Enlarge/ Apple’s external DVD-burning SuperDrive may be fading away.
Apple
Apple has always been eager to dump technologies when the company feels they have outlived their usefulness. The original iMac came without a floppy drive. The iPhone 7 came without a headphone jack. Mid-2010s MacBooks and MacBook Pros came with USB-A ports. And the original 2008 MacBook Air came without a built-in optical drive for CDs and DVDs. By the time 2012 and 2013 Macs rolled around, products from the iMac to the MacBook Pro followed suit.
These exclusions have often made Apple’s devices thinner, lighter, sleeker, or some combination of all three. But they’ve also meant that people who still needed those technologies also needed to deal with dongles, adapters, or clunky external accessories hanging off their devices. For the MacBook Air and other modern Macs that needed to read or burn optical discs, that clunky accessory was Apple’s SuperDrive, an external DVD burner that connected via USB.
After 16 years of availability, it looks like the SuperDrive’s run could be coming to an end. As noticed by MacRumors, the drive’s status has shifted to “sold out” in Apple’s online store, a more definitive and permanent-sounding label than the “currently unavailable” status assigned to some other out-of-stock products.
Though it’s been more than a decade since Apple introduced a new Mac with an optical drive built in, modern versions of macOS still have roughly the same level of support for CD and DVD drives that they did back when optical drives were standard-issue equipment. Plug an optical drive into a modern Mac—whether it’s a SuperDrive or a third-party model—and you’ll still be able to burn and rip audio CDs with the Music app, rip or burn CD and DVD image files with Finder or Disk Utility, or burn files to a disc for archiving with the Finder. Even the venerable DVD Player app is still included, though macOS relies mostly on third-party software to handle Blu-ray discs.
Third-party external DVD drives can be had for as little as $20, and external Blu-ray drives start around $50, making the $79 DVD-only SuperDrive an iffy financial proposition. It was also never updated with a USB-C connector, so connecting it to any modern MacBook requires yet another dongle. But Apple’s drive was unique, as it was a metal, slot-loading optical drive from a major manufacturer; SuperDrive clones on Amazon go for $30 or $40 but come from no-name companies and have mixed customer reviews. For now, if the news of its potential demise suddenly makes you want one, the genuine SuperDrive is still in stock at Amazon and Best Buy, among a few other third-party retailers.
We’ve contacted Apple to check on the status of the SuperDrive and will update this article if we receive a definitive response.
Enlarge/ Polio victim Larry Montoya is at the airport for the arrival of cases of vaccine, which were distributed as part of the KO Polio campaign, September 5, 1962.
Public sentiment on the importance of safe, lifesaving childhood vaccines has significantly declined in the US since the pandemic—which appears to be solely due to a nosedive in support from people who are Republican or those who lean Republican, according to new polling data from Gallup.
In 2019, 52 percent of Republican-aligned Americans said it was “extremely important” for parents to get their children vaccinated. Now, that figure is 26 percent, falling by half in just five years. In comparison, 63 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners said it was “extremely important” this year, down slightly from 67 percent in 2019.
Overall, only 40 percent of Americans now say it is extremely important for parents to vaccinate their children, down from 58 percent in 2019 and 64 percent in 2001.
More broadly, 93 percent of the Democratic group said it was “extremely” or “very” important for parents to vaccinate their children this year, while only 52 percent of the Republican group said the same.
On the other end of the spectrum, 11 percent of the Republican group said vaccinating children was “not important at all,” and an additional 8 percent said it was “not very important.” For the Democratic group, only 1 percent was reported in each of those categories.
Dangerous disinformation
Perhaps most concerning, the data indicated that a growing number of Americans view vaccines as more dangerous than the diseases they prevent—including polio, measles, tetanus, rotavirus, diphtheria, whooping cough, meningitis, and RSV, among others. Now, 20 percent of Americans overall think vaccines are more of a threat than the dangerous diseases they effectively prevent.
The partisan divide is most stark on this sentiment. In 2019, the two parties were about the same. Twelve percent of the Republican group and 10 percent of the Democratic group held this erroneous belief. But now, a whopping 31 percent of the Republican group say vaccines are a more significant threat than dangerous diseases, while the percentage among the Democratic group fell to 5 percent.
Republicans and Republican leaners are much more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to believe the false and debunked claim that vaccines are linked to autism—19 percent of the Republican group believe this falsehood compared to 4 percent of the Democratic group.
The polling data aligns with national vaccination trends tracked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. During the pandemic, rates of routine vaccination among kindergartners slipped from the protective target of 95 percent—which prevents infectious diseases from spreading widely—to 93 percent. Additionally, nonmedical exemptions from vaccinations have reached an all-time high of 3 percent nationally. At least 10 states have exemption rates at or above 5 percent, preventing them from reaching the protective target of 95 percent vaccination coverage.
Enlarge/ Delta Air Lines customers looking for missing bags wait in line at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on July 24, 2024.
