had great diversity in their diet. They were generalists, but our results show they weren’t these massive bone-crunching predators like the T. rex,” Rowe says. Because the T. rex was just built different.

King of the Cretaceous jungle

The Tyranosauroidea lineage had stiff, akinetic skulls, meaning they had very little mobility in the joints. The T. rex skull could and most likely did withstand very high stress as the animal pursued a “high stress, high power” strategy, entirely different from other large carnivores. “They were very much like big crocodiles with extremely strong, reinforced jaws and powerful muscles that could pulverize bones,” Rowe claims.

The T. rex, he argued, was a specialist—an ambush predator that attacked large, highly mobile prey, aiming to subdue it with a single bite. “And we have fossil evidence of that,” Rowe says. “In the Museum of Natural History in New York, there is a Hadrosaur, a large herbivorous dinosaur with a duck-like beak, and there’s a T. rex tooth embedded in its back.” This, he thinks, means the T. rex was actively preying on this animal, especially since there are healing marks around the stuck tooth. “Even with this super strong bite, the T. rex wasn’t always successful,” Rowe adds.

Still, the fight with the Spinosaurus most likely wouldn’t go the way it did in Jurassic Park III. “The T. rex was built to fight like that; the Spinosaurus really wasn’t”, Rowe says.

Current Biology, 2025.  DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2025.06.051

For giant carnivorous dinosaurs, big size didn’t mean a big bite Read More »

green-dildos-are-raining-down-on-wnba-courts-why?-crypto-memecoins,-of-course.

Green dildos are raining down on WNBA courts. Why? Crypto memecoins, of course.

Take a deep breath and prepare yourself, because the “saga of the green dildos” is going to get really, really dumb.

Now take another one, just to steel yourself—this story involves crypto and memecoins, after all.

Ready? Okay.

Perhaps you’ve heard that people have been tossing lime green dildos at WNBA players for the last few weeks. Front Office Sports counts five such incidents; other sites say six.

Two men, Delbert Carver and Kaden Lopez, have so far been arrested. Both are under 25—young, but old enough to know that throwing sex toys at professional female athletes is both unsafe and deeply disrespectful.

WNBA players have been emphatic about their dislike and disapproval of these actions, which have been widely covered even in outlets like Cosmopolitan, which railed against “these idiots throwing dildos onto the court” who “don’t care about what women deserve or how disgusting and violating their actions are.”

Meanwhile, Donald Trump Jr. recently posted an image to Instagram showing his dad on the White House roof, tossing a large green dildo down at women on a basketball court. (Representative reply comment: “Cool. Epstein files now?”)

Why would anyone pay money for a WNBA ticket, only to throw dildos at the players? According to the Associated Press, both men arrested so far claimed that the incidents were pranks, with one saying the idea was intended “to go viral.” If you read that and find yourself wondering why you’d want green dildos to go viral, USA Today got the “EXCLUSIVE” answer:

It was crypto bros.

Pushing a memecoin.

Called “Green Dildo Coin.”

That now has a market cap of $12 million.

The paper talked to someone representing Green Dildo Coin, who explained that the stunts were done for truly noble reasons. Indeed, they were a form of “protest” against injustice.

Green dildos are raining down on WNBA courts. Why? Crypto memecoins, of course. Read More »

new-executive-order-puts-all-grants-under-political-control

New executive order puts all grants under political control

On Thursday, the Trump administration issued an executive order asserting political control over grant funding, including all federally supported research. The order requires that any announcement of funding opportunities be reviewed by the head of the agency or someone they designate, which means a political appointee will have the ultimate say over what areas of science the US funds. Individual grants will also require clearance from a political appointee and “must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The order also instructs agencies to formalize the ability to cancel previously awarded grants at any time if they’re considered to “no longer advance agency priorities.” Until a system is in place to enforce the new rules, agencies are forbidden from starting new funding programs.

In short, the new rules would mean that all federal science research would need to be approved by a political appointee who may have no expertise in the relevant areas, and the research can be canceled at any time if the political winds change. It would mark the end of a system that has enabled US scientific leadership for roughly 70 years.

