Tech
The U.S. Built A Blueprint To Avoid Civilian War Casualties. Trump Officials Scrapped It.
from the avoidable-tragedies dept
This story was originally published by ProPublica. Republished under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.
Images from the missile strike in southern Iran were more horrifying than any of the case studies Air Force combat veteran Wes J. Bryant had pored over in his mission to overhaul how the U.S. military safeguards civilian life.
Parents wept over their children’s bodies. Crushed desks and blood-stained backpacks poked through the rubble. The death toll from the attack on an elementary school in Minab climbed past 165, most of them under age 12, with nearly 100 others wounded, according to Iranian health officials. Photos of small coffins and rows of fresh graves went viral, a devastating emblem of Day 1 in the open-ended U.S.-Israeli war in Iran.
Bryant, a former special operations targeting specialist, said he couldn’t help but think of what-ifs as he monitored fallout from the Feb. 28 attack.
Just over a year ago, he had been a senior adviser in an ambitious new Defense Department program aimed at reducing civilian harm during operations. Finally, Bryant said, the military was getting serious about reforms. He worked out of a newly opened Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, where his supervisor was a veteran strike-team targeter who had served as a United Nations war crimes investigator.
Today, that momentum is gone. Bryant was forced out of government in cuts last spring. The civilian protection mission was dissolved as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made “lethality” a top priority. And the world has witnessed a tragedy in Minab that, if U.S. responsibility is confirmed, would be the most civilians killed by the military in a single attack in decades.
Dismantling the fledgling harm-reduction effort, defense analysts say, is among several ways the Trump administration has reorganized national security around two principles: more aggression, less accountability.
Trump and his aides lowered the authorization level for lethal force, broadened target categories, inflated threat assessments and fired inspectors general, according to more than a dozen current and former national security personnel. Nearly all spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.
“We’re departing from the rules and norms that we’ve tried to establish as a global community since at least World War II,” Bryant said. “There’s zero accountability.”
Citing open-source intelligence and government officials, several news outlets have concluded that the strike in Minab most likely was carried out by the United States. President Donald Trump, without providing evidence, told reporters March 7 that it was “done by Iran.” Hegseth, standing next to the president aboard Air Force One, said the matter was under investigation.
The next day, the open-source research outfit Bellingcat said it had authenticated a video showing a Tomahawk missile strike next to the school in Minab. Iranian state media later showed fragments of a U.S.-made Tomahawk, as identified by Bellingcat and others, at the site. The United States is the only party to the conflict known to possess Tomahawks. U.N. human rights experts have called for an investigation into whether the attack violated international law.
The Department of Defense and White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Since the post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, successive U.S. administrations have faced controversies over civilian deaths. Defense officials eager to shed the legacy of the “forever wars” have periodically called for better protections for civilians, but there was no standardized framework until 2022, when Biden-era leaders adopted a strategy rooted in work that had begun under the first Trump presidency.
Formalized in a 2022 action plan and in a Defense Department instruction, the initiatives are known collectively as Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response, a clunky name often shortened to CHMR and pronounced “chimmer.” Around 200 personnel were assigned to the mission, including roughly 30 at the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, a coordination hub near the Pentagon.
The CHMR strategy calls for more in-depth planning before an attack, such as real-time mapping of the civilian presence in an area and in-depth analysis of the risks. After an operation, reports of harm to noncombatants would prompt an assessment or investigation to figure out what went wrong and then incorporate those lessons into training.
By the time Trump returned to power, harm-mitigation teams were embedded with regional commands and special operations leadership. During Senate confirmation hearings, several Trump nominees for top defense posts voiced support for the mission. Once in office, however, they stood by as the program was gutted, current and former national security officials said.
Around 90% of the CHMR mission is gone, former personnel said, with no more than a single adviser now at most commands. At Central Command, where a 10-person team was cut to one, “a handful” of the eliminated positions were backfilled to help with the Iran campaign. Defense officials can’t formally close the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence without congressional approval, but Bryant and others say it now exists mostly on paper.
“It has no mission or mandate or budget,” Bryant said.
Spike in Strikes
Global conflict monitors have since recorded a dramatic increase in deadly U.S. military operations. Even before the Iran campaign, the number of strikes worldwide since Trump returned to office had surpassed the total from all four years of Joe Biden’s presidency.
Had the Defense Department’s harm-reduction mission continued apace, current and former officials say, the policies almost certainly would’ve reduced the number of noncombatants harmed over the past year.
Beyond the moral considerations, they added, civilian casualties fuel militant recruiting and hinder intelligence-gathering. Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who commanded U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, explains the risk in an equation he calls “insurgent math”: For every innocent killed, at least 10 new enemies are created.
U.S.-Israeli strikes have already killed more than 1,200 civilians in Iran, including nearly 200 children, according to Human Rights Activists News Agency, a U.S.-based group that verifies casualties through a network in Iran. The group says hundreds more deaths are under review, a difficult process given Iran’s internet blackout and dangerous conditions.
Defense analysts say the civilian toll of the Iran campaign, on top of dozens of recent noncombatant casualties in Yemen and Somalia, reopens dark chapters from the “war on terror” that had prompted reforms in the first place.
“It’s a recipe for disaster,” a senior counterterrorism official who left the government a few months ago said of the Trump administration’s yearlong bombing spree. “It’s ‘Groundhog Day’ — every day we’re just killing people and making more enemies.”
In 2015, two dozen patients and 14 staff members were killed when a heavily armed U.S. gunship fired for over an hour on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in northern Afghanistan, a disaster that has become a cautionary tale for military planners.
“Our patients burned in their beds, our medical staff were decapitated or lost limbs. Others were shot from the air while they fled the burning building,” the international aid group said in a report about the destruction of its trauma center in Kunduz.
A U.S. military investigation found that multiple human and systems errors had resulted in the strike team mistaking the building for a Taliban target. The Obama administration apologized and offered payouts of $6,000 to families of the dead.
Human rights advocates had hoped the Kunduz debacle would force the U.S. military into taking concrete steps to protect civilians during U.S. combat operations. Within a couple years, however, the issue came roaring back with high civilian casualties in U.S.-led efforts to dislodge Islamic State extremists from strongholds in Syria and Iraq.
In a single week in March 2017, U.S. operations resulted in three incidents of mass civilian casualties: A drone attack on a mosque in Syria killed around 50; a strike in another part of Syria killed 40 in a school filled with displaced families; and bombing in the Iraqi city of Mosul led to a building collapse that killed more than 100 people taking shelter inside.
In heavy U.S. fighting to break Islamic State control over the Syrian city of Raqqa, “military leaders too often lacked a complete picture of conditions on the ground; too often waved off reports of civilian casualties; and too rarely learned any lessons from strikes gone wrong,” according to an analysis by the Pentagon-adjacent Rand Corp. think tank.
“Do It Right Now”
Under pressure from lawmakers, Trump’s then-Defense Secretary James Mattis ordered a review of civilian casualty protocols.
Released in 2019, the review Mattis launched was seen by some advocacy groups as narrow in scope but still a step in the right direction. Yet the issue soon dropped from national discourse, overshadowed by the coronavirus pandemic and landmark racial justice protests.
During the Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in August 2021, a missile strike in Kabul killed an aid worker and nine of his relatives, including seven children. Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin apologized and said the department would “endeavor to learn from this horrible mistake.”
That incident, along with a New York Times investigative series into deaths from U.S. airstrikes, spurred the adoption of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response action plan in 2022. When they established the new Civilian Protection Center of Excellence the next year, defense officials tapped Michael McNerney — the lead author of the blunt RAND report — to be its director.
“The strike against the aid worker and his family in Kabul pushed Austin to say, ‘Do it right now,’” Bryant said.
The first harm-mitigation teams were assigned to leaders in charge of some of the military’s most sensitive counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering operations: Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida; the Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and Africa Command in Stuttgart, Germany.
A former CHMR adviser who joined in 2024 after a career in international conflict work said he was reassured to find a serious campaign with a $7 million budget and deep expertise. The adviser spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.
Only a few years before, he recalled, he’d had to plead with the Pentagon to pay attention. “It was like a back-of-the-envelope thing — the cost of a Hellfire missile and the cost of hiring people to work on this.”
Bryant became the de facto liaison between the harm-mitigation team and special operations commanders. In December, he described the experience in detail in a private briefing for aides of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who had sought information on civilian casualty protocols involving boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea.
Bryant’s notes from the briefing, reviewed by ProPublica, describe an embrace of the CHMR mission by Adm. Frank Bradley, who at the time was head of the Joint Special Operations Command. In October, Bradley was promoted to lead Special Operations Command.
At the end of 2024 and into early 2025, Bryant worked closely with the commander’s staff. The notes describe Bradley as “incredibly supportive” of the three-person CHMR team embedded in his command.
Bradley, Bryant wrote, directed “comprehensive lookbacks” on civilian casualties in errant strikes and used the findings to mandate changes. He also introduced training on how to integrate harm prevention and international law into operations against high-value targets. “We viewed Bradley as a model,” Bryant said.
Still, the military remained slow to offer compensation to victims and some of the new policies were difficult to independently monitor, according to a report by the Stimson Center, a foreign policy think tank. The CHMR program also faced opposition from critics who say civilian protections are already baked into laws of war and targeting protocols; the argument is that extra oversight “could have a chilling effect” on commanders’ abilities to quickly tailor operations.
To keep reforms on track, Bryant said, CHMR advisers would have to break through a culture of denial among leaders who pride themselves on precision and moral authority.