Getty Images | Patrick T. Fallon
Microsoft says that Delta Air Lines’ ancient IT infrastructure is to blame for the airline’s inability to quickly recover from last month’s CrowdStrike debacle.
With Delta threatening to sue Microsoft and CrowdStrike, both companies issued responses saying that Delta refused repeated calls for help. A Microsoft letter to Delta yesterday said the Windows maker is starting to figure out why Delta took longer than other airlines to recover.
“Microsoft continues to investigate the circumstances surrounding the CrowdStrike incident to understand why other airlines were able to fully restore business operations so much faster than Delta, including American Airlines and United Airlines,” the letter from Microsoft attorney Mark Cheffo said. “Our preliminary review suggests that Delta, unlike its competitors, apparently has not modernized its IT infrastructure, either for the benefit of its customers or for its pilots and flight attendants.”
On July 19, a faulty update from security firm CrowdStrike crashed millions of Windows PCs. In a July 29 letter, Delta attorney David Boies said the airline has “reason to believe Microsoft has failed to comply with contractual requirements and otherwise acted in a grossly negligent, indeed willful, manner in connection with the Faulty Update,” according to CNBC.
Cheffo’s response to Boies said that “Microsoft empathizes with Delta and its customers regarding the impact of the CrowdStrike incident.” But the Boies letter “and Delta’s public comments are incomplete, false, misleading, and damaging to Microsoft and its reputation,” Cheffo wrote.
“Given Delta’s false and damaging public statements, Microsoft will vigorously defend itself in any litigation if Delta chooses to pursue that path,” Cheffo wrote. The letter demanded that Delta preserve documents related to the outage.
Delta allegedly refused offers to help
CrowdStrike previously wrote to Delta on Sunday. “CrowdStrike’s CEO personally reached out to Delta’s CEO to offer onsite assistance, but received no response. CrowdStrike followed up with Delta on the offer for onsite support and was told that the onsite resources were not needed,” the letter said.
Microsoft’s letter on Tuesday provided a similar description. “Even though Microsoft’s software had not caused the CrowdStrike incident, Microsoft immediately jumped in and offered to assist Delta at no charge following the July 19 outage,” the letter said. “Each day that followed from July 19 through July 23, Microsoft employees repeated their offers to help Delta. Each time, Delta turned down Microsoft’s offers to help, even though Microsoft would not have charged Delta for this assistance.”
The letter said that after one Microsoft outreach on July 22, a “Delta employee replied, saying ‘all good. Cool will let you know and thank you.’ Despite this assessment that things were ‘all good,’ public reports indicate that Delta canceled more than 1,100 flights on July 22 and more than 500 flights on July 23.”
Senior executives repeatedly reached out to Delta executives “with similar results,” the letter said. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella emailed Delta CEO Ed Bastian on July 24, but Bastian never replied, according to the letter.
Microsoft says it has a pretty good idea of why Delta refused its help. “In fact, it is rapidly becoming apparent that Delta likely refused Microsoft’s help because the IT system it was most having trouble restoring—its crew-tracking and scheduling system—was being serviced by other technology providers, such as IBM, because it runs on those providers’ systems, and not Microsoft Windows or Azure,” the letter said.
We contacted Delta today and will update this article if the company provides a response.
Enlarge/ A Long March 6A rocket launches the first 18 Internet satellites for China’s Qianfan, or Thousand Sails, broadband network.
Chinese officials have long signaled their interest in deploying a satellite network, or maybe several, to beam broadband Internet signals across China and other nations within its sphere of influence.
Two serious efforts are underway in China to develop a rival to SpaceX’s Starlink network, which the Chinese government has banned in its territory. The first batch of 18 satellites for one of those Chinese networks launched into low-Earth orbit Tuesday.
A Long March 6A rocket delivered the 18 spacecraft into a polar orbit following liftoff at 2: 42 am EDT (06: 42 UTC) from the Taiyuan launch base in northern China’s Shanxi province. The Long March 6A is one of China’s newest rockets—and the country’s first to employ strap-on solid rocket boosters—with the ability to deploy a payload of up to 4.5 metric tons (9,900 pounds) into a 700-kilometer (435-mile) Sun-synchronous orbit.
The rocket placed its payload of 18 Qianfan satellites into the proper orbit, and the launch mission was a complete success, according to the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, the largest state-owned contractor for the Chinese space program.
Qianfan translates to “Thousand Sails,” and the 18 satellites launched Tuesday are the first of potentially thousands of spacecraft planned by Shanghai Spacecom Satellite Technology (SSST), a company backed by Shanghai’s municipal government. The network developed by SSST is also called the “Spacesail Constellation.”
Shanghai officials only began releasing details of this constellation last year. A filing with the International Telecommunication Union suggests the developers of Shanghai-based megaconstellation initially plan to deploy 1,296 satellites at an altitude of about 1,160 kilometers (721 miles).