We’re in control

The text of the executive order recycles prior accusations the administration has used to justify attacks on the US scientific endeavor: Too much money goes to pay for the facilities and administrative staff that universities provide researchers; grants have gone to efforts to diversify the scientific community; some studies can’t be replicated; and there have been instances of scientific fraud. Its “solution” to these problems (some of which are real), however, is greater control of the grant-making process by non-expert staff appointed by the president.

In general, the executive order inserts a layer of political control over both the announcement of new funding opportunities and the approval of individual grants. It orders the head of every agency that issues grants—meaning someone appointed by the president—to either make funding decisions themselves, or to designate another senior appointee to do it on their behalf. That individual will then exert control over whether any funding announcements or grants can move forward. Decisions will also require “continuation of existing coordination with OMB [Office of Management and Budget].” The head of OMB, Russell Vought, has been heavily involved in trying to cut science funding, including a recent attempt to block all grants made by the National Institutes of Health.

New executive order puts all grants under political control Read More »

trump-wanted-a-us-made-iphone-apple-gave-him-a-gold-statue.

Trump wanted a US-made iPhone. Apple gave him a gold statue.

Once again, Apple escapes Trump’s iPhone pressure

Since Trump took office, analysts have suggested that Cook might be the tech CEO best prepared to navigate Trump’s trade war.

During Trump’s last term, Cook launched a charm offensive, wooing Trump with investment commitments to avoid caving to Trump’s demands for US-made iPhones while securing tariff exemptions.

Back then, Apple notably seemed to avoid following through on some of its commitments, abandoning plans to build three “big, beautiful” Apple plants that Trump announced in 2017. Ultimately, only one plant was built, which made face masks, not Apple products. Similarly, in 2019, Trump toured a Texas facility that he claimed could be used to build iPhones, but Apple only committed to building MacBook Pros there, not the Apple product that Trump sees as the crown jewel of his domestic supply chain dreams.

This time, Apple has committed to a total investment of $600 billion to move more manufacturing into the US over the next four years. But Apple was probably going to spend that money anyway, as “analysts say the numbers align with Apple’s typical spending patterns and echo commitments made during both the Biden administration and Trump’s previous term,” Reuters reported.

Trump has claimed that any company found to be dodging pledges will be retroactively charged tariffs if they fail to follow through on investments. However, Apple seems to be chugging along with its usual business in the US, while manufacturing iPhones elsewhere probably wouldn’t change the tariff calculus, as it is now.

So at least at this stage of Cook and Trump’s friendship, it appears that Apple has once again secured exemptions without committing to building a US-made iPhone or even committing significant new investments.

On Wednesday, at least one analyst—Nancy Tengler, CEO and CIO of Laffer Tengler Investments, which holds Apple shares—told Reuters that Apple’s moves this week were “a savvy solution to the president’s demand that Apple manufacture all iPhones in the US.”

Trump wanted a US-made iPhone. Apple gave him a gold statue. Read More »

review:-framework-desktop-is-a-mash-up-of-a-regular-desktop-pc-and-the-mac-studio

Review: Framework Desktop is a mash-up of a regular desktop PC and the Mac Studio


Size matters most for Framework’s first stab at a desktop workstation/gaming PC.

The Framework Desktop. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The Framework Desktop. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Framework’s main claim to fame is its commitment to modular, upgradeable, repairable laptops. The jury’s still out on early 2024’s Framework Laptop 16 and mid-2025’s Framework Laptop 12, neither of which has seen a hardware refresh, but so far, the company has released half a dozen iterations of its flagship Framework Laptop 13 in less than five years. If you bought one of the originals right when it first launched, you could go to Framework’s site, buy an all-new motherboard and RAM, and get a substantial upgrade in performance and other capabilities without having to change anything else about your laptop.

Framework’s laptops haven’t been adopted as industry-wide standards, but in many ways, they seem built to reflect the flexibility and modularity that has drawn me to desktop PCs for more than two decades.