“The initial gut response of all commands,” Bryant said, “is: ‘No, we didn’t kill civilians.’”
Reforms Unraveled
As the Trump administration returned to the White House pledging deep cuts across the federal government, military and political leaders scrambled to preserve the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response framework.
At first, CHMR advisers were heartened by Senate confirmation hearings where Trump’s nominees for senior defense posts affirmed support for civilian protections.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote during his confirmation that commanders “see positive impacts from the program.” Elbridge Colby, undersecretary of defense for policy, wrote that it’s in the national interest to “seek to reduce civilian harm to the degree possible.”
When questioned about cuts to the CHMR mission at a hearing last summer, U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, head of Central Command, said he was committed to integrating the ideas as “part of our culture.”
Despite the top-level support, current and former officials say, the CHMR mission didn’t stand a chance under Hegseth’s signature lethality doctrine.
The former Fox News personality, who served as an Army National Guard infantry officer in Iraq and Afghanistan, disdains rules of engagement and other guardrails as constraining to the “warrior ethos.” He has defended U.S. troops accused of war crimes, including a Navy SEAL charged with stabbing an imprisoned teenage militant to death and then posing for a photo with the corpse.
A month after taking charge, Hegseth fired the military’s top judge advocate generals, known as JAGs, who provide guidance to keep operations in line with U.S. or international law. Hegseth has described the attorneys as “roadblocks” and used the term “jagoff.”
At the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, the staff tried in vain to save the program. At one point, Bryant said, he even floated the idea of renaming it the “Center for Precision Warfare” to put the mission in terms Hegseth wouldn’t consider “woke.”
By late February 2025, the CHMR mission was imploding, say current and former defense personnel.
Shortly before his job was eliminated, Bryant openly spoke out against the cuts in The Washington Post and Boston Globe, which he said landed him in deep trouble at the Pentagon. He was placed on leave in March, his security clearance at risk of revocation.
Bryant formally resigned in September and has since become a vocal critic of the administration’s defense policies. In columns and on TV, he warns that Hegseth’s cavalier attitude toward the rule of law and civilian protections is corroding military professionalism.
Bryant said it was hard to watch Bradley, the special operations commander and enthusiastic adopter of CHMR, defending a controversial “double-tap” on an alleged drug boat in which survivors of a first strike were killed in a follow-up hit. Legal experts have said such strikes could violate laws of warfare. Bradley did not respond to a request for comment.
“Everything else starts slipping when you have this culture of higher tolerance for civilian casualties,” Bryant said.
Concerns were renewed in early 2025 with the Trump administration’s revived counterterrorism campaign against Islamist militants regrouping in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Last April, a U.S. air strike hit a migrant detention center in northwestern Yemen, killing at least 61 African migrants and injuring dozens of others in what Amnesty International says “qualifies as an indiscriminate attack and should be investigated as a war crime.”
Operations in Somalia also have become more lethal. In 2024, Biden’s last year in office, conflict monitors recorded 21 strikes in Somalia, with a combined death toll of 189. In year one of Trump’s second term, the U.S. carried out at least 125 strikes, with reported fatalities as high as 359, according to the New America think tank, which monitors counterterrorism operations.
“It is a strategy focused primarily on killing people,” said Alexander Palmer, a terrorism researcher at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Last September, the U.S. military announced an attack in northeastern Somalia targeting a weapons dealer for the Islamist militia Al-Shabaab, a U.S.-designated terrorist group. On the ground, however, villagers said the missile strike incinerated Omar Abdullahi, a respected elder nicknamed “Omar Peacemaker” for his role as a clan mediator.
After the death, the U.S. military released no details, citing operational security.
“The U.S. killed an innocent man without proof or remorse,” Abdullahi’s brother, Ali, told Somali news outlets. “He preached peace, not war. Now his blood stains our soil.”
In Iran, former personnel say, the CHMR mission could have made a difference.
Under the scrapped harm-prevention framework, they said, plans for civilian protection would’ve begun months ago, when orders to draw up a potential Iran campaign likely came down from the White House and Pentagon.
CHMR personnel across commands would immediately begin a detailed mapping of what planners call “the civilian environment,” in this case a picture of the infrastructure and movements of ordinary Iranians. They would also check and update the “no-strike list,” which names civilian targets such as schools and hospitals that are strictly off-limits.
One key question is whether the school was on the no-strike list. It sits a few yards from a naval base for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The building was formerly part of the base, though it has been marked on maps as a school since at least 2013, according to visual forensics investigations.
“Whoever ‘hits the button’ on a Tomahawk — they’re part of a system,” the former adviser said. “What you want is for that person to feel really confident that when they hit that button, they’re not going to hit schoolchildren.”
If the guardrails failed and the Defense Department faced a disaster like the school strike, Bryant said, CHMR advisers would’ve jumped in to help with transparent public statements and an immediate inquiry.
Instead, he called the Trump administration’s response to the attack “shameful.”
“It’s back to where we were years ago,” Bryant said. If confirmed, “this will go down as one of the most egregious failures in targeting and civilian harm-mitigation in modern U.S. history.”
Filed Under: civilian casualties, civilian protection, dod, donald trump, iran, pete hegseth, trump administration, war crimes, wes bryant
Tech
Goddard’s Leadership: From Innovation to Isolation
There’s a moment in John Williams’s Star Wars overture when the brass surges upward. You don’t just hear it; you feel propulsion turning into pure possibility.
On 16 March 1926, in a snow-dusted field in Auburn, Mass., Robert Goddard created an earlier version of that same feeling. His first liquid-fueled rocket—a spindly, three meter tangle of pipes and tanks—lifted off, climbed about 12.5 meters, traveled roughly 56 meters downrange, and crashed into the frozen ground after 2.5 seconds. A few witnesses, Goddard’s helpers, shivered in the cold. The little machine defied common sense. It rose through the air with nothing to push against. Anyone who still insisted spaceflight was impossible now faced a question: Why had this contraption risen at all?
Six years earlier, The New York Times had ridiculed Goddard, declaring that rockets could never work in a vacuum and implying that he had somehow forgotten high-school physics. Nearly half a century later, as Apollo 11 sped moonward, the paper published a terse, almost comically understated correction. By then, Goddard had been dead for 24 years.
The Alpha Trap
Breakthroughs often demand qualities that facilitate early success but later become obstacles. When the world insists something is impossible, the pioneer needs an inner certainty strong enough to endure mockery and isolation. Later, though, that certainty can become a liability. Call this the “alpha trap”: The mindset and habits that once made creation possible can later block growth. This “alpha” has nothing to do with dominance or bravado. It means epistemic stubbornness, the fierce insistence on testing reality against a consensus that says the work isn’t merely hard, but impossible.
Such efforts often begin with a lone visionary. But most ideas eventually need a team. The first stage selects for people willing to stand entirely alone, and that’s when the trap starts to close.
The mockery scarred Goddard. It drove him inward, toward a small circle of confidants. Through the early 1930s, his rockets climbed higher each year. The Guggenheim family and Smithsonian Institution funded him, giving him the rarest resource in early innovation: time. By the mid-1930s, his designs were reaching more than a thousand meters.
But the work gradually changed. The impossible had become merely difficult—and difficult tasks demand teams, not loners. And yet Goddard acted as though he were still guarding a fragile, misunderstood dream. He resisted collaboration and despite conversations with the U.S. military never established a partnership, instead concentrating expertise in his own workshop. Elsewhere in the United States more freewheeling amateurs and academics partnered to develop early liquid-propelled and later solid-fuel rockets.
Meanwhile, on the Baltic coast at Peenemünde, hundreds of German engineers divided labor into synchronized streams of propulsion, guidance, structures, testing, and production. By 1942, they were flight-testing the V-2. Postwar analysts studying the wreckage saw many of Goddard’s ideas reflected there: liquid propellants, gyroscopic stabilization, exhaust vanes, fuel-cooled chambers, and fast turbopumps, all concepts he’d tested or patented in painstaking, protracted isolation.
Doctor’s Orders
The alpha trap had caught others before him. In 1846, physician Ignaz Semmelweis noticed that one maternity ward at Vienna General Hospital had far higher death rates than another. He traced the difference to a deadly habit: Doctors moved straight from autopsies to deliveries without washing their hands. When he required handwashing with chlorinated lime, deaths plummeted within months.
But the medical establishment resisted. Many refused to accept that physicians themselves could spread disease. Rejection embittered Semmelweis. He grew combative, antagonizing colleagues and publishing in ways that failed to persuade, and framing disagreement as a moral failure rather than as dialogue. Brilliant scientifically, he was disastrous socially. Isolation replaced alliance building, and alliance building was precisely what his discovery needed. In 1865, he died in an asylum, his ideas dismissed as delusions. Acceptance, though, came later through the collaborative networks of Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur.
The same trait that lets an inventor defy consensus can also blind them to what they need next. When allies became essential, Semmelweis’s anger slowed adoption. When scale became essential, Goddard’s secrecy slowed diffusion. The stubbornness that shielded them early began to repel the help their work required. Goddard kept behaving as though the main problem was still disbelief, and not coordination.
Both men leave visionary and cautionary legacies. A NASA Center bears Goddard’s name despite his isolation; Semmelweis is remembered as the doctor who could have saved countless lives had he found a way to connect with his colleagues rather than combat them.
We love to celebrate the lone genius, yet we depend on teams to bring the flame of genius to the people. The alpha mindset can conquer the impossible and then become its own obstacle. Both men were right about their breakthroughs. But ideas born in solitude must eventually live among multitudes. A founder’s duty is to know when to shift from sole guardian to steward of something larger. That shift requires self-awareness: the discipline to ask whether isolation still serves the work or has become a hindrance.
Escaping the alpha trap means treating stubbornness as an instrument, not an identity. Stubbornness and its cousin, suspicion, are vital when you truly stand alone, but dangerous the moment potential allies appear. Goddard’s dream touched the stars, but it took teams of others to lift it there. And that orchestral surge in Star Wars? It swells from the ensemble, not a single bold trumpet.
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Tech
Grammarly wisely killed off feature that plagiarized top writers' voices
Even the folks behind generative AI writing are embarrassed at how bad it is, but Grammarly ripping off the voices of well-known modern writers is indicative of a much larger problem.

