Big changes are happening at OpenAI. On Wednesday, the company announced that it would be shutting down their AI video creation app Sora only a couple months after its launch. In October, OpenAI completed a massive restructure of its organization that shakes the very foundations it was built on.
Tech
The contradiction at the heart of OpenAI’s restructuring
OpenAI, which powers ChatGPT, among other AI products, was originally founded purely as a nonprofit. Now it has a for-profit arm. According to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, the nonprofit will still guide the work of the for-profit side to ensure that artificial intelligence works for the “benefit of all humanity.” On top of that, the OpenAI Foundation, would be in charge of (theoretically) $180 billion, making it one of the largest charitable organizations in the world.
Catherine Bracy, founder of the nonprofit Tech Equity, thinks this restructuring is a blatant attempt to free up the for-profit wing to act like any other AI company. She argues that OpenAI’s for-profit wing will only ever act for the benefit of its investors. Bracy believes the OpenAI Foundation is merely a glorified and toothless corporate social responsibility arm. We reached out to OpenAI for comment and did not receive a response.
Bracy spoke with Today, Explained host Sean Rameswaram about the legality of OpenAI’s new structure and her concerns about how this all might shake out. An excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.
There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
(Disclosure: Vox Media is one of several publishers that have signed partnership agreements with OpenAI. Our reporting remains editorially independent.)
You used to chat with Sam Altman?
We worked together back in the day and then kind of went out of touch with each other for a few years. Then, when I was writing a book about venture capital, I was really interested in open AI’s nonprofit model. Sam had been very explicit that the reason they founded OpenAI as a nonprofit was to put the technology at arm’s length from investors because they knew investors would exploit it in a way that would make this technology — which they thought was very dangerous — actually live up to that potential danger.
So I wanted to talk to him about the decision-making process behind that. And he was very forthcoming about that being the explicit reason why OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit. They put a lot of thought and capacity and energy into creating this [nonprofit] governance structure that would protect the technology from the whims of investors, the [profit-generating] imperatives that investors put on technology companies.
And a few months later, I saw that all come crashing down.
And when you found out that Open AI was restructuring and going to try to have it both ways — mission-driven nonprofit, but also money-driven for-profit — what was your reaction?
Disappointment. I would say that was my initial reaction. And then the secondary response was, Well, what can we do about this? And many of us came together into this coalition that really started asking questions about the responsibility of the nonprofit and the responsibility of the attorney general of California to enforce nonprofit law. And things kind of went from there.
Tell me more about that. What’s nonprofit law look like as it pertains to, say, OpenAI?
I run a nonprofit. In the tax code, that means that my organization does not need to pay taxes, but in return for that tax exemption, we are required to operate in service of a public service mission. Our mission is to ensure that the tech industry is creating opportunity for everybody. OpenAI’s nonprofit mission is to ensure that AI develops for the benefit of all of humanity. And legally, Sam Altman is required to prioritize OpenAI’s mission above all else.
So when they decided they were going to split the nonprofit from the for-profit, they found that actually legally they could not do that without divesting the intellectual property that the nonprofit owned, including all of the intellectual property that was created that underlies the ChatGPT model, and the equity stake that the nonprofit owned in the for-profit company.
I think they looked at that price tag and they said, That’s not a price we’re willing to pay. And so instead of splitting the nonprofit from the for-profit, they decided to continue down this path of nonprofit ownership, which in my mind is completely untenable, unsustainable, and irreconcilable.
Basically, every day that OpenAI exists, they are violating the law.
And actually what they’re doing is just daring the attorney general to hold them accountable for it. I think they think they’re too big to be held accountable and they need the AG [of California] to assume that he will not win a case. And that’s what they’ve done. They’ve loaded up on lawyers and they are making a bet that the AG will not pursue this in any way that’s actually meaningful.
Okay. So if I’m following you, despite the fact that OpenAI has split itself into a for-profit arm and a not-for-profit arm, their not-for-profit mission still overrides everything they do. And because of that, they are violating California law — because there’s no way that the nonprofit interests are ever going to be primary in their business.
Right. I think, as the kids would say, they’re playing in our faces. They expect us to take their word that as they operate, as they make deals with the Defense Department to develop autonomous weapons and surveillance systems on American citizens, as they battle parents in court whose children have committed suicide due to conversations that these kids were having with their chatbots, they expect us to believe that the nonprofit mission is being prioritized over the profit motivation of the company.