That’s what makes the Framework Desktop so weird. Not only is Framework navigating into a product category where its main innovation and claim to fame is totally unnecessary. But it’s actually doing that with a desktop that’s less upgradeable and modular than any given self-built desktop PC.

The Framework Desktop has a lot of interesting design touches, and it’s automatically a better buy than the weird AMD Ryzen AI Max-based mini desktops you can buy from a couple of no-name manufacturers. But aside from being more considerate of PC industry standards, the Framework Desktop asks the same question that any gaming-focused mini PC does: Do you care about having a small machine so much that you would pay more money for less performance, and for a system you can’t upgrade much after you buy it?

Design and assembly

Opening the Framework Desktop’s box. The PC and all its accessories are neatly packed away in all-recyclable carboard and paper. Andrew Cunningham

My DIY Edition Framework Desktop arrived in a cardboard box that was already as small or a bit smaller than my usual desktop PC, a mini ITX build with a dedicated GPU inside a 14.67-liter SSUPD Meshlicious case. It’s not a huge system, especially for something that can fit a GeForce RTX 5090 in it. But three of the 4.5-liter Framework Desktops could fit inside my build’s case with a little space leftover.

The PC itself is buried a couple of layers deep in this box under some side panels and whatever fan you choose (Framework offers RGB and non-RGB options from Cooler Master and Noctua, but any 120 mm fan will fit on the heatsink). Even for the DIY Edition, the bulk of it is already assembled: the motherboard is in the case, a large black heatsink is already perched atop the SoC, and both the power supply and front I/O ports are already hooked up.

The aspiring DIYer mainly needs to install the SSD and the fan to get going. Putting in these components gives you a decent crash course in how the system goes together and comes apart. The primary M.2 SSD slot is under a small metal heat spreader next to the main heatsink—loosen one screw to remove it, and install your SSD of choice. The system’s other side panel can be removed to expose a second M.2 SSD slot and the Wi-Fi/Bluetooth module, letting you install or replace either.

Lift the small handles on the two top screws and loosen them by hand to remove them, and the case’s top panel slides off. This provides easier access to both the CPU fan header and RGB header, so you can connect the fan after you install it and its plastic shroud on top of the heatsink. That’s pretty much it for assembly, aside from sliding the various panels back in place to close the thing up and reinstalling the top screws (or, if you bought or printed one, adding a handle to the top of the case).

The Framework Desktop includes a beefier version of Framework’s usual screwdriver with a longer bit. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Framework includes a beefier version of its typical screwdriver with the Desktop, including a bit that can be pulled out and reversed to be switched between Phillips and Torx heads. The iFixit-style install instructions are clearly written and include plenty of high-resolution sample images so you can always tell how things are supposedto look.

The front of the system requires some assembly, too, but all of this stuff can be removed and replaced easily without opening up the rest of the system. The front panel, where the system’s customizable tiles can be snapped on and popped off, attaches with magnets and can easily be pried away from the desktop with your fingernails. At the bottom are slots for two of Framework’s USB-C Expansion Cards, the same ones that all the Framework Laptops use.

By default, those ports are limited to 5 Gbps USB transfer speeds in the BIOS, something the system says reduces wireless interference; those with all-wired networking and accessories can presumably enable the full 10 Gbps speeds without downsides. The front ports should support all of the Expansion Cards except for display outputs, which they aren’t wired for. (I also had issues getting the Desktop to boot from a USB port on the front of the system while installing Windows, but your mileage may vary; using one of the rear USB ports solved the issue for me.)

Standards, sometimes

Putting in the M.2 SSD. There’s another SSD slot on the back of the motherboard. Andrew Cunningham

What puts the Framework Desktop above mini PCs from Amazon or the various gaming NUCs that Intel and Asus have released over the years is a commitment to standards.

For reasons we’ll explore later, there was no way to build the system around this specific AMD chip without using soldered-on memory. But the motherboard is a regular mini ITX-sized motherboard. Other ITX boards will fit into Framework’s case, and the Framework Laptop’s motherboard will fit into other systems (as long as they can also fit the fan and heatsink).