Grammarly turned people — both living and dead — into ghost editors
Apparently, Grammarly had a feature that encouraged users to rip off other well-known writers’ styles. TechCrunch has a great piece on it, in which you find out that Grammarly would offer “expert review” — sans experts.
It seems that, as you wrote, the tool would pop in and suggest revisions from the perspective of experts. Of course, the experts in question, like Platformer’s Casey Newton didn’t know this was happening.
Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums
Tech
Are Wired Headphones Hot Again? Grado Signature S550 Launch at CanJam NYC 2026 Says Yes
Thousands of people packed the ballroom of the New York Marriott Marquis in Times Square for CanJam NYC 2026, the largest headphone show in North America. From the moment the doors opened each morning last weekend, the listening tables were surrounded three and four deep with enthusiasts waiting to hear the latest gear. And yet, walking the show floor for even ten minutes revealed something that would have sounded ridiculous just a few years ago: wired headphones are becoming even more popular?
Which makes the debut of the Grado Signature S550 Open-back Headphones feel less like nostalgia and more like a statement about where serious listening is headed next.

Some audiophiles and the Head-Fi crowd will undoubtedly scoff at the headline. To many of us who never abandoned cables in the first place, the idea that wired headphones are “back” is almost comical. We kept using them while the rest of the world drowned in a tidal wave of Bluetooth earbuds, ANC travel cans, and disposable wireless gadgets that needed charging every few hours.
But something interesting is happening outside the audiophile bubble.
Even the mainstream media is starting to notice. A feature published this week by BBC argued that the cable may actually have the advantage again, noting bluntly that “wired headphones offer better sound quality than Bluetooth” and avoid many of the compromises inherent in wireless audio transmission.
That realization was impossible to ignore at CanJam NYC 2026. The crowds weren’t just clustered around wireless experiments or streaming gear. They were lining up to hear wired headphones and IEMs from companies like Grado, Audeze, HiFiMAN, Meze, Campfire Audio, and dozens of smaller builders pushing the limits of what a simple cable and a great driver can do.
And when the Grado table unveiled the Signature S550, the reaction from the crowd made one thing clear.
The cable never really died.
It just waited for people to remember what better sound actually feels like.
Grado Signature S550 Arrives as the Cable Refuses to Die