Xinhua, China’s state-run news agency, said the constellation “will provide global users with low-latency, high-speed and ultra-reliable satellite broadband Internet services.”
Opening the floodgates?
SSST’s network was previously known as G60 Starlink, referencing a major cross-country highway in China and the project’s intent to imitate SpaceX’s broadband service.
Thousand Sails may eventually consist of more than 14,000 satellites, but like other Internet megaconstellations, the size of the fleet will likely grow at a rate commensurate with demand. It will take many years for SSST to deploy a 14,000-satellite constellation, if it ever does. SpaceX has rolled out several generations of Starlink satellites to offer new services and more capacity to meet customer uptake.
Chinese officials have released few details about the Qianfan satellites. But the project’s backers have said the spacecraft has a “standardized and modular” flat-panel design. “It meets the needs of stacking multiple satellites with one rocket,” said Shanghai Gesi Aerospace Technology, a joint venture set up by SSST and the Chinese Academy of Sciences to oversee manufacturing of Qianfan satellites.
This sounds a lot like the design of SpaceX’s Starlink satellites, which are flat-packed for launch on Falcon 9 rockets. SpaceX pioneered this way of launching and deploying large numbers of satellites. The approach used for Starlink, and apparently for Qianfan, streamlines the integration of multiple satellites with their launcher on the ground. It also simplifies their separation from the rocket once in orbit.
The new Qianfan satellite factory in Shanghai can produce up to 300 spacecraft per year, project officials said in December. Officials previously said the first 108 satellites for the Thousand Sails constellation would launch this year.
SSST announced in February it had raised more than $900 million from Chinese state-backed investment funds, Shanghai’s municipal government, and sources of venture capital. SSST’s origin is linked to a Chinese joint venture with a Germany-based company called KLEO Connect, which intended to develop a smaller constellation of low-Earth orbit satellites for data relay services.
China launched four technology demonstration satellites, purportedly related to the KLEO Connect venture, to test telecom hardware and electric propulsion systems in orbit. The joint venture fell apart with a flurry of lawsuits, and the German government last year blocked a complete takeover of KLEO Connect by its Chinese investors.
Now, SSST is going it alone with the Thousand Sails network. It has rapidly scaled up satellite manufacturing capacity in Shanghai. But outside of Starlink, companies with ideas for megaconstellations have run into serious headwinds.
OneWeb filed for bankruptcy in 2020 before eventually launching its entire first-generation network of 633 Internet satellites. Amazon has pushed back the full-scale deployment of its Project Kuiper megaconstellation, and the launch of the first operational Kuiper Internet satellites may be delayed again to 2025. The future of the European Union’s IRIS² satellite Internet network is in doubt after disagreements among European governments on funding the project.
The Thousand Sails constellation is less well-known than another planned Chinese satellite Internet network known as Guowang, or “national network,” which is supported by China’s central government. Guowang is owned by a state-backed company called SatNet, and its architecture will consist of 13,000 satellites. However, China has not yet launched any spacecraft for the Guowang project.
It’s unclear if the Thousand Sails network and the Guowang constellation will be direct competitors. They could be geared to different segments of the broadband market. In either case, China’s restrictive Internet policies with terrestrial networks will likely spill over into the satellite segment.
Chinese officials recognize the military utility of satellite Internet services like Starlink, which has supported Ukrainian military forces fighting Russian troops since 2022. A homegrown Starlink-like service would, no doubt, prove useful for China’s military.
Alongside potential domestic civilian users, China could use its satellite Internet networks as a diplomatic tool to build on existing partnerships between the Chinese government and developing countries. This could “lead to a leapfrogging moment, where African countries opt for the Chinese Internet constellation over Western providers due to the fact that much of their infrastructure is already Chinese-built,” the Royal United Services Institute, a UK think tank, wrote in a report last year.
While there are open questions about how China will use its satellite megaconstellations, their deployment will require a significant increase in the country’s launch capacity, driving the development of new commercial rockets, including reusable boosters, to lower costs and increase their flight rate.
Enlarge/ A scene from the new season of Doctor Who, which is streaming on Disney+.
Disney+
Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ will get more expensive as of October 17, whether users have a subscription with or without ads. After most recently jacking up streaming prices in October 2023, The Walt Disney Company is raising subscription fees by as much as 25 percent, depending on the streaming service and plan.
Here’s how pricing will look in October compared to now:
Now
As of October 17
Disney+ with ads
$8/month
$10/month
Disney+ without ads
$14/month $140/year
$16/month $160/year
Hulu with ads
$8/year $80/year
$10/month $100/year
Hulu without ads
$18/month
$19/month
Hulu and Live TV with ads
$77/month
$83/month
Hulu and Live TV without ads
$90/month
$96/month
Disney+ and Hulu with ads
$10/month
$11/month
Disney+ and Hulu without ads
$20/month
No change
ESPN+
$11/month $110/year
$12/month $120/year
Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ with ads
$15
No change
Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ without ads
$25
No change
Disney didn’t announce any pricing changes for the bundle that contains Disney+, sister streaming service Hulu, and Warner Bros. Discovery’s rival streaming platform, Max.