The 400 W power supply conforms to the FlexATX standard. The CPU fan is just a regular 120 mm fan, and the mounting holes for system fans on the front can take any 92 mm fan. The two case fan headers on the motherboard are the same ones you’d find on any motherboard you bought for yourself. The front panel ports can’t be used for display outputs, but anything else ought to work.

Few elements of the Framework Desktop are truly proprietary, and if Framework went out of business tomorrow, you’d still have a lot of flexibility for buying and installing replacement parts. The problem is that the soldered-down, non-replaceable, non-upgradeable parts are the CPU, GPU, and RAM. There’s at least a little flexibility with the graphics card if you move the board into a different case—there’s a single PCIe x4 slot on the board that you could put an external GPU into, though many PCIe x16 graphics cards will be bandwidth starved. But left in its original case, it’s an easy-to-work-on, standards-compliant system that will also never be any better or get any faster than it is the day you buy it.

Hope you like plastic

Snapping some tiles into the Framework Desktop’s plastic front panel. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The interior of the Framework Desktop is built of sturdy metal, thoughtfully molded to give easy access to each of the ports and components on the motherboard. My main beef with the system is the outside.

The front and side panels of the Framework Desktop are all made out of plastic. The clear side panel, if you spring for it, is made of a thick acrylic instead of tempered glass (presumably because Framework has drilled holes in the side of it to improve airflow).

This isn’t the end of the world, but the kinds of premium ITX PC cases that the Desktop is competing with are predominantly made of nicer-looking and nicer-feeling metal rather than plastic. It just feels surprisingly cheap, which was an unpleasant surprise—even the plastic Framework Laptop 12 felt sturdy and high-quality, something I can’t really say of the Desktop’s exterior panels.

I do like the design on the front panel—a grid of 21 small square plastic tiles that users can rearrange however they want. Framework sells tiles with straight and diagonal lines on them, plus individual tiles with different logos or designs printed or embossed on them. If you install a fan in the front of the system, you’ll want to stick to the lined tiles in the top 9 x 9 section of the grid, which will allow air to pass through. The tiles with images on them are solid—putting a couple of them in front of a fan likely won’t hurt your airflow too much, but you won’t want to use too many.

Framework has also published basic templates for both the tiles and the top panel so that those with 3D printers can make their own.

PC testbed notes

We’ve compared the performance of the Framework Desktop to a bunch of other PCs to give you a sense of how it stacks up to full-size desktops. We’ve also compared it to the Ryzen 7 8700G in a Gigabyte B650I Aorus Ultra mini ITX motherboard with 32GB of DDR5-6400 to show the best performance you can expect from a similarly sized socketed desktop system.

Where possible, we’ve also included some numbers from the M4 Pro Mac mini and the M4 Max Mac Studio, two compact desktops in the same general price range as the Framework Desktop.

For our game benchmarks, the dedicated GPU results were gathered using our GPU testbed, which you can read about in our latest dedicated GPU review. The integrated GPUs were obviously tested with the CPUs they’re attached to.

AMD AM5 Intel LGA 1851 Intel LGA 1700
CPUs Ryzen 7000 and 9000 series Core Ultra 200 series 12th, 13th, and 14th-generation Core
Motherboard ASRock X870E Taichi or MSI MPG X870E Carbon Wifi (provided by AMD) MSI MEG Z890 Unify-X (provided by Intel) Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Master X (provided by Intel)
RAM config 32GB G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo (provided by AMD), running at DDR5-6000 32GB G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo (provided by AMD), running at DDR5-6000 32GB G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo (provided by AMD), running at DDR5-6000

Performance and power

Our Framework-provided review unit was the highest-end option; it has a 16-core Ryzen AI Max+395 processor, 40 graphics cores, and 128GB of RAM. At $1,999 before adding an SSD, a fan, an OS, front tiles, or Expansion Cards, this is the best, priciest configuration Framework offers. The $1,599 configuration uses the same chip with the same performance, but with 64GB of RAM instead.

