Author name: Beth Washington

for-the-strongest-disc-golf-throws,-it’s-all-in-the-thumbs

For the strongest disc golf throws, it’s all in the thumbs

aerodynamics, disc golf, Physics, Science, sports science / /

When Zachary Lindsey, a physicist at Berry College in Georgia, decided to run an experiment on how to get the best speed and torque while playing disc golf (aka Frisbee golf), he had no trouble recruiting 24 eager participants keen on finding science-based tips on how to improve their game. Lindsey and his team determined the optimal thumb distance from the center of the disc to increase launch speed and distance, according to a new paper published in the journal AIP Advances.

Disc golf first emerged in the 1960s, but “Steady” Ed Hendrick, inventor of the modern Frisbee, is widely considered the “father” of the sport since it was he who coined and trademarked the name “disc golf” in 1975. He and his son founded their own company to manufacture the equipment used in the game. As of 2023, the Professional Disc Golf Association (PDGA) had over 107,000 registered members worldwide, with players hailing from 40 countries.

A disc golf course typically has either nine or 18 holes or targets, called “baskets.” There is a tee position for starting play, and players take turns throwing discs until they catch them in the basket, similar to how golfers work toward sinking a golf ball into a hole. The expected number of throws required of an experienced player to make the basket is considered “par.”

There are essentially three different disc types: drivers, mid-rangers, and putters. Driver discs are thin and sharp-edged, designed to reduce drag for long throws; they’re typically used for teeing off or other long-distance throws since a strong throw can cover as much as 500 feet. Putter discs, as the name implies, are better for playing close to the basket since they are thicker and thus have higher drag when in flight. Mid-range discs have elements of both drivers and putters, designed for distances of 200–300 feet—i.e., approaching the basket—where players want to optimize range and accuracy.

For the strongest disc golf throws, it’s all in the thumbs Read More »

few-truly-shocked-that-nfl-player-used-illegal-stream-to-watch-his-own-team

Few truly shocked that NFL player used illegal stream to watch his own team

DMCA, DMCA takedown, IPTV, iptv streaming, methstreams, nfl, nfl streaming, piracy, seattle seahawks, streaming, tariq woolen, Tech / /

Had Woolen been visiting his native Fort Worth, Texas, the local Fox affiliate likely would have been showing Detroit playing Minnesota. This would have meant purchasing a streaming service subscription to view the Seahawks (or, realistically, signing up for a free trial) after doing considerable research to determine the rules around local blackouts.

Woolen is actually lucky, presuming he only wants to watch his own team. A Sunday Ticket or similar package, or good Fox reception, would have carried Woolen through the next six weeks of Seahawks games (one of them a bye week) and then again until the Seahawks play Arizona on December 8 on CBS. On December 29, a Thursday, he would need a local broadcast or Amazon Prime to watch.

Of course, Woolen would waste a good portion of the cost of any streaming or cable package once he actually returns to his team and is playing games instead of watching.

Header from a letter sent by the UFC, NBA, and NFL to the US Patent and Trademark Office requesting faster turn-around for DMCA takedown notices relating to live sports streaming. Credit: US PTO

Networks want a faster DMCA for game piracy

So Woolen could do that kind of location/network/price/date work to find the best legal broadcast option. Or, as suggested by a DMCA takedown notice submitted to Google by Fox for that Sunday, turn to any one of dozens of pirate streams of the Seattle game available that day, including the MethStreams service he ended up on.


These streams tend to stay up, because removal measures by broadcast networks and sports leagues are not all that effective, by their own admission. The UFC, NBA, and NFL have asked the US Patent and Trademark Office to update the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to allow for infringing content to be removed “instantaneously or near-instantaneously.”

Currently, service providers like Google “frequently take hours or even days to remove content in response to takedown notices,” the sports leagues claim, which makes such takedowns beside the point when they arrive after a live event is over.