Based on the updated pricing, Disney is seemingly trying to coax people to sign up for one of its streaming bundles, which combine multiple services for a lower price than if the services were each subscribed to individually. Streaming companies have been trying to use bundles to deter people from frequently canceling their streaming subscriptions. But as we’ve written before, streaming bundles don’t address subscribers’ complaints around incessant price hikes, content quality, confusing packages, or features.
Another price hike
One of the biggest problems that streaming subscribers, especially long-term ones, are facing is ever-rising prices. Disney already increased prices in October 2023, meaning Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ are facing their second price hikes in about a year.
Early reactions online, including on forums like Reddit, show people dissatisfied with streaming price hikes that don’t seem to align with the quality of content available. For example, Reddit user Montysucker wrote: “easy[,] cancel now,” adding:
“The enshittification of media in the last few years is insane and it’s wild how seemingly no one cares anymore about making something that is actually enjoyable to watch and not their egotistic[al] pipe dream.”
Of course, many expressed being overwhelmed with continuing to see streaming prices rise, as Slow_Investment_2211 wrote:
On October 12, 2023, as Variety summarized, Disney+ without ads went up by 27 percent, from $11 to $14 per month. Hulu without ads went up 20 percent ($15 to $18/month). Hulu with Live packages each also increased by $7 at the time, while ESPN+ pricing increased by $1.
Disney paired the price hike announcement with the revealing of new upcoming features for Disney+. However, the new linear channels are little comfort for people who don’t use Disney+.
The new channels will be ABC News Live, which Disney+ users can access on September 4, and channels “focused on preschool content, featuring TV series and shorts available on Disney+.” Disney+ will also get four more channels (or as Disney’s calling them, playlists) that show: 1) “Seasonal Content” from Disney+; 2) “Epic Stories” from big franchises like Marvel and Star Wars; 3) “Throwbacks” with “nostalgic pop culture”; and 4) “Real Life” documentaries.
It’s possible that Disney will introduce more channels to appeal to more users. But with all the price hikes that streaming subscribers have endured over the past few years, many would prefer avoiding price bumps that are partially for extra channels that they may never watch. Charging for unwanted content in media packages that are already priced questionably is reminiscent of cable, something that streaming was initially supposed to replace, not replicate.
Subscribers to Disney’s trio of streaming services will be unlikely to be alone in facing price hikes for long; analysts suspect Netflix pricing will also increase this year.
Enlarge/ This is the Figure 02, a new humanoid robot that recently tried its hand(s) at assembling BMW chassis in South Carolina.
BMW
Robots have been working in car factories for decades now, starting with machines performing some welds on a General Motors production line back in 1961. Now, robots work alongside people on production lines, excelling at tasks like manipulating parts too heavy for humans to easily lift or welding or bonding with more precision than we can manage.
Those robots mostly look like big multi-axis arms, but a new breed of two-armed, two-legged robots is being tested in car factories. BMW is the latest automaker to try them at its factory in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
Unlike Tesla, which hopes to develop its own bipedal ‘bot to work on its production line sometime next year, BMW has brought in a robot from Figure AI. The Figure 02 robot has hands with sixteen degrees of freedom and human-equivalent strength.
“We are excited to unveil Figure 02, our second-generation humanoid robot, which recently completed successful testing at the BMW Group Plant Spartanburg. Figure 02 has significant technical advancements, which enable the robot to perform a wide range of complex tasks fully autonomously,” said Brett Adcock, founder and CEO of Figure AI.
BMW wanted to test how to integrate a humanoid robot into its production process—how to have the robot communicate with the production line software and human workers and determine what requirements would be necessary to add robots to the mix.
The Figure robot was given the job of inserting sheet metal parts into fixtures as part of the process of making a chassis. BMW says this required particular dexterity and that it’s an ergonomically awkward and tiring task for humans.
Now that the trial is over, Figure’s robot is no longer working at Spartanburg, and BMW says it has “no definite timetable established” to add humanoid robots to its production lines. “The developments in the field of robotics are very promising. With an early-test operation, we are now determining possible applications for humanoid robots in production. We want to accompany this technology from development to industrialization,” said Milan Nedeljković, BMW’s board member responsible for production.
Enlarge/ Elon Musk and Sam Altman share the stage in 2015, the same year that Musk alleged that Altman’s “deception” began.
After withdrawing his lawsuit in June for unknown reasons, Elon Musk has revived a complaint accusing OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman of fraudulently inducing Musk to contribute $44 million in seed funding by promising that OpenAI would always open-source its technology and prioritize serving the public good over profits as a permanent nonprofit.