All 16 of those CPU cores are based on the Zen 5 architecture, with none of the smaller-but-slower Zen 5c cores. But its total TDP is also limited to 120 W in total, which will hold it back a bit compared to socketed 16-core desktop CPUs like the Ryzen 9 9950X, which has a 170 W default TDP for the CPU alone.

In our testing, it seems clear that the CPU throttles when being tasked with intensive multi-core work like our Handbrake test, with temperatures that spike to around 100 degrees Celsius and hang out at around or just under that number for the duration of our test runs. The CPU package uses right around 100 W on average (this will vary based on the tests you’re running and how long you’re running them), compared to the 160 W and 194 W that the 12- and 16-core Ryzen 9 9900X and 9950X can consume at their default power levels.

Those are socketed desktop chips in huge cases being cooled by large AIO watercooling loops, so it’s hardly a fair comparison. The Framework Desktop’s CPU is also quite efficient, using even less power to accomplish our video encoding test than the 9950X in its 105 W Eco Mode. But this is the consequence of prioritizing a small size—a 16-core processor that, under heavy loads, performs more like a 12-core or even an 8-core desktop processor.

The upside is that the Framework Desktop is quieter than most desktops either under load or when idling. By default, the main CPU fan will turn off entirely when the system is under light load, and I often noticed it parking itself when I was just browsing or moving files around.

Based on our gaming tests, the Framework Desktop should be a competent 1080p-to-1440p  midrange gaming system. We observed similar performance from the Radeon 8060S integrated GPU when we tested it in the Asus ROG Flow Z13 tablet. For an integrated GPU, it’s head and shoulders over anything you can get in a socketed desktop system, and it easily ran three or four times faster than the Radeon 780M in the 8700G. The soldered RAM is annoying, but the extra speed it enables helps address the memory bandwidth problem that starves most integrated GPUs.

Compared to other desktop GPUs, though, the 8060S is merely fine. It’s usually a little slower than the last-generation Radeon RX 7600 XT, a card that cost $329 when it launched in early 2024—and with a performance hit that’s slightly more pronounced in games with ray-tracing effects on.

The 8060S stacks up OK to older midrange GPUs like the GeForce RTX 3060 and 4060, but it’s soundly beaten by the RTX 5060 or the 16GB version of the Radeon RX 9060 XT, cards currently available for $300-to-$400. (One problem for the 8060S—it’s based on the RDNA3.5 architecture, so it’s missing ray-tracing performance improvements introduced in RDNA4 and the RX 9000 series).

All of that said, the GPU may be more interesting than it looks on paper for people whose workloads need gobs and gobs of graphics memory but who don’t necessarily need that memory to be attached to the blazing-fastest GPU that exists. For people running certain AI or machine learning workloads, the 8060S’s unified memory setup means you can get a GPU with 64GB or 128GB of VRAM for less than the price of a single RTX 5090 (Framework says the GPU can use up to 112GB of RAM on the 128GB Desktop). Framework is advertising that use case pretty extensively, and it offers a guide to setting up large language models to run locally on the system.

That memory would likely be even more useful if it were attached to an Nvidia GPU instead of an AMD model—Nvidia’s hold on the workstation graphics market is at least as tight as its hold on the gaming GPU market, and many apps and tools support Nvidia GPUs and CUDA first/best/only. But it’s still one possible benefit the Framework Desktop might offer, relative to a desktop with a dedicated GPU.

You can’t say it isn’t unique

The Framework Desktop is a bit like a PC tower blended with Apple’s Mac Studio. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

In one way, Framework has done the same thing with the Desktop that it has done with all its laptops: found a niche and built a product to fill it. And with its standard-size components and standard connectors, the Framework Desktop is a clear cut above every Intel gaming NUC or Asus ROG thingamajig that’s ever existed.