Woolen himself may not have a larger argument with availability versus prices. Responding to Kleiman’s salary/streaming call-out, Woolen wrote: “It’s free it’s for me,” prepended by two “Face with Tears of Joy” emoji. But even if the NFL wanted to provide players like him with a legitimate option to stream every game, from anywhere in the US, on any given day, it could not, because it does not exist.

Few truly shocked that NFL player used illegal stream to watch his own team Read More »

report:-arm-cancels-qualcomm’s-architecture-license,-endangering-its-chip-business

Report: Arm cancels Qualcomm’s architecture license, endangering its chip business

ARM, qualcomm, Tech / /

Any company that makes Arm chips must license technology from Arm Holdings plc, the British company that develops the instruction set. Companies can license the instruction set and create their own CPU designs or license one of Arm’s ready-made Cortex CPU core designs to incorporate into their own chips.

Bloomberg reports that Arm is canceling Qualcomm’s license, an escalation of a fight that began in late 2022 when Arm sued Qualcomm over its acquisition of Nuvia in 2021. Arm has given Qualcomm 60 days’ notice of the cancellation, giving the companies two months to come to some kind of agreement before Qualcomm is forced to stop manufacturing and selling its Arm chips.

A Qualcomm spokesperson told Bloomberg that Arm Holdings plc was attempting to “strong-arm a longtime partner” and that Qualcomm was “confident that Qualcomm’s rights under its agreement with Arm will be affirmed.”

Qualcomm bought Nuvia to assist with developing high-performance Arm chips that could compete with x86 chips from Intel and AMD as well as Apple Silicon chips in iPhones and Macs—Nuvia was founded by people who had headed up Apple’s chip design team for years. Arm claimed that the acquisition “caused Nuvia to breach its Arm licenses,” and Arm demanded that Qualcomm and Nuvia destroy any designs that Nuvia had created pre-acquisition.

Report: Arm cancels Qualcomm’s architecture license, endangering its chip business Read More »

streaming-subscription-fees-have-been-rising-while-content-quality-is-dropping

Streaming subscription fees have been rising while content quality is dropping

culture, netflix, streaming, Tech / /

In Q2 2022, 78.6 percent thought their ad-free SVOD service had “moderate to very good” stuff to watch. But in Q2 2023, that dropped to 77.4 percent, and in Q2 2024, the percentage fell further to 74.5 percent. For ad-supported SVOD services, the percentage dropped from 74.2 percent in Q2 2023 to 60.8 percent in Q2 2024.

Quality Perception by screen bar graph

Credit: TiVo

Credit: TiVo

Ars Technica asked TiVo why subscribers may be feeling less satisfied with streaming content quality, and Scott Maddux, VP of global content strategy and business at TiVo parent company Xperi, pointed to some potential reasons while noting that other factors could also be contributors.

“As more and more consumers shift to ad-supported SVOD services, the perception of the content quality may have also shifted downward a bit,” Maddux said.

Maddux also suggested that streaming companies’ financial challenges could be impacting content quality:

The amount of new original content overall on SVODs may be down [year-over-year] as many streamers continue to struggle to hit profitability targets. Without new original content (or exclusive content deals), perceptions of value/differentiation may decline.

Similarly, a CableTV.com survey of 7,130 US streamers released in January 2024 pointed to a drop in subscriber satisfaction with streaming content quality. The publication asked respondents how satisfied they were with their streaming provider’s original content. Disney+, Hulu, Max, Netflix, and Paramount+ all saw their satisfaction rates fall from 2023 to 2024. However, Apple TV+, Amazon Prime Video, and Peacock all improved from 2023 to 2024.

In September 2023, Whip Media released its 2023 US Streaming Satisfaction report, which surveyed over 2,000 US streaming subscribers. The report said that the 2023 analysis:

clearly indicates that satisfaction among the top tier of streaming platforms is gradually declining while mid-tier platforms rise in overall satisfaction. The narrowing competitive market suggests there is high demand for showing the right mix of original and library content—and consistently maintaining a delightful viewer experience—in order to drive an overall value that subscribers expect.