Grado Labs continues to expand its Signature Series with the $995 Signature S550, an open-back dynamic headphone that sticks closely to the company’s long standing Brooklyn playbook while introducing a slightly more relaxed tonal balance. As the fourth model in the Signature line, the S550 carries forward the core Grado philosophy: low mass dynamic drivers, fast transient response, and a presentation that favors speed, clarity, and immediacy over studio safe politeness.
The shift this time comes down to voicing.
Where some Grado models lean forward and a little impatient, the S550 pulls back just enough to add a touch more warmth and a smoother top end while preserving the punch and energy the brand is known for. Having already spent time with the Signature S950, which impressed with its control and refinement, the S550 feels like a slightly more forgiving interpretation of the same formula designed for longer listening sessions.
Under the hood sits Grado’s 50mm S2 dynamic driver, paired with an all wood open back enclosure. Instead of launching an entirely new driver platform, Grado focused on refining how the existing S2 interacts with the acoustic behavior of the wooden housing. The goal is simple and very Grado: preserve speed, detail, and openness while nudging the tonal balance toward a warmer and more approachable presentation.
The S550 also introduces Grado’s new detachable Silver cable, a welcome shift away from the brand’s historically stubborn fixed leads. Each earcup uses a 4 pin balanced mini XLR connector, allowing users to swap cables depending on their source. The included cable terminates in 3.5mm with a 6.3mm adapter, making it easy to pair with portable players, desktop DAC amps, and traditional headphone outputs.
Pad rolling is still very much part of the Grado experience. The S550 ships with new B cushions, but remains compatible with the company’s S, F, L, and G pads, each subtly reshaping soundstage width, bass weight, and treble energy.

On paper, the numbers are solid. The S550 uses a 38 ohm driver with 112dB sensitivity, frequency response rated from 6 Hz to 44 kHz, total harmonic distortion under 0.2 percent at 100dB, and an impressively tight 0.005dB driver matching tolerance. Weight comes in at 335 grams without the cable, which keeps it manageable for a full size open back design.
This is not a headphone that demands a nuclear reactor for amplification. With its high sensitivity and moderate impedance, the S550 should play nicely with portable DAPs, desktop DAC amps, and even competent integrated amplifier headphone stages.
When I walked into CanJam NYC 2026 about twenty minutes before the show officially opened, Rich Grado spotted me immediately and waved me over.
“Sit down. Get comfortable. Don’t touch anything quite yet.”
Classic Brooklyn hospitality.

The listening chain was courtesy of Geshelli Labs, and because I showed up early, I had a rare window with the S550 before the show floor turned into chaos.
Getting there early wasn’t exactly optional. NJ Transit’s ongoing “infrastructure improvements” — which is a polite way of saying the weekend trains run whenever they feel like it, forced me onto a much earlier ride from the Jersey Shore. For once, their mistakes worked in my favor.
Nu? Think Warm Bialy and Black Coffee, Not Extra Hot Pastrami
So how did the Signature S550 actually sound?
Different. Immediately different from the S950.
Grado’s claim about a calmer voicing holds up. The S550 doesn’t jump forward the way some of the brand’s more aggressive models can. It’s still unmistakably Grado, but the edges are rounded just enough to make the presentation feel more relaxed and a little warmer. That said, I’m willing to wager the Geshelli Labs signal chain had a hand in that as well.
What I heard, I liked.

Bass was tight and well controlled, never bloated. The open back design still allowed for surprisingly good passive isolation, which helped keep the focus on the music even as the room started filling up. Comfort was solid too. The headband felt supportive, and the weight distribution didn’t create any pressure hotspots during the session.
Vocals came through smooth and clean. Maybe even a little too smooth at times, though again that could easily be the system voicing. The top end had zero hardness, which is not always a given with Grado if the pairing isn’t right.
Where the S550 really clicked was with rock, electronic music, and jazz. Electric guitars had bite without turning sharp, electronic tracks had pace and structure, and jazz recordings carried that sense of space and flow that open back designs tend to handle well when the tuning is right.
My instinct says these will respond well to a brighter or more analytical amplifier and DAC, something that pushes a bit more illumination into the upper registers. That’s already on the list for when the review sample arrives, which should be happening soon.
One thing feels clear after hearing them.
Grado is firing on all cylinders right now.
And that’s exactly what needed to happen. The wired headphone category is more competitive than it’s been in years, with serious pressure coming from Audeze, Meze, HiFiMAN, and a growing number of boutique builders.
One more thing before the vinyl crowd starts emailing me.
Headphones aren’t the only thing Grado has cooking this quarter.
If you’re the type who still flips records instead of swiping playlists, you might want to pay attention to what’s coming next. Brooklyn isn’t done yet.
Where to buy the Grado Signature S550: $995 at Crutchfield | Grado Labs
Related Reading:
Tech
Opinion: You couldn’t pay me to leave Washington state, and I’d pay more to stay