I’m always impressed by the creativity, thoughtfulness, and attention to detail that Framework brings to its builds. For the Desktop, this is partially offset by how much I don’t care for most of its cheap plastic-and-acrylic exterior. But it’s still thoughtfully designed on the inside, with as much respect for standards, modularity, and repairability as you can get, once you get past that whole thing where that the major functional components are all irrevocably soldered together.

The Framework Desktop is also quiet, cute, and reasonably powerful. You’re paying some extra money and giving up both CPU and GPU speed to get something small. But you won’t run into games or apps that simply refuse to run for performance-related reasons.

It does feel like a weird product for Framework to build, though. It’s not that I can’t imagine the kind of person a Framework Desktop might be good for—it’s that I think Framework has built its business targeting a PC enthusiast demographic that will mainly be turned off by the desktop’s lack of upgradeability.

The Framework desktop is an interesting option for people who want or need a compact and easy-to-build workstation or gaming PC, or a Windows-or-Linux version of Apple’s Mac Studio. It will fit comfortably under a TV or in a cramped office. It’s too bad that it isn’t easier to upgrade. But for people who would prefer the benefits of a socketed CPU or a swappable graphics card, I’m sure the people at Framework would be the first ones to point you in the direction of a good-old desktop PC.

The good

  • Solid all-round performance and good power efficiency.
  • The Radeon 8060S is exceptionally good for an integrated GPU, delivering much better performance than you can get in something like the Ryzen 7 8700G.
  • Large pool of RAM available to the GPU could be good for machine learning and AI workloads.
  • Thoughtfully designed interior that’s easy to put together.
  • Uses standard-shaped motherboard, fan headers, power supply, and connectors, unlike lots of pre-built mini PCs.
  • Front tiles are fun.

The bad

  • Power limits keep the 16-core CPU from running as fast as the socketed desktop version.
  • A $300-to-$400 dedicated GPU will still beat the Radeon RX 8060S.
  • Cheap-looking exterior plastic panels.

The ugly

  • Soldered RAM in a desktop system.

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.

Review: Framework Desktop is a mash-up of a regular desktop PC and the Mac Studio Read More »

here’s-how-deepfake-vishing-attacks-work,-and-why-they-can-be-hard-to-detect

Here’s how deepfake vishing attacks work, and why they can be hard to detect

By now, you’ve likely heard of fraudulent calls that use AI to clone the voices of people the call recipient knows. Often, the result is what sounds like a grandchild, CEO, or work colleague you’ve known for years reporting an urgent matter requiring immediate action, saying to wire money, divulge login credentials, or visit a malicious website.

Researchers and government officials have been warning of the threat for years, with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency saying in 2023 that threats from deepfakes and other forms of synthetic media have increased “exponentially.” Last year, Google’s Mandiant security division reported that such attacks are being executed with “uncanny precision, creating for more realistic phishing schemes.”

Anatomy of a deepfake scam call

On Wednesday, security firm Group-IB outlined the basic steps involved in executing these sorts of attacks. The takeaway is that they’re easy to reproduce at scale and can be challenging to detect or repel.

The workflow of a deepfake vishing attack.

Credit: Group-IB

The workflow of a deepfake vishing attack. Credit: Group-IB

The basic steps are:

Collecting voice samples of the person who will be impersonated. Samples as short as three seconds are sometimes adequate. They can come from videos, online meetings, or previous voice calls.

Feeding the samples into AI-based speech-synthesis engines, such as Google’s Tacotron 2, Microsoft’s Vall-E, or services from ElevenLabs and Resemble AI. These engines allow the attacker to use a text-to-speech interface that produces user-chosen words with the voice tone and conversational tics of the person being impersonated. Most services bar such use of deepfakes, but as Consumer Reports found in March, the safeguards these companies have in place to curb the practice could be bypassed with minimal effort.

An optional step is to spoof the number belonging to the person or organization being impersonated. These sorts of techniques have been in use for decades.

Next, attackers initiate the scam call. In some cases, the cloned voice will follow a script. In other more sophisticated attacks, the faked speech is generated in real time, using voice masking or transformation software. The real-time attacks can be more convincing because they allow the attacker to respond to questions a skeptical recipient may ask.