Whip Media’s 2023 report found that Apple TV+, Hulu, Peacock, Paramount+, and Prime Video all showed gains in terms of the percentage of subscribers satisfied with the quality and variety of original content available on the platforms from 2022 to 2023.

Streaming subscription fees have been rising while content quality is dropping Read More »

the-mask-comes-off:-at-what-price?

The Mask Comes Off: At What Price?

Comes / /

The Information reports that OpenAI is close to finalizing its transformation to an ordinary Public Benefit B-Corporation. OpenAI has tossed its cap over the wall on this, giving its investors the right to demand refunds with interest if they don’t finish the transition in two years.

Microsoft very much wants this transition to happen. They would be the big winner, with an OpenAI that wants what is good for business. This also comes at a time when relations between Microsoft and OpenAI are fraying, and OpenAI is threatening to invoke its AGI clause to get out of its contract with Microsoft. That type of clause is the kind of thing they’re doubtless looking to get rid of as part of this.

The $37.5 billion question is, what stake will the non-profit get in the new OpenAI?

For various reasons that I will explore here, I think they should fight to get quite a lot. The reportedly proposed quarter of the company is on the low end even if it was purely the control premium, and the board’s share of future profits is likely the bulk of the net present value of OpenAI’s future cash flows.

A fair market value transaction would thus, in my view, leave the board with over 50% of the shares in the new for-profit OpenAI.

But will they fight for fair value? And will they win?

  1. The Valuation in Question.

  2. The Control Premium.

  3. The Quest for AGI is OpenAI’s Telos and Business Model.

  4. OpenAI’s Value is Mostly in the Extreme Upside.

Rocket Drew (The Information): Among the new details: After the split is finalized, OpenAI is considering creating a new board for the 501(c)3 charity that would be separate from the one that currently governs it, according to a person familiar with the plan.

If we had to guess, the current board, including CEO Sam Altman, will look for board of directors for the nonprofit who will stay friendly to the interests of the OpenAI corporation.

After the restructuring, the nonprofit is expected to own at least a 25% stake in the for-profit—which on paper would be worth at least $37.5 billion.

…

We asked the California attorney general’s office, which has jurisdiction over the nonprofit, what the AG makes of OpenAI’s pending conversion. A spokesperson wrote us back to say the agency is “committed to protecting charitable assets for their intended purpose.”

There is a substantial chance the true answer is zero, as Sam Altman it seems intends to coup against the non-profit a third time, altering the deal further and replacing the board whoever he wants, presumably giving him full control. What would California do about that?

There is also the question of what would happen with the US Federal Trade Commission inquiry into OpenAI and Microsoft potentially ‘distorting innovation and undermining fair competition,’ which to me looks highly confused but they are seemingly taking it seriously.

No matter the outcome on the control front, it still leaves the question of how much of the company the nonprofit should get. You can’t (in theory) take assets out of a 501c3 without paying fair market value. And the board has a fiduciary duty to get fair market value. California also says it will protect the assets, whatever that is worth. And the IRS will need to be satisfied with the amount chosen, or else.

There is danger the board won’t fight for its rights, not even for a fair market value:

Lynette Bye: In an ideal world, the charity’s board would bring in valuation lawyers to argue it out with the for-profit’s and investors’ lawyers, until they agree on how to divvy up the assets. But such an approach seems unlikely with the current board makeup. “I think the common understanding is they’re friendly to Sam Altman and the ones who were trying to slow things down or protect the non-profit purpose have left,” Loui said.

The trick is, they have a legal obligation to fight for that value, and Brett Taylor has said they are going to do so, although who knows how hard it will fight:

Thalia Beaty (AP): Jill Horwitz, a professor in law and medicine at UCLA School of Law who has studied OpenAI, said that when two sides of a joint venture between a nonprofit and a for-profit come into conflict, the charitable purpose must always win out.