Editor’s note: GeekWire publishes guest opinions to foster informed discussion and highlight a diversity of perspectives on issues shaping the tech and startup community. If you’re interested in submitting a guest column, email us at tips@geekwire.com. Submissions are reviewed by our editorial team for relevance and editorial standards.
At a meeting in San Francisco a few months ago, an icebreaker asked where we’d live if we could live anywhere in the world. I was the only one in the room whose answer was the same place I already call home. Over the years, opportunities have tried to entice me away, and I’ve turned down offers worth multiples of what I was earning to stay. I’m certain I’d have been in a position to be affected by a higher tax bracket sooner if I had followed them, but I’m equally certain it would not have made me happier.
My relationship with Washington started when I fell in love with Seattle during a visit in 2004. Shortly after, I moved to Alaska, co-founded my first company, and when it was acquired by a Seattle startup in 2006, my dream of living here came true. That move changed my life. It landed me in a place that felt alive with lush beauty, non-ostentatious ambition, and a kind of defiantly clever creativity, all surrounded by pioneers building new things that mattered. In high school and college I had followed the story of Microsoft and the early engineers who helped create an entire technology ecosystem. At the same time I of course loved the music coming from the Seattle scene. Washington felt like a place where innovation could coexist with culture, where a generation of makers and artists fostered the foundations of the next. Twenty years of living here later, that still feels true.
I’ve done pretty well here. I’ve founded companies here and worked alongside venture capitalists at Madrona Venture Labs and Pioneer Square Labs and seen firsthand how startup ecosystems actually work. For years I hoped I might someday be able to invest myself, and now I can. I’m excited to keep participating in the same cycle of building that drew me here in the first place. But one of the things I love most about this region is that it’s never been just a tech ecosystem.
Some of the people I care most about in this community are artists, musicians, and creatives. They shape the culture and spirit of this place in ways no economic model can capture. As someone who has benefited enormously from working in technology and AI, I feel a real responsibility to support the broader community that makes this region vibrant. Honestly, it’s that community that has kept me from burning out during the hardest stretches of my career.
That’s why my view on Washington’s proposed tax on very high incomes is simple: if I’ve found myself in the position of making that much in a year, I can afford to contribute a little more to the place that helped make that circumstance possible.
As someone who started my career in Georgia, a red state that does have personal income taxes, it’s always struck me as strangely backward that we don’t. People here have long pointed out that Washington’s tax system is among the most regressive in the country. In that context, and after observing the past 20 years of attempts at a fix, the proposed wealth tax feels like one of the few realistic ways to make the system more balanced.
Is the proposal perfect? Of course not. Washington’s laws and constitution make this kind of policy exceptionally hard to design. But as I once heard at a talk at Y Combinator in 2008, perfect is the enemy of good enough, and sometimes good enough is the enemy of at all. “Imperfect” is not a compelling argument for doing nothing forever.
I’m certainly not an expert on this topic. But I also don’t think my job is to pretend I know more about tax design than the people whose job is to work on it. We elect legislators to make difficult tradeoffs in public and represent the interests of the entire community. I take that process seriously and trust democratic representatives far more than I trust whatever pithy inflammatory argument happens to be boosted by algorithms on social media. Governing, like building companies, is iterative. We try things. We improve them. If something doesn’t work, we fix it or elect new people and try again. We act with agency.
I keep hearing that taxes like this will drive founders and business away, that investors will leave, that Washington will stop being a place where ambitious or creative people build things. Whether or not you can scrounge up data to support that case, I’m at best skeptical. But for me at least, as someone who has actually started companies, that just feels obviously wrong.
Founders don’t decide where to build by researching marginal tax rates. They build from their homes, in coffee shops or garages, where their supportive friends and collaborators live. They build where their community is. They build where their loved ones can live and where they can survive the grind of years of stressful and uncertain work. Building a company is too consuming and too personal to optimize around a hypothetical line item on a spreadsheet of imagined future outcomes.
One of the things I love most about Washington is that it doesn’t feel like a place that belongs to just one kind of person. It’s beautifully wild, culturally and environmentally diverse, and a little weird in the best ways. It has quirky cities and cozy neighborhoods, incredible scenery and nature, and a long tradition of people showing up to build things, have them literally burn down, and rebuild them one story up. In investor parlance this is our unfair advantage. People will keep moving here because of all of our natural assets. Some will start companies. Some will work at successful ones. Some will sell shovels. Some will strike gold.
What I care about for myself is that finding wealth here comes with a sense of reciprocity. If someone becomes extremely highly compensated in Washington and decides that a reasonable tax on their very high income means they no longer want to be part of this place, fine! That’s their choice. I’m certainly not leaving. Some have said “just donate.” I do. But anyone who has run a business knows that one-time lump sums are not the predictable source of funds required to plan a future and sustain an ecosystem.
It’s worth saying that obviously supporting this proposal doesn’t mean I wouldn’t mind some changes. I’d especially like to see clearer connections between new revenue and the quality-of-life issues that determine whether Washington remains livable: housing, transportation, education, and the ability for people from many backgrounds and situations to stay rooted here. We should measure and adjust accordingly.
Ultimately for me, it comes down to this: I feel lucky to be here. A thriving community pulled me into this region and gave me the chance to build new things, work alongside investors I respect, among wonderful and creative people I love, and eventually become someone who can pay it forward. I benefited from what earlier generations built here and I feel responsible to the next. This is just my personal perspective. I can’t speak for everyone affected by this policy proposal or even for those who hope that one day they might. But if my circumstances and lifestyle make it easy to afford to contribute more to the place that helped shape the best years of my life, I think I should.
And if this proposed bug fix to a design flaw in our revenue collection code is enough to make someone give up on Washington, sell the boat, and move to Florida, cool. Personally, I’d be happy to invest in the next cohort of folks who love it here as much as I do and want to build a life in this magical place.
Related:
Tech
California Is Cracking Down On Drivers With Plates From One Specific State
Wealthy Californian luxury car owners looking to avoid taxes have taken advantage of a loophole that allows them to register their cars in other states, with Montana being a particularly popular place to seek registrations. In response, Californian authorities are launching a new crackdown on the loophole. The state’s Department of Tax and Fee Administration has announced that it is examining every sale made by a Californian dealership that resulted in a car being given Montana plates since 2023, both to LLCs and to private customers.
In a statement, the DMV director Steve Gordon said he would “encourage all Californians to do the right thing,” and CDTFA director Trista Gonzalez noted that the state relies on sales tax “to support our schools, roads, public safety, and essential services that all Californians depend on.” So far, the DMV has opened 81 criminal investigations into the practice, including a recent felony complaint against 14 defendants. That complaint included 57 counts, including perjury, filing false sales tax returns, and conspiracy to commit sales tax evasion.
As well as luxury cars, RVs have reportedly been purchased using the “Montana loophole.” The loophole involves buyers setting up LLCs in Montana, allowing them to title the car within the state. They then falsely claim that the car is being shipped from California to Montana, which does not have a statewide sales tax. According to the CDTFA, this practice currently means that California loses out on around $10 million in sales tax revenue every year.
Beverly Hills dealers are particularly fond of the Montana loophole
Dealers in certain parts of California have exploited the loophole particularly frequently, with the CDTFA reporting that Beverly Hills saw the highest number of new car registrations with Montana purchasers. Costa Mesa wasn’t far behind, while Van Nuys also saw a particularly high number of Montana registrations.
Montana isn’t the only state that shady dealers have allegedly used to swerve taxes either: Oregon, Delaware, New Hampshire, and Alaska have also reportedly been used for similar avoidance schemes, since they’re also among the cheapest places to register new cars. Investigators have said that they are also looking to recover unpaid taxes from buyers fraudulently registering their cars in these states.
While driving around California in a car with a Montana registration isn’t going to make you a police magnet, any Californian residents who recently bought a new car with Montana license plates should be concerned about the latest enforcement initiative. Owners caught evading taxes can be hit with significant fines, while dealers using the loophole can expect more lawsuits to be filed in the near future.
Tech
Love autocomplete in your texts? Research says its quietly changing your thoughts
We’ve all been there — thumbs mid-air, staring at a suggested word that somehow nailed what we were trying to say. So we tap it. Obviously. But a new study suggests those little taps might be doing more than saving us a few seconds.
Research out of Cornell Tech, published this week in Science Advances, found that AI-powered autocomplete suggestions don’t just change how you write — they nudge how you actually think. And you won’t even notice it happening.