Instead, Musk alleged that Altman and his co-conspirators—”preying on Musk’s humanitarian concern about the existential dangers posed by artificial intelligence”—always intended to “betray” these promises in pursuit of personal gains.
As OpenAI’s technology advanced toward artificial general intelligence (AGI) and strove to surpass human capabilities, “Altman set the bait and hooked Musk with sham altruism then flipped the script as the non-profit’s technology approached AGI and profits neared, mobilizing Defendants to turn OpenAI, Inc. into their personal piggy bank and OpenAI into a moneymaking bonanza, worth billions,” Musk’s complaint said.
Where Musk saw OpenAI as his chance to fund a meaningful rival to stop Google from controlling the most powerful AI, Altman and others “wished to launch a competitor to Google” and allegedly deceived Musk to do it. According to Musk:
The idea Altman sold Musk was that a non-profit, funded and backed by Musk, would attract world-class scientists, conduct leading AI research and development, and, as a meaningful counterweight to Google’s DeepMind in the race for Artificial General Intelligence (“AGI”), decentralize its technology by making it open source. Altman assured Musk that the non-profit structure guaranteed neutrality and a focus on safety and openness for the benefit of humanity, not shareholder value. But as it turns out, this was all hot-air philanthropy—the hook for Altman’s long con.
Without Musk’s involvement and funding during OpenAI’s “first five critical years,” Musk’s complaint said, “it is fair to say” that “there would have been no OpenAI.” And when Altman and others repeatedly approached Musk with plans to shift OpenAI to a for-profit model, Musk held strong to his morals, conditioning his ongoing contributions on OpenAI remaining a nonprofit and its tech largely remaining open source.
“Either go do something on your own or continue with OpenAI as a nonprofit,” Musk told Altman in 2018 when Altman tried to “recast the nonprofit as a moneymaking endeavor to bring in shareholders, sell equity, and raise capital.”
“I will no longer fund OpenAI until you have made a firm commitment to stay, or I’m just being a fool who is essentially providing free funding to a startup,” Musk said at the time. “Discussions are over.”
But discussions weren’t over. And now Musk seemingly does feel like a fool after OpenAI exclusively licensed GPT-4 and all “pre-AGI” technology to Microsoft in 2023, while putting up paywalls and “failing to publicly disclose the non-profit’s research and development, including details on GPT-4, GPT-4T, and GPT-4o’s architecture, hardware, training method, and training computation.” This excluded the public “from open usage of GPT-4 and related technology to advance Defendants and Microsoft’s own commercial interests,” Musk alleged.
Now Musk has revived his suit against OpenAI, asking the court to award maximum damages for OpenAI’s alleged fraud, contract breaches, false advertising, acts viewed as unfair to competition, and other violations.
He has also asked the court to determine a very technical question: whether OpenAI’s most recent models should be considered AGI and therefore Microsoft’s license voided. That’s the only way to ensure that a private corporation isn’t controlling OpenAI’s AGI models, which Musk repeatedly conditioned his financial contributions upon preventing.
“Musk contributed considerable money and resources to launch and sustain OpenAI, Inc., which was done on the condition that the endeavor would be and remain a non-profit devoted to openly sharing its technology with the public and avoid concentrating its power in the hands of the few,” Musk’s complaint said. “Defendants knowingly and repeatedly accepted Musk’s contributions in order to develop AGI, with no intention of honoring those conditions once AGI was in reach. Case in point: GPT-4, GPT-4T, and GPT-4o are all closed source and shrouded in secrecy, while Defendants actively work to transform the non-profit into a thoroughly commercial business.”
Musk wants Microsoft’s GPT-4 license voided
Musk also asked the court to null and void OpenAI’s exclusive license to Microsoft, or else determine “whether GPT-4, GPT-4T, GPT-4o, and other OpenAI next generation large language models constitute AGI and are thus excluded from Microsoft’s license.”
It’s clear that Musk considers these models to be AGI, and he’s alleged that Altman’s current control of OpenAI’s Board—after firing dissidents in 2023 whom Musk claimed tried to get Altman ousted for prioritizing profits over AI safety—gives Altman the power to obscure when OpenAI’s models constitute AGI.
Enlarge/ You should not do this while you are driving.
Getty Images
Distracted driving isn’t only a result of drivers using their phones when they should be paying attention. But it is a significant cause of the problem, accounting for at least 13 percent of distracted driving deaths and rising to 1 in 5 for young drivers. Now, a study conducted with customers of the Progressive insurance company has tested different strategies to get those drivers to put their phones down in the car, and it found two that significantly reduced handheld use, with the effect persisting after the end of the study.
The study recruited 1,653 customers already enrolled in its Progressive Snapshot program, which involves the use of a smartphone app that detects phone use while driving. Before the start of the trial, the participants all averaged more than 6.4 minutes per hour of handheld use while driving—Progressive says its safest customers have handheld usage of less than 1 minute per hour while driving.