“It’s the job of the board first, and then the regulators and the court, to ensure that the promise that was made to the public to pursue the charitable interest is kept,” she said.

…

Bret Taylor, chair of the OpenAI nonprofit’s board, said in a statement that the board was focused on fulfilling its fiduciary obligation.

“Any potential restructuring would ensure the nonprofit continues to exist and thrive, and receives full value for its current stake in the OpenAI for-profit with an enhanced ability to pursue its mission,” he said.

Even if they are friendly to Altman, that is different from willingly taking on big legal risks.

The good news is that, at a minimum, OpenAI and Microsoft have hired investment banks to negotiate with each other. Microsoft has Morgan Stanley, OpenAI has Goldman Sachs. So, advantage OpenAI. But that doesn’t mean that Goldman Sachs is arguing on behalf of the board.

So would 25% of OpenAI represent ‘fair market value’ of the non-profit’s current assets, as required by law?

That question gets complicated, because OpenAI’s current structure is complicated.

Or, from the WSJ, is where the money goes:

Any profits would go first to for-profit equity holders in various configurations, whose gains are capped, and then the rest would go back to the non-profit, except if the ‘AGI clause’ is invoked, in which case it all goes back to the non-profit.

The board would also be giving up its control over OpenAI. It would go from 100% of the voting shares to 25%. Control typically comes with a large cost premium. Control over OpenAI seems especially valuable in terms of the charitable purpose of the non-profit. One could even say in context that it is priceless, but that ship seems to have sailed.

According to Wikipedia, the control premium varies from 20% to 40% in business practice, depending on minority shareholders’ protections. In this case, it is clear that minority shareholders’ protections are currently extremely thin, so this would presumably mean at least a 40% premium. That’s 40% of the total baseline value of OpenAI, not the value of the non-profit’s share of the company. That’s on top of the value of their claims on the profits.

OpenAI could have chosen to sidestep the control issue by giving the board a different class of shares that allow it to comfortably retain control over OpenAI, but it is everyone’s clear intention to strip control away from the board.

Lynette Bye attempts to analyze the situation, noting that no one has much of a clue. They suggest one potential upper bound:

Lynette Bye: The biggest clue comes from OpenAI’s recent tax filing, which claims that OpenAI does not have any “controlled entities,” as defined by the tax code. According to Rose Chan Loui, the director of UCLA Law’s non-profit program, this likely means that the non-profit has the right to no more than 50% of the company’s future profits. If that alone were the basis for its share of the for-profit’s value, that would cap the non-profit’s share of the valuation at $78.5 billion.

Claude thinks it is more complicated than that. In either case, the filing likely reflected what was convenient to represent to the government and investors – you don’t want prospective investors realizing a majority of future profits belong to the board, if that were indeed the case.

Lynette also says experts disagree on whether the control premium requires fair market compensation. I think it very obviously does require it – control is a valuable asset, both because people value control highly, and because control is highly useful to the non-profit mission. Again, pay me.

What makes stock in the future OpenAI valuable?

One answer, same as any other investment, is that ‘other people will pay for it.’

That’s a great answer. But ultimately, what are all those people paying for?

Two things.

  1. Control. That’s covered by the control premium.

  2. The Net Present Value of Future Cash Flows.

So what is the NPV of future cash flows? What is the probability distribution of various potential cash flows? What is stock in OpenAI worth right now, if you were never allowed to sell it to a ‘greater fool’ and it never transitioned to a B-corp or changed its payout rules?

Well, actually… you can argue that the answer is nothing…

Was that not clear enough?

Well, okay. Not actually nothing. Things could change, and you could get paid then.

But the situation is actually rather grim.

Sam Altman’s goal is to create safe AGI for the benefit of humanity. He says this over and over again. I disagree with his methods, but I do believe that is his central goal.

To the extent he also cares about other things, such as being the one to pick what it means to benefit humanity, I don’t think ‘maximizing profits’ is high on that list.