What did the research actually find?
Researchers ran two large-scale experiments with over 2,500 participants, asking them to write short essays on spicy societal topics — think death penalty, fracking, GMOs, voting rights for felons.
Some participants got autocomplete suggestions secretly engineered to lean a certain direction, generated using a large language model from the GPT-3 and GPT-4 families. Others got nothing.
The result? People who wrote with the biased AI gradually warmed up to the AI’s positions. Not because they were convinced by arguments. Not because they read anything persuasive. Just because their phone kept finishing their thoughts for them.

Knowing the trick didn’t break the spell either
Now here’s the part that should make you put your phone down for a second. Researchers told some participants upfront the AI had a bias problem — a sort of “don’t say we didn’t warn you” disclaimer. Then they tried debriefing others afterward. In most misinformation studies, these approaches work like mental vaccines. This time, neither did a thing.
“Their attitudes about the issues still shifted,” said senior author Mor Naaman, who also noted autocomplete has exploded in scope — Gmail now offers to write entire emails on your behalf.
So next time your phone suggests you “totally support” something, maybe give that little blue word a second look. Your opinion might be one tap away from becoming someone else’s.
Tech
Emotiva BasX TA2+ Stereo Receiver Debuts With 135W Power, 24-bit DAC, HDMI ARC, and FM Tuner
Emotiva’s new BasX TA2+ stereo receiver arrives at an interesting moment for two channel audio. While traditional receivers have lost some of their momentum with consumers in the age of network amplifiers and streaming focused systems, there is still a clear demand for a single component that can anchor a living room setup and handle both music and television duties without complexity.
For listeners who want solid amplification, modern connectivity, and straightforward usability in one box, the receiver still makes sense. The BasX TA2+ is Emotiva’s latest attempt to deliver that balance.
Tennessee-based Emotiva has built its reputation since 2003 by focusing on performance, solid engineering, and long term reliability rather than boutique pricing or cosmetic excess. The company’s track record has been consistent: deliver real world sound quality and robust build at prices that remain accessible to serious listeners.
Emotiva’s first product entry for 2026 was the Differential Reference Design Series Stack, a four component system that includes a streamer, DAC, stereo preamp, and power amplifier designed to work together as a single ecosystem. The BasX TA2+ now follows as the company’s second product launch of the year, offering a more traditional but still modern solution for two channel systems.
Inside the Emotiva BasX TA2+: A Modern Stereo Receiver for Music and TV

As Emotiva describes it, the BasX TA2+ combines a preamp, DAC, FM tuner, and integrated amplifier into a single chassis. In simple terms, it’s a two channel stereo receiver on steroids.
The BasX TA2+ is aimed at listeners who want a flexible centerpiece for a high performance two channel or 2.1 system that can handle both music listening and TV duties without the need for multiple components.
It replaces the now discontinued BasX TA2 and is designed to serve as the heart of a modern stereo system. The TA2+ incorporates an analog preamp stage with outputs for external amplification if desired, an Analog Devices AD1955 DAC supporting up to 24-bit/192 kHz audio, and a high current Class A/B amplifier section. Expanded input connectivity rounds out the package, giving users the flexibility to connect multiple sources while delivering the kind of sonic performance normally associated with far more expensive integrated amplifiers.
Add a source and a capable pair of speakers such as Emotiva’s LB12 floorstanders with their vintage inspired swagger, and the BasX TA2+ becomes a straightforward path to a powerful and versatile stereo system.

What’s New?
The new generation BasX TA2+ builds on the flexibility of the original TA2 but adds several key upgrades aimed at modern systems:
- Balanced XLR analog inputs and outputs
- Balanced subwoofer output
- HDMI ARC for easier integration with TVs and improved audio performance
- USB C connectivity for current computers and many portable devices
- Improved analog bass management for more precise 2.1 system integration
- Quieter phono stage
- Metal remote control
Compatibility carried over from the previous TA2 includes three pairs of unbalanced RCA stereo analog line level inputs (the original TA2 offered four), along with one pair of stereo phono inputs that can be switched between moving coil and moving magnet cartridges.

Digital connectivity also continues from the TA2, including one coaxial S/PDIF input, two optical Toslink inputs, built-in Bluetooth, and an FM radio tuner.
“The BasX TA2+ is the heart and soul of a high performance stereo system,” said Dan Laufman, President of Emotiva. “We designed it to be a simple, robust solution for anyone ready to improve their listening experience with the utmost flexibility, no matter what sources are connected. Typical of Emotiva, we accomplished this at a price that is a fraction of similar, significantly more expensive models.”
Comparison