Five test groups
The drivers were split into five different arms, each with increasing amounts of intervention. The first group just received education about the problem, such as statistics about state laws that ban phone use while driving, increased crash risks, and recommendations to use hands-free options like a phone mount or casting interface instead.
The second arm received the educational materials and a free phone mount with the message “Driving? Park your phone here.” The authors were particularly interested to see whether this arm worked, given the relatively low-cost and one-time nature of this intervention.
The third arm received both educational materials and the mount, but the participants were also asked to commit in writing to reducing their phone use while driving. The researchers informed these participants about their baseline phone use while driving and then gave them weekly goals to reduce their phone use to below 1 minute per hour over the course of the 10-week study. This arm also got regular tips on helpful habits, like mindfulness reminders, encouraging prompts, or using a phone’s “do not disturb” mode while driving.
Arm four included all the same interventions as arm three but added competitive gamification as well. Each Monday evening during the 10-week trial, the participants in arm four received a message with their handheld usage goal for the coming week and whether they met the previous week’s goal. Points were awarded for meeting the goal and were taken away for backsliding. Additionally, participants with similar baseline usage were grouped together in tens to form leaderboards so individuals could compete against (anonymized) peers.
Finally, arm five included the same interventions as arm four and added a financial incentive. Participants who scored enough points over the course of the 10-week study shared a $2,000 prize, each taking home $15.63 in the end. This arm was also told they would earn $5 for finishing at the head of the weekly leaderboard, which displayed a “total winnings” column in this arm.
What worked?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, none of the interventions in groups one, two, or three resulted in those participants significantly reducing their handheld use while driving. But the drivers in arm four had a 20.5 percent reduction in the amount of handheld usage while driving during the study.
What’s more, this effect persisted throughout the rest of the Progressive Snapshot period (a variable-length post-intervention period lasting 25–65 days) following the end of the 10-week study, with this arm still showing 16.2 percent less handheld usage compared to the control.
Paying drivers on top of competitive gamification was the most effective way to get them to put down their phones. This group reduced its handheld usage by 27.6 percent, or 89 seconds/hour, compared to the control. That reduction was maintained at the same level throughout the post-intervention period for this arm.
Gamification has already been adopted to varying degrees of success by automakers and their UI designers to try to encourage hybrid and EV drivers to be more efficient. So it’s not entirely surprising to see the same approach can work to modify other types of driving behavior. It’s even possible that insurance companies could start financially incentivizing drivers to behave better, assuming prizes cost less than the amount saved by paying for fewer crashes and claims.
Enlarge/ Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft is lifted to be placed atop an Atlas V rocket for its first crewed launch.
United Launch Alliance
NASA is planning to significantly delay the launch of the Crew 9 mission to the International Space Station due to ongoing concerns about the Starliner spacecraft currently attached to the station.
While the space agency has not said anything publicly, sources say NASA should announce the decision this week. Officials are contemplating moving the Crew-9 mission from its current date of August 18 to September 24, a significant slip.
Nominally, this Crew Dragon mission will carry NASA astronauts Zena Cardman, spacecraft commander; Nick Hague, pilot; and Stephanie Wilson, mission specialist; as well as Roscosmos cosmonaut Alexander Gorbunov, for a six-month journey to the space station. However, NASA has been considering alternatives to the crew lineup—possibly launching with two astronauts instead of four—due to ongoing discussions about the viability of Starliner to safely return astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to Earth.
As of late last week, NASA still had not decided whether the Starliner vehicle, which is built and operated by Boeing, should be used to fly its two crew members home. During its launch and ascent to the space station two months ago, five small thrusters on the Starliner spacecraft failed. After extensive ground testing of the thrusters, as well as some brief in-space firings, NASA had planned to make a decision last week on whether to return Starliner with crew. However, a Flight Readiness Review planned for last Thursday was delayed after internal disagreements at NASA about the safety of Starliner.
At issue is the performance of the small reaction control system thrusters in proximity to the space station. If the right combination of them fail before Starliner has moved sufficiently far from the station, Starliner could become uncontrollable and collide with the space station. The thrusters are also needed later in the flight back to Earth to set up the critical de-orbit burn and entry in Earth’s atmosphere.
Software struggles
NASA has quietly been studying the possibility of crew returning in a Dragon for more than a month. As NASA and Boeing engineers have yet to identify a root cause of the thruster failure, the possibility of Wilmore and Williams returning on a Dragon spacecraft has increased in the last 10 days. NASA has consistently said that ‘crew safety’ will be its No. 1 priority in deciding how to proceed.
The Crew 9 delay is relevant to the Starliner dilemma for a couple of reasons. One, it gives NASA more time to determine the flight-worthiness of Starliner. However, there is also another surprising reason for the delay—the need to update Starliner’s flight software. Three separate, well-placed sources have confirmed to Ars that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere.