OpenAI’s explicit goal is also to create safe AGI for the benefit of humanity.

That is their business model. That is the ‘public benefit’ in the public benefit corporation. That is their plan. That is their telos.

Right now, OpenAI’s plan is:

  1. Spend a lot of money to develop AGI first.

  2. ???????? (ensure it is safe and benefits humanity, yes this should be step 1 not 2)

  3. Profit. Maybe. If that even means anything at that point. Sure, why not.

If that last sentence sounds weird, go read the pink warning label again.

OpenAI already has billions in revenue. It plausibly has reasonable unit economics.

Altman is still planning to plow every penny OpenAI makes selling goods and services, and more, back into developing AGI.

If he believes he can ensure AGI is safe and benefits humanity (I have big doubts, but he seems confident), then this is the correct thing for Altman to be doing, even from a pure business perspective. That’s where the real value lies, and the amount of money that can go into research, including compute and even electrical power, is off the charts.

If OpenAI actually turned a profit after its investments and research, or was even seriously pivoting into trying, then that would be a huge red flag, the same way it would have been for an early Amazon or Uber. It would be saying they didn’t see a better use of money than returning it to shareholders.

What are the likely fates for OpenAI, for a common sense understanding of AGI?

I believe that case #1 here is most of why OpenAI is valuable now: If OpenAI successfully builds safe AGI, it is worth many trillions to the extent that one can put a cap on its value at all. If OpenAI fails to build safe AGI, it will be a pale shadow of that.

  1. OpenAI charges headfirst to AGI, and succeeds in building it safely. Many in the industry expect this to happen soon, within only a few years – Altman said a few thousand days. The world transforms, and OpenAI goes from previously unprofitable due to reinvestment to an immensely profitable company. It is able to well exceed all its profit caps. Even if they pay out the whole waterfall to the maximum, the vast majority of the money still flows to the non-profit.

  2. OpenAI charges headfirst into AGI, and succeeds in building it, but fails in ensuring it is safe. Tragedy ensues. OpenAI never turns a profit anyone gets to enjoy, whether or not humanity sticks around to recover.

  3. OpenAI charges headfirst into AGI, and fails, because someone else gets to AGI substantially first and builds on that lead. OpenAI never turns a profit, whether or not things turn out well for humanity.

  4. OpenAI charges headfirst into AGI, and fails, because no one develops AGI any time soon. OpenAI burns through its ability to raise money, and realizes its mission has failed. Talent flees. It attempts to pivot into an ordinary software company, up against a lot of competition, increasingly without much market power or differentiation as others catch up. OpenAI most likely ends up selling out to another tech company, perhaps with a good exit and perhaps not. It might melt away, as looked like might happen in the crisis last year. Or perhaps it successfully pivots and does okay, but it’s not world changing.

If you thought the bulk of the value here is in #4, and a pivot to an ordinary technology company, then your model strongly disagrees with those who founded and built OpenAI, and with the expectations of its employees. I don’t think Altman or OpenAI have any intention of going down that road anything other than kicking and screaming, and it will represent a failure of the company’s vision and business model.

Even in case #4, we’re talking about what Matt Levine estimates as a current profit cap of up to about $272 billion. I am guessing that is low, given the late investors are starting with higher valuations and we don’t know the profit caps. But even if we are generous, the result is the same. 

If the company is worth – not counting the non-profit’s share! – already $157 billion or more, it should be obvious that most future profits still likely flow to the non-profit. There’s no such thing as a company with very high variance in outcomes, that is heavily in growth mode, that is worth well over $157 billion dollars (since that $157 billion doesn’t include parts of the waterfall) where they don’t end up making trillions rather often. If you don’t think OpenAI is going to make trillions reasonably often, and also pay them out, then you should want to sell your stake, and fast.

Do not be fooled into thinking this is an ordinary or mature business, or that AI is an ordinary or mature technology whose value is in various forms of mundane utility. OpenAI is shooting for the stars. As every VC in this spot knows, it is the extreme upside that matters.