“Although real-time impersonation has been demonstrated by open source projects and commercial APIs, real-time deepfake vishing in-the-wild remains limited,” Group-IB said. “However, given ongoing advancements in processing speed and model efficiency, real-time usage is expected to become more common in the near future.”

Here’s how deepfake vishing attacks work, and why they can be hard to detect Read More »

tornado-cash-sold-crypto-“privacy”;-the-us-saw-“money-laundering.”

Tornado Cash sold crypto “privacy”; the US saw “money laundering.”

Image of Storm's instant messages.

Some of Storm’s instant messages that his defense team wanted to use at trial.

But Storm fought back. In a trial in Manhattan over the past few weeks, his defense team has introduced text messages showing that Storm was glad to have the North Koreans identified. As he put it, “I’m glad those f*ckers are detected.” They contend that Storm tried to help the crypto exchange recover its money by pointing them to blockchain analysis tools; he could not do more because it simply wasn’t possible with the Tornado system, which was built for anonymity. As for regulatory compliance, Storm’s defense introduced chats in which he talked about making sure Tornado Cash was “legal” so that “people wouldn’t think that it’s some kind of damned mixer. So that the reputation would be clean.”

(Storm apparently does not see Tornado as a “mixer” because of its technical infrastructure and the use of smart contracts, which create a “non-custodial” system in which Tornado itself does not technically accept or control the money—also, because Tornado doesn’t advertise on the dark web, as did the Helix mixer, which was shut down a few years ago.)

Storm’s venture capitalist backers also assured him at one point that, in their view, Tornado was operating legally.

Mixed verdict

The trial wrapped up last week, and the jury in Storm’s case has deliberated for multiple days, struggling to reach a consensus on the main charges. Today, they announced that they were deadlocked on the two largest—money laundering and violating sanctions on North Korea. (Prosecutors will decide later if they plan to re-try Storm on those charges.)

But they did find Storm guilty on a lesser charge of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. He will be sentenced soon and is out on a $2 million bail until then.

The government continues to pressure crypto mixers. The team behind the mixer Samourai Wallet was arrested in 2024 and last week agreed to plead guilty to some of the charges in their case.

But the Tornado Cash saga shows that, at least when the services are built and run and advertised in a certain way, juries are not always convinced about maximal government claims.

Tornado Cash sold crypto “privacy”; the US saw “money laundering.” Read More »

trump-admin-warns-states:-don’t-try-to-lower-broadband-prices

Trump admin warns states: Don’t try to lower broadband prices

The Trump administration is telling states they will be shut out of a $42 billion broadband deployment fund if they set the rates that Internet service providers receiving subsidies are allowed to charge people with low incomes.

The latest version of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) FAQ on the grant program, released today, is a challenge to states considering laws that would force Internet providers to offer cheap plans to people who meet income eligibility guidelines. One state already has such a law: New York requires ISPs with over 20,000 customers in the state to offer $15 broadband plans with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, or $20-per-month service with 200Mbps speeds.

Other states have been considering similar laws and were initially emboldened by New York winning a yearslong court battle against ISPs that tried to invalidate the state law. But states may now be dissuaded by the Trump administration’s stance against price mandates being applied to the grant program.

As we wrote in a July 22 article, California Assemblymember Tasha Boerner told Ars that she pulled a bill requiring $15 broadband plans after NTIA officials informed her that it could jeopardize the state’s access to broadband grants. The NTIA’s new FAQ makes the agency’s stance against state laws even clearer.

ISPs get to choose price of low-cost plan

The NTIA rules concern the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, which is distributing $42.45 billion to states for grants that would be given to ISPs that expand broadband access. Although the US law that created BEAD requires Internet providers receiving federal funds to offer at least one “low-cost broadband service option for eligible subscribers,” it also says the NTIA may not “regulate the rates charged for broadband service.”

Trump admin warns states: Don’t try to lower broadband prices Read More »