At first blush, this seems absurd. After all, Boeing’s Orbital Flight Test 2 mission in May 2022 was a fully automated test of the Starliner vehicle. During this mission, the spacecraft flew up to the space station without crew on board and then returned to Earth six days later. Although the 2022 flight test was completed by a different Starliner vehicle, it clearly demonstrated the ability of the program’s flight software to autonomously dock and return to Earth. Boeing did not respond to a media query about why this capability was removed for the crew flight test.
In 1972, Janet Rowley sat at her dining room table and cut tiny chromosomes from photographs she had taken in her laboratory. One by one, she snipped out the small figures her children teasingly called paper dolls. She then carefully laid them out in 23 matching pairs—and warned her kids not to sneeze.
The physician-scientist had just mastered a new chromosome-staining technique in a year-long sabbatical at Oxford. But it was in the dining room of her Chicago home where she made the discovery that would dramatically alter the course of cancer research.
Enlarge/ Rowley’s 1973 partial karyotype showing the 9;22 translocation
Looking over the chromosomes of a patient with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), she realized that segments of chromosomes 8 and 21 had broken off and swapped places—a genetic trade called a translocation. She looked at the chromosomes of other AML patients and saw the same switch: the 8;21 translocation.
Later that same year, she saw another translocation, this time in patients with a different type of blood cancer, called chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). Patients with CML were known to carry a puzzling abnormality in chromosome 22 that made it appear shorter than normal. The abnormality was called the Philadelphia chromosome after its discovery by two researchers in Philadelphia in 1959. But it wasn’t until Rowley pored over her meticulously set dining table that it became clear why chromosome 22 was shorter—a chunk of it had broken off and traded places with a small section of chromosome 9, a 9;22 translocation.
Rowley had the first evidence that genetic abnormalities were the cause of cancer. She published her findings in 1973, with the CML translocation published in a single-author study in Nature. In the years that followed, she strongly advocated for the idea that the abnormalities were significant for cancer. But she was initially met with skepticism. At the time, many researchers considered chromosomal abnormalities to be a result of cancer, not the other way around. Rowley’s findings were rejected from the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. “I got sort of amused tolerance at the beginning,” she said before her death in 2013.
The birth of targeted treatments
But the evidence mounted quickly. In 1977, Rowley and two of her colleagues at the University of Chicago identified another chromosomal translocation—15;17—that causes a rare blood cancer called acute promyelocytic leukemia. By 1990, over 70 translocations had been identified in cancers.
The significance mounted quickly as well. Following Rowley’s discovery of the 9;22 translocation in CML, researchers figured out that the genetic swap creates a fusion of two genes. Part of the ABL gene normally found on chromosome 9 becomes attached to the BCR gene on chromosome 22, creating the cancer-driving BCR::ABL fusion gene on chromosome 22. This genetic merger codes for a signaling protein—a tyrosine kinase—that is permanently stuck in “active” mode. As such, it perpetually triggers signaling pathways that lead white blood cells to grow uncontrollably.
Enlarge/ Schematic of the 9;22 translocation and the creation of the BCR::ABL fusion gene.
By the mid-1990s, researchers had developed a drug that blocks the BCR-ABL protein, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) called imatinib. For patients in the chronic phase of CML—about 90 percent of CML patients—imatinib raised the 10-year survival rate from less than 50 percent to a little over 80 percent. Imatinib (sold as Gleevec or Glivec) earned approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 2001, marking the first approval for a cancer therapy targeting a known genetic alteration.
With imatinib’s success, targeted cancer therapies—aka precision medicine—took off. By the early 2000s, there was widespread interest among researchers to precisely identify the genetic underpinnings of cancer. At the same time, the revolutionary development of next-generation genetic sequencing acted like jet fuel for the soaring field. The technology eased the identification of mutations and genetic abnormalities driving cancers. Sequencing is now considered standard care in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of many cancers.
The development of gene-targeting cancer therapies skyrocketed. Classes of TKIs, like imatinib, expanded particularly fast. There are now over 50 FDA-approved TKIs targeting a wide variety of cancers. For instance, the TKIs lapatinib, neratinib, tucatinib, and pyrotinib target human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), which runs amok in some breast and gastric cancers. The TKI ruxolitinib targets Janus kinase 2, which is often mutated in the rare blood cancer myelofibrosis and the slow-growing blood cancer polycythemia vera. CML patients, meanwhile, now have five TKI therapies to choose from.
Buying counterfeit weight loss drugs from illegal online pharmacies that don’t require prescriptions is, in fact, a very bad idea, according to a study published Friday in JAMA Network Open.
The counterfeit drugs are sold as equivalents to the blockbuster semaglutide drugs, Ozempic and Wegovy, which are prescription only. When researchers got their hands on three illegal versions, they found that the counterfeit drugs had low-purity semaglutide, had dosages that exceeded the labeled amount, and one had signs of bacterial contamination.