That is what the nonprofit is selling. They shouldn’t sell it cheap.

The good news is that the people tasked with arguing this are, effectively, Goldman Sachs. It will be fascinating to see if suddenly they can feel the AGI. 

The Mask Comes Off: At What Price? Read More »

basecamp-maker-37signals-says-its-“cloud-exit”-will-save-it-$10m-over-5-years

Basecamp-maker 37Signals says its “cloud exit” will save it $10M over 5 years

37signals, Amazon, AWS, Biz & IT, citrix, david heinemeier hansson, red hat / /

Lots of pointing at clouds

AWS made data transfer out of AWS free for customers who were moving off their servers in March, spurred in part by European regulations. Trade publications are full of trend stories about rising cloud costs and explainers on why companies are repatriating. Stories of major players’ cloud reversals, like that of Dropbox, have become talking points for the cloud-averse.

Not everyone believes the sky is falling. Lydia Leong, a cloud computing analyst at Gartner, wrote on her own blog about how “the myth of cloud repatriation refuses to die.” A large part of this, Leong writes, is in how surveys and anecdotal news stories confuse various versions of “repatriation” from managed service providers to self-hosted infrastructure.

“None of these things are in any way equivalent to the notion that there’s a broad or even common movement of workloads from the cloud back on-premises, though, especially for those customers who have migrated entire data centers or the vast majority of their IT estate to the cloud,” writes Leong.

Both Leong and Rich Hoyer, director of the FinOps group at SADA, suggest that framing the issue as simply “cloud versus on-premises” is too simplistic. A poorly architected split between cloud and on-prem, vague goals and measurements of cloud “cost” and “success,” and fuzzy return-on-investment math, Hoyer writes, are feeding alarmist takes on cloud costs.

For its part, AWS has itself testified that it faces competition from the on-premises IT movement, although it did so as part of a “Cloud Services Market Investigation” by UK market competition authorities. Red Hat and Citrix have suggested that, at a minimum, hybrid approaches have regained ground after a period of cloud primacy.

Those kinds of measured approaches don’t have the same broad reach as declaring an “exit” and putting a very round number on it, but it’s another interesting data point.

Ars has reached out to AWS and will update this post with comment.

Basecamp-maker 37Signals says its “cloud exit” will save it $10M over 5 years Read More »

mercedes-benz-opens-its-own-recycling-facility-for-ev-batteries

Mercedes-Benz opens its own recycling facility for EV batteries

battery recycling, Cars, Mercedes-Benz / /

Today, Mercedes-Benz opened its first battery-recycling plant in Germany. The new plant will use an “integrated mechanical-hydrometallurgical” approach to recycling electric vehicle batteries and expects to recover more than 96 percent of the valuable minerals and metals used in EV batteries.

“Mercedes-Benz has set itself the goal of building the most desirable cars in a sustainable way. As a pioneer in automotive engineering, Europe’s first integrated mechanical-hydrometallurgical battery recycling factory marks a key milestone toward enhancing raw-materials sustainability,” said Ola Källenius, chairman of the board of management Mercedes-Benz Group. “Together with our partners from industry and science, we are sending a strong signal of innovative strength for sustainable electric mobility and value creation in Germany and Europe.”

The plant, which is located in Kuppenheim, Germany, shreds the battery modules then uses a mechanical process to separate plastics, copper, aluminum, and iron. The resulting “black mass” is then subjected to a hydrometallurgical process that extracts the cobalt, nickel, and lithium. The plant runs entirely on electricity generated by solar panels and has an annual capacity of 2,756 tons (2,500 tonnes). While this is not especially high, Mercedes says it will use the knowledge it gains to scale up volumes over time.

Automakers are increasingly interested in closing the loop on EV batteries, particularly given concerns about ethical sourcing of some of the minerals (like cobalt) and a desire for more resilient regional supply chains versus global chains that have turned out to be highly susceptible to disruption through events like invasions or even a ship getting stuck in a canal.