| Emotiva Model | BasX TA2+ (2026) | BasX TA2 (2023) |
| Product Type | Preamp/DAC/Tuner with Integrated Amplifier | Preamp/DAC/Tuner with Integrated Amplifier |
| Price | $1,299 | $1,099 |
| Amplifier Type | Class A/B | Class A/B |
| Amplifier Performance | 135 watts RMS / channel; into 8 Ohms, both channels driven, 20 Hz – 20 kHz, THD < 0.02%
250 watts RMS / channel; into 4 Ohms, both channels driven, at 1 kHz, THD < 1% Minimum load impedance: 4 Ohms; Rated impedance: 8 Ohms Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +/- 0.15 dB; 5 Hz to 80 kHz +0 / -2.1 dB. S/N ratio: 116 dB Gain: 29 dB |
135 watts RMS/channel; 8 Ohms; both channels driven; 20 Hz – 20 kHz; THD < 0.02%
200 watts RMS/channel; 4 Ohms; both channels driven; at 1 kHz; THD < 1% Minimum load impedance: 4 Ohms. Rated impedance: 8 Ohms Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +/- 0.15 dB; 5 Hz to 80 kHz +0/-1.8 dB. S/N ratio: 116 dB Gain: 29 dB |
| Analog Inputs | 3 pairs – Unbalanced (RCA) stereo analog line level inputs (Analog 1 through Analog 3).
1 pair – Balanced (XLR) stereo analog line level inputs (Bal). 1 pair – Stereo phono inputs (switchable; moving magnet or moving coil). 1 set – Home Theater Bypass inputs (front main channels plus subwoofer). 1 Tuner – FM (with external antenna input; 15 station presets). |
4 pairs – Unbalanced (RCA)level inputs (Analog 1 through Analog 4).
1 pair – Stereo phono inputs (switchable; moving magnet or moving coil). 1 set – Home Theater Bypass inputs (front main channels plus subwoofer). 1 Tuner – FM (with external antenna input; 15 station presets). |
| Digital Inputs | 1 – Digital coax (S/PDIF); stereo; 24-bit/192kHz
2 – Digital optical (Toslink); stereo; 24-bit/192kHz 1 – Digital USB (DAC input); stereo; 24-bit/192kHz 1 – Bluetooth receiver; Bluetooth 5, AptX, and AAC (antenna included). 1 – HDMI-ARC input; stereo (PCM 2.0) |
1 – Digital coax (S/PDIF); 24-bit/192kHz
2 – Digital optical (Toslink); 24-bit/192kHz 1 – Digital USB (DAC input); 24-bit/192kHz 1 – Bluetooth receiver up to 96k (Bluetooth 5, with AptX, AptX HD, and AAC support, antenna included). |
| Preamp Outputs | 1 pair – Unbalanced (RCA) stereo line level Preamp Outputs.
1 pair – Balanced (XLR) stereo line level Preamp Outputs. Both outputs are fed by a switchable analog 12 dB/octave high-pass filter, whose cutoff frequency can be set to anywhere between 40 Hz and 200 Hz. 1 – Unbalanced (RCA) line level summed Subwoofer Output. 1 – Balanced (XLR) line level summed Subwoofer Output. (Both outputs are fed by a switchable analog 12 dB/octave low-pass filter, whose cutoff frequency can be set to anywhere between 40 Hz and 200 Hz.) 1 – 1/8” (3.5mm) front panel stereo headphone output. |
1 pair – Line level main outputs (can be configured to Full Range or Bass Managed; Bass Managed has a 12 dB/octave active analog high-pass filter with cutoff configurable between 40 Hz and 200 Hz.)
1 – Summed subwoofer output (can be configured to be Full Range or Bass Managed; Bass Managed has a 12 dB/octave active analog low-pass filter with cutoff configurable between 40 Hz and 200 Hz.) 1 – 1/8” (3.5mm) front panel stereo headphone output. |
| Speaker Outputs | 1 pair – Audiophile-grade five-way binding posts which accept banana plugs, spade lugs, or bare wires. | 1 pair – Speaker outputs (fed from the same audio signal as the line level main outputs – can be configured to be either Full Range or Bass Managed; Bass Managed has a 12 dB/octave active analog high-pass filter with cutoff configurable between 40 Hz and 200 Hz.) |
| Line Level Analog Performance | Maximum output level (balanced and unbalanced outputs): 4 VRMS.
Frequency response: 20 Hz to 50 kHz +/- 0.25 dB. THD+noise: < 0.005% (A-weighted). IMD: < 0.004% (SMPTE). S/N ratio: > 120 dB. |
Maximum output level: 4 VRMS.
Frequency response: 5 Hz to 50 kHz +/- 0.04 dB. THD+noise: < 0.001% (A-weighted). IMD: < 0.004% (SMPTE). S/N ratio: > 120 dB. Crosstalk: < 90 dB. |
| Phono Input Analog Performance | 20 Hz to 20 kHz; ref standard RIAA curve (MM and MC)
THD+noise: < 0.010% (moving magnet; A-weighted); < 0.04% (moving coil; A-weighted) Gain (ref unity gain on main inputs; at 1 kHz): 44 dB (moving magnet); 55 dB (moving coil) S/N ratio: > 78 dB (ref 5 mV; moving magnet); > 58 dB (ref 0.5 mV; moving coil) Load Impedance: 47 kOhms (moving magnet); 47 Ohms or 100 Ohms (moving coil) |
20 Hz to 20 kHz; ref standard RIAA curve (MM and MC)
THD+noise: < 0.015% (MM; A-weighted); < 0.06% (MC; A-weighted) Gain (ref unity gain on main outputs at 1 kHz): 44 dB (MM); 55 dB (MC) S/N ratio: > 78 dB (ref 5 mV; MM); > 58 dB (ref 0.5 mV; MC) Load impedance: 47 kOhms (moving magnet); 47 Ohms or 100 Ohms (moving coil) |
| Digital Performance | 20 Hz to 20 kHz +/- 0.1 dB (44k sample rate)
20 Hz to 80 kHz + 0 /- 1 dB (192k sample rate) THD+noise: < 0.003% (A-weighted; all sample rates) IMD: < 0.007% (SMPTE). S/N ratio: > 110 dB. |
5 Hz to 20 kHz +/- 0.15 dB (44k sample rate). 5 Hz to 80 kHz +/- 0.25 dB (192k sample rate)
THD+noise: < 0.003% (A-weighted; all sample rates) IMD: < 0.007% (SMPTE). S/N ratio: > 110 dB ref rated output |
| Controls | Power: rocker switch; rear panel
Standby: front panel pushes button Two front panel push-buttons: Input Select; menu operation Front panel digital encoder knob: Volume, Tuning; menu operation. |
Power: rocker switch; rear panel
Standby: one front panel pushbutton Two front panel pushbuttons: Input Select; menu operation One front panel knob: Volume, Tuning, and menu operation. |
| Indicators | Display: high-visibility blue alphanumeric VFD display (dimmable).
LEDs – amber Standby LED; blue illuminated legend for |
Display: high-visibility blue alphanumeric VFD display (dimmable). |
| Remote Control | Compact, all-metal, full-function infrared remote control (which is powered by a single CR2025 button-cell battery). | Compact full-function infrared remote control (AAA batteries required). LEDs: amber Standby LED; blue illuminated legends for Input buttons and Headphone output. |
| Trigger Connections | 12 VDC trigger output
Trigger Input: accepts inputs between 5V and 12V AC or DC |
12 VDC trigger output
Trigger Input: accepts inputs between 5V and 12V AC or DC |
| Power | 115 VAC or 230 VAC @ 50 / 60 Hz (automatically detected).
The BasX TA2+ has a linear main power supply that accepts either 115 VAC or 230 VAC. |
Linear power supply that automatically detects and configures itself for either 115 VAC or 230 VAC 50/60 Hz operation. |
| Dimensions | 17” wide x 3-3/8” high (without feet) x 15-1/2” deep (without connectors)
17” wide x 4” high (including feet) x 15-1/2” deep (without connectors) |
17” wide x 3-3/8” high x 15-1/2” deep (unboxed; without feet; without connectors)
17” wide x 4” high x 15-1/2” deep (unboxed; with feet; without connectors). |
| Weight | 25 lbs | 25 lbs |

The Bottom Line
The Emotiva BasX TA2+ isn’t trying to be a streaming hub or a network amplifier. Instead, it doubles down on the classic stereo receiver formula and modernizes it with serious power, balanced connectivity, HDMI ARC, and a surprisingly capable MM and MC phono stage. With 135 watts per channel and both RCA and XLR inputs and outputs, it offers the kind of flexibility that many integrated amplifiers in this price range simply don’t.
What’s missing is just as important to understand. There’s no built in streaming, network control, or multiroom ecosystem, features that competitors from Onkyo, Integra, and Marantz often include at similar or even lower price points. If your system revolves around apps and wireless platforms, the TA2+ will feel a little old school.
But for listeners who prefer dedicated sources, turntables, and a powerful two channel centerpiece that can also integrate easily with a TV through HDMI ARC, the BasX TA2+ stands out. It’s a practical, high powered stereo receiver aimed squarely at music first listeners who want strong amplification, serious connectivity, and a straightforward path to a capable two channel or 2.1 system without spending several thousand dollars.
Price & Availability
The BasX TA2+ is available for $1,299 at Emotiva and worldwide through Authorized Distributors
Related Reading:
Tech
Expect to pay 16-inch MacBook Pro money for an iPhone Fold with 1TB storage
As the expected iPhone Fold should now be in production, a leaker claims to have details of its storage options — and its top price.