The three substandard drugs tested came from three different illegal online pharmacies, which sold them as generic semaglutide drugs for weight loss, appetite suppression, diabetes, and cardiovascular health. However, the researchers, led by scientists at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of Pécs in Hungary, had initially tried purchasing counterfeit drugs from six such sellers.
Three of the illegal pharmacies, which specifically sold Ozempic knockoffs, never delivered the drugs after researchers paid for them. Instead, the researchers were hit with “nondelivery” scams, in which the sellers requested additional, hefty payments, supposedly needed to get through customs. These extra fees ranged from $650 to $1,200—much more than what the researchers paid for small dosages of the counterfeit drugs, which ranged from $113 to $360 across the six sellers.
Rogue pharmacies
The Ozempic scams were run out of the rogue online pharmacies: weightcrunchshop.com, puremedsonline.com, and genius-pharmacy.com. The three pharmacies that delivered dubious drugs included semaspace.com, uschemlabs.com, and biotechpeptides.com.
Two of the sellers—semaspace.com and uschemlabs.com—have already received warning letters from the Food and Drug Administration for selling unapproved, misbranded drugs. At the time of publication, the Semaspace website was no longer reachable. The US Chem Labs site was still available, but their semaglutide vials were all listed as out of stock.
The study’s findings, while unsurprising, highlight the risk people may take in efforts to get hold of the popular drugs. Steep prices, lack of insurance coverage, and drug shortages have kept the drugs out of reach for many who could benefit from them. Compounding pharmacies have stepped in to make copycat versions. While these are legal and can come from legitimate pharmacies—ones that are properly registered and require prescriptions—they also carry risks. Compounded drugs are not approved by the FDA and may pose safety and efficacy risks. Last week, the FDA warned of increasing reports of people overdosing on semaglutide products made in compounding pharmacies, leading some patients to be hospitalized.
Enlarge/ Astroscale’s ADRAS-J spacecraft captured these views of the H-IIA rocket upper stage on July 15.
There are more than 2,000 mostly intact dead rockets circling the Earth, but until this year, no one ever launched a satellite to go see what one looked like after many years of tumbling around the planet.
In February, a Japanese company named Astroscale sent a small satellite into low-Earth orbit on top of a Rocket Lab launcher. A couple of months later, Astroscale’s ADRAS-J (Active Debris Removal by Astroscale-Japan) spacecraft completed its pursuit of a Japanese rocket stuck in orbit for more than 15 years.
ADRAS-J photographed the upper stage of an H-IIA rocket from a range of several hundred meters and then backed away. This was the first publicly released image of space debris captured from another spacecraft using rendezvous and proximity operations.
Since then, Astroscale has pulled off more complex maneuvers around the H-IIA upper stage, which hasn’t been controlled since it deployed a Japanese climate research satellite in January 2009. Astroscale attempted to complete a 360-degree fly-around of the H-IIA rocket last month, but the spacecraft triggered an autonomous abort one-third through the maneuver after detecting an attitude anomaly.
ADRAS-J flew away from the H-IIA rocket for several weeks. After engineers determined the cause of the glitch that triggered the abort, ADRAS-J fired thrusters to approach the upper stage again this month. The ADRAS-J spacecraft is about the size of a kitchen oven, while the H-IIA rocket it’s visiting is nearly the size of a city bus.
Astroscale’s satellite completed two fly-around maneuvers of the H-IIA upper stage on July 15 and 16, examining all sides of the rocket as it soared more than 350 miles (560 kilometers) above the planet. Engineers also wanted to measure the upper stage’s spin rate and spin axis. At first glance, the upper stage appears remarkably similar to the way it looked when it launched. Despite exposure to the harsh conditions of space, the rocket’s outer skin remains covered in orange foam insulation, and the engine nozzle still shines as if it were new.
ADRAS-J autonomously maneuvered around the rocket at a distance of about 50 meters (164 feet), using navigation data from a light detection and ranging sensor and Astroscale’s custom-developed guidance algorithms to control its position as the vehicles moved around Earth at nearly 4.7 miles per second (7.6 kilometers per second). This is the crux of the challenge for ADRAS-J because the rocket is unpowered and unable to hold position. The upper stage also lacks laser reflectors and targets that would aid an approaching spacecraft.
This is a first
These types of complex maneuvers, known as rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO), are common for crew and cargo spacecraft around the International Space Station. Other commercial satellites have demonstrated formation-flying and even docking with a spacecraft that wasn’t designed to connect with another vehicle in orbit.
Military satellites from the United States, Russia, and China also have RPO capabilities, but as far as we know, these spacecraft have only maneuvered in ultra-close range around so-called “cooperative” objects designed to receive them. In 2003, the Air Force Research Laboratory launched a small satellite named XSS-10 to inspect the upper stage of a Delta II rocket in orbit, but it had a head start. XSS-10 maneuvered around the same rocket that deployed it, rather than pursuing a separate target.