Mercedes-Benz opens its own recycling facility for EV batteries Read More »

spacex-prevails-over-ula,-wins-military-launch-contracts-worth-$733-million

SpaceX prevails over ULA, wins military launch contracts worth $733 million

falcon 9, launch, military space, Science, Space, space force, space systems command, spacex / /

These missions require medium-lift rockets, or smaller rockets capable of a high-rate launch cadence to match the capability of a larger launch vehicle. In June, the Space Force selected SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos’s space company, to compete for Lane 1 launch task orders.

Military officials will add more companies to the pool of available Lane 1 launch providers as they mature their rockets. These companies may include Rocket Lab, Firefly Aerospace, Relativity Space, Stoke Space, and others.

While Blue Origin is on the Space Force’s list of available launch providers, the company’s New Glenn rocket was not eligible for the contracts announced Friday. That’s because military officials require a rocket to complete at least one successful orbital launch to become qualified for a Lane 1 task order. New Glenn’s first test flight is scheduled some time later this year.

This rule left SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and ULA’s Vulcan rockets as the only launch vehicles eligible for the task orders, setting up a head-to-head competition between the rival rocket companies. SpaceX prevailed, winning all nine Lane 1 missions up for competition this year.

Lane 2 of the Space Force’s National Security Space Launch program covers more challenging military missions, typically larger, more expensive payloads destined for higher orbits. The Space Force is expected to soon select launch providers for Lane 2 missions. These launches will require the Space Force to certify the rockets, whereas the military is comfortable accepting a little more risk for the Lane 1 missions.

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are currently certified for national security launches, and the Space Force is in the process of certifying ULA’s Vulcan launcher after two successful test flights. The Space Force and Blue Origin also have a certification plan for the New Glenn rocket, but it must first complete multiple successful test flights.

Updated October 19 with additional information about the launch task orders.

SpaceX prevails over ULA, wins military launch contracts worth $733 million Read More »

biden-administration-curtails-controls-on-some-space-related-exports

Biden administration curtails controls on some space-related exports

Commercial space, Export controls, ITAR, national security, Science, Space / /

The US Commerce Department announced Thursday it is easing restrictions on exports of space-related technology, answering a yearslong call from space companies to reform regulations governing international trade.

This is the most significant update to space-related export regulations in a decade and opens more opportunities for US companies to sell their satellite hardware abroad.

“We are very excited about this rollout,” a senior Commerce official said during a background call with reporters. “It’s been a long time coming, and I think it’s going to be very meaningful for our national security and foreign policy interests and certainly facilitate secure trade with our partners.”

Overdue reform

One of the changes will allow US companies to export more products related to electro-optical and radar remote sensing, as well as space-based logistics, assembly, or servicing spacecraft destined for Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

“They’re easing restrictions on some of the less sensitive space-related technologies and on spacecraft-related items going to our closest allies, like Australia, Canada, and the UK,” the senior Commerce official said. “These changes will offer relief to US companies and they’ll increase innovation without comprising the critical technologies that keep our nation safe.”

Another update to the Commerce Department’s regulations will remove license requirements for exports of “certain spacecraft components” to more than 40 allied nations, including NATO and European Union member states, Argentina, Australia, Canada, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan. This will also create more license exceptions to support NASA’s cooperative programs with other nations, officials said.

A third change, which hasn’t been finalized and must go through a public comment period, proposes to transfer some space-related item—spacecraft capable of in-space docking, grappling, and refueling, autonomous collision avoidance, and autonomous detection of ground vehicles and aircraft—from the highly restrictive State Department’s US Munitions List to the more flexible Commerce Control List.

Biden administration curtails controls on some space-related exports Read More »

amazon-exec-tells-employees-to-work-elsewhere-if-they-dislike-rto-policy

Amazon exec tells employees to work elsewhere if they dislike RTO policy

Amazon, AWS, Policy, return-to-office / /

Amazon workers are being reminded that they can find work elsewhere if they’re unhappy with Amazon’s return-to-office (RTO) mandate.