Render of a possible iPhone Fold design — image credit: AppleInsider
Despite all of the rumors, there is still doubt that there will be an iPhone Fold in September 2026 because of how few solid leaks there have been. Now, though, leaker Instant Digital claims to have both storage capacities and prices.
In a post on the Chinese social media site Weibo, Instant Digital says that the configurations will be:
Rumor Score: 🤔 Possible
Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums
Tech
Zendesk acquires Forethought in its biggest deal in two decades
The 2018 Startup Battlefield winner is joining Zendesk as the race to own agentic customer service accelerates
When Forethought won the TechCrunch Startup Battlefield competition in 2018, ChatGPT was four years from existing. The company’s pitch, that AI could handle customer service conversations autonomously, was considered ambitious to the point of eccentricity.
On Wednesday, Zendesk announced it has agreed to acquire Forethought, in what Computer Weekly reports is the company’s largest acquisition in two decades.
The deal, expected to close by the end of March, carries an undisclosed price tag. Forethought had raised $115 million in total funding from backers including Blue Cloud Ventures, NEA, Industry Ventures, Neo, Village Global, and Sound Ventures, as well as angel investors including May Habib of Writer, Scott Wu of Cognition, and Karan Goel of Cartesia.
Forethought was co-founded by Deon Nicholas, who serves as executive chairman, and Sami Ghoche, who became CEO in 2024 after previously serving as CTO.
The pair founded the company when they were 24, and by 2025 the platform was handling more than a billion customer interactions per month for clients including Upwork, Grammarly, Airtable, and Datadog.
Zendesk, which has been privately held since its $10.2 billion acquisition by private equity firms Hellman & Friedman and Permira in November 2022, is making the move because it believes 2026 will be the year AI agents handle more customer service interactions than human agents.
The company says integrating Forethought’s technology will accelerate its product roadmap by more than a year.
The specific capability Zendesk is acquiring is what Forethought calls self-improving AI, agents that do not simply execute scripts but learn from each interaction, generate their own workflows, and adapt to new situations without requiring re-engineering. Zendesk intends to weave this into its Resolution Platform, which currently claims to handle more than 80% of customer interactions from start to finish for its clients.
“The era of simply managing conversations is over,” said Zendesk CEO Tom Eggemeier.
“The future of customer experience requires agentic capabilities built for definitive resolution. Forethought’s advanced capabilities perfectly align with our vision for agentic service.”
For Zendesk, the transaction continues a pattern of quiet consolidation. The company has made roughly a dozen acquisitions since its founding in 2007, though it has historically disclosed prices on only a handful, including $29.8 million for live-chat firm Zopim in 2014 and $45 million for analytics company BIME in 2015.
The Forethought deal follows its 2024 acquisition of Finnish service automation provider Ultimate, which set the groundwork for its current AI strategy.
The agentic AI market for customer service is becoming crowded quickly, with Salesforce, Intercom, and a wave of well-funded startups all pursuing similar ground. The question for Zendesk is whether acquiring the early pioneer gives it a durable lead, or whether the technology advantage closes faster than the deal does.
Tech
Watch the bizarre AI video that took 18 humans to make
Tilly Norwood, a digital character from the UK studio Particle6, dropped her debut music video “Take the Lead” on March 10. The project is meant to be a playful response to the criticism she faced after her introduction in 2025. But instead of silencing the skeptics, the clip has become a fresh flashpoint in the conversation about whether artificial intelligence can produce good art.
The early reviews are pretty brutal. Critics have described the track as “copy-paste uplift” that reads like a corporate mission statement rather than pop music. The lyrics lean on jargon like “scale” and “next evolution.” Visually, the piece struggles with the uncanny valley, with moments like Norwood’s teeth blurring into a single block in earlier sketches.
How the video makes its case
The visuals in “Take the Lead” are chaotic on purpose. You get flamingos floating through clouds, dolphins flying through the air, and Norwood performing in packed stadiums. But the song’s message is dead serious. Its central hook argues that AI is not the enemy and frames the technology as a superpower for human creators.

That message gets a weirdly self-aware visual aid. In one scene, Norwood tries and fails to complete a CAPTCHA test, a joke about her own digital nature. The track itself was generated using the AI platform Suno, giving it a polished but generic pop foundation.
Where the real work happened
Here is the part of the story that complicates things. While Norwood is a synthetic performer, she is not a solo act. A team of 18 people spent months bringing this project to life. The group included a director, a costume designer, and even a comedy writer. The vocals came from Suno, but real-world fingerprints are all over the final product.

But the heavy human involvement raises its own questions. If it took nearly 20 professionals months to make a three-minute clip that critics are calling hollow, what does that say about the limits of this technology?
How the industry is responding
The team behind Norwood is not slowing down. The video description teased a possible appearance at the 2026 Academy Awards on March 15, with a joke about valet parking for her flamingo.
The creators have bigger plans. They are building what they call the Tillyverse, a cloud-based space where interconnected AI characters can live and work. They want to create 40 more digital personalities, and Norwood has an official acting debut scheduled for later this year.
That puts the industry in an odd spot. The critics are loud, and the union opposition is clear. SAG-AFTRA has stated flatly that Norwood is not an actor. But the projects keep coming. Whether you see this video as a cautionary tune or a misunderstood trailblazer, the experiment is moving forward. The next test arrives whenever that acting debut drops.
-
Business6 days ago
Form 8K Entergy Mississippi LLC For: 6 March
-
News Videos3 days ago10th Algebra | Financial Planning | Question Bank Solution | Board Exam 2026
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Ann Taylor
-
Crypto World3 days agoParadigm, a16z, Winklevoss Capital, Balaji Srinivasan among investors in ZODL
-
Tech1 day agoA 1,300-Pound NASA Spacecraft To Re-Enter Earth’s Atmosphere
-
Sports7 days ago499 runs and 34 sixes later, India beat England to enter T20 World Cup final | Cricket News
-
Politics6 days agoTop Mamdani aide takes progressive project to the UK
-
Business2 days agoExxonMobil seeks to move corporate registration from New Jersey to Texas
-
Tech2 days agoChatGPT will now generate interactive visuals to help you with math and science concepts
-
Sports5 days agoThree share 2-shot lead entering final round in Hong Kong
-
Sports4 days agoBraveheart Lakshya downs Lai in epic battle to enter All England Open final | Other Sports News
-
NewsBeat19 hours agoResidents reaction as Shildon murder probe enters second day
-
NewsBeat7 days agoPiccadilly Circus just unveiled ‘London’s newest tourist attraction’ and it only costs 80p to enter
-
Entertainment5 days agoHailey Bieber Poses For Sexy Selfies In New Luscious Lip Thirst Traps
-
Business4 days agoSearch for Nancy Guthrie Enters 37th Day as FBI Probes Wi-Fi Jammer Theory
-
Business1 day agoSearch Enters Sixth Week With New Leads in Tucson Abduction Case
-
NewsBeat3 days agoPagazzi Lighting enters administration as 70 jobs lost and 11 stores close across Scotland
-
Tech3 days agoDespite challenges, Ireland sixth in EU for board gender diversity
-
Business3 days agoSearch Enters 39th Day with FBI Tip Line Developments and No Major Breakthroughs
-
NewsBeat23 hours agoI Entered The Manosphere. Nothing Could Prepare Me For What I Found.