In September, Amazon told staff that they’ll have to RTO five days a week starting in 2025. Amazon employees are currently allowed to work remotely twice a week. A memo from CEO Andy Jassy announcing the policy change said that “it’s easier for our teammates to learn, model, practice, and strengthen our culture” when working at the office.

On Thursday, at what Reuters described as an “all-hands meeting” for Amazon Web Services (AWS), AWS CEO Matt Garman reportedly told workers:

If there are people who just don’t work well in that environment and don’t want to, that’s okay, there are other companies around.

Garman said that he didn’t “mean that in a bad way,” however, adding: “We want to be in an environment where we’re working together. When we want to really, really innovate on interesting products, I have not seen an ability for us to do that when we’re not in-person.”

Interestingly, Garman’s comments about dissatisfaction with the RTO policy coincided with him claiming that 9 out of 10 Amazon employees that he spoke to are in support of the RTO mandate, Reuters reported.

Some suspect RTO mandates are attempts to make workers quit

Amazon has faced resistance to RTO since pandemic restrictions were lifted. Like workers at other companies, some Amazon employees have publicly wondered if strict in-office policies are being enacted as attempts to reduce headcount without layoffs.

In July 2023, Amazon started requiring employees to work in their team’s central hub location (as opposed to remotely or in an office that may be closer to where they reside). Amazon reportedly told workers that if they didn’t comply or find a new job internally, they’d be considered a “voluntary resignation,” per a Slack message that Business Insider reportedly viewed. And many Amazon employees have already reported considering looking for a new job due to the impending RTO requirements.

However, employers like Amazon “can face an array of legal consequences for encouraging workers to quit via their RTO policies,” Helen D. (Heidi) Reavis, managing partner at Reavis Page Jump LLP, an employment, dispute resolution, and media law firm, told Ars Technica:

Amazon exec tells employees to work elsewhere if they dislike RTO policy Read More »

eu-considers-calculating-x-fines-by-including-revenue-from-musk’s-other-firms

EU considers calculating X fines by including revenue from Musk’s other firms

Digital Services Act, elon musk x, Policy / /

“After Breton resigned in September, he bequeathed his fining powers to competition and digital boss Margrethe Vestager. Decisions on the penalties and how they are calculated would ultimately lie with Vestager,” Bloomberg wrote. The European Commission would have the final say.

“The commission hasn’t yet decided whether to penalize X, and the size of any potential fine is still under discussion,” Bloomberg wrote, citing its anonymous sources. “Penalties may be avoided if X finds ways to satisfy the watchdog’s concerns.”

X says SpaceX revenue should be off-limits

Although X faces potential DSA fines, it will avoid penalties under the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). The European Commission announced yesterday that X does not “qualify as a gatekeeper in relation to its online social networking service, given that the investigation revealed that X is not an important gateway for business users to reach end users.”

But documents related to the DMA probe of X raise the possibility of treating multiple Musk-led companies as a single entity called the “Musk Group” for compliance purposes. In a March 2024 letter to Musk and X Holdings Corp., “the Commission set out its preliminary views on the possible designation of Mr. Elon Musk and the companies that he controls (‘the Musk Group’) as a gatekeeper,” according to a document signed by Breton.

X has argued that it wouldn’t make sense to include Musk’s other companies in revenue calculations when issuing penalties. “X Holdings Corp. submits that the combined market value of the Musk Group does not accurately reflect X’s monetization potential in the Union or its financial capacity,” the document said. “In particular, it argues that X and SpaceX provide entirely different services to entirely different users, so that there is no gateway effect, and that the undertakings controlled by Mr. Elon Musk ‘do not form one financial front, as the DMA presumes.'”

We contacted X and SpaceX today and will update this article if they provide any comment.

EU considers calculating X fines by including revenue from Musk’s other firms Read More »