We all know that OpenAI’s overriding priority is to “win” the AI race. It’s to beat out the competition in the marketplace, and it’s to establish the biggest AI company they can create. To the extent that the nonprofit mission ever comes into tension with that, the company will always prioritize profits over the mission.
A law is only as good as its enforcement. And I think if there’s one rule of Silicon Valley, it is to ask forgiveness and not permission. I think they said, You know, this is worth it. There’s enough money on the line for us to just break the law and do the PR work and the lobbying work and the other work that we need to do to ensure that these laws will never be enforced against us.
And when you talk about PR work, lobbying work, are you talking about, like, saying we’re going to give away this $180 billion eventually?
Well, here’s the thing. They announced this week a list of priorities that the foundation would be investing in. They listed as one of their priorities, Alzheimer’s research. My mother is currently dying of Alzheimer’s. I have one copy of the gene that puts me at extreme risk of developing Alzheimer’s when I’m older. So I pray every day that AI helps us find a solution to Alzheimer’s fast enough that I can benefit from it, that my family can benefit from it.
But let me ask you a question. What happens, do you think, if the research that’s funded by OpenAI’s Foundation finds that actually Anthropic’s models are better at drug discovery or scientific breakthroughs than ChatGPT or any of OpenAI’s other models? What does it mean for the independence of scientific research, if all of this research is funded by an entity that has an irreconcilable conflict of interest?
“We do not have to take these companies at their word that they know best how to govern this technology. We should have bigger imaginations about what’s possible.”
We would not accept the science around nicotine that tobacco companies were funding. We do not accept the science around alcohol addiction that the alcohol companies fund. We do not accept the science around sugared beverages from the soda industry. And we should not accept that this scientific research is funded by an entity that has a vested financial interest in the outcome.
And that is why it is so critically important that the OpenAI Foundation actually be independent, that it have an independent board, that it can deploy its resources independently, that the research that it is funding is independent.
Do you still think that we’re maybe better off that OpenAI says that they want to give billions away to better society — than say Anthropic, Google, maybe having some pledges to give money away, but not nearly as much?
Well, Google has a corporate foundation. It’s called Google.org. And I expect in this structure with the tension and the conflict of interest that the OpenAI Foundation has, that it will operate much more like Google.org, which is essentially an arm of the marketing department, a corporate social responsibility program that gives money to innocuous groups — but will never do anything that undercuts Google’s priorities.
I think if you read between the lines of open AI’s press release, the work they say they want to continue doing with community funding is all about convincing people about the importance and value and benefit in using AI. I mean, that’s a market building opportunity for them. That’s not actually anything that’s going to ensure that AI is developed for the benefit of humanity. And so, no, I don’t think that they’re going to operate any differently than any of the other companies’ corporate social responsibility arms. That’s essentially what they have built here.
This is the fight of our time. AI is not inevitable. The way it develops is not inevitable. And we do not have to take these companies at their word that they know best how to govern this technology. We should have bigger imaginations about what’s possible. And if anything, this should give us more energy and motivation to fix what’s broken about our democracy than to just sit back and let billionaires control our future.
Do you ever talk to Sam Altman anymore?
He doesn’t return my calls.
Well, thanks for talking to us.
Continue Reading
The Dutch National Police (Politie) says a security breach resulting from a successful phishing attack has had a limited impact and hasn’t affected citizens’ data.
It also stated that the incident is still under investigation by the agency’s security experts and that the attackers’ access to compromised systems has been blocked.
“The police have been the target of a phishing attack. The police’s Security Operations Center detected the incident very quickly and immediately blocked access,” the police said in a Wednesday press release.
“The impact is still being investigated but appears to be limited. Citizens’ data and investigative information were not exposed or accessed. The police have also launched a criminal investigation.”
The law enforcement agency has yet to disclose when the attack was detected and if any employees’ data was exposed during the breach.
A Police spokesperson didn’t immediately reply when BleepingComputer reached out for more information about the incident, including which systems or accounts were affected and whether any police officers had their data stolen, if any.
The Dutch police corps also disclosed a data breach in September 2024 following a cyberattack linked to a “state actor” that stole work-related contact information for multiple police officers, including their names, email addresses, phone numbers, and, in some cases, private data.
A follow-up investigation looking into the “nature, scope, and consequences of the data leak” is still ongoing, and the police have not publicly attributed the attack to a specific threat group or explained how it was carried out.
Following the attack, the police said they implemented stronger security measures to prevent future incidents, including continuously monitoring all systems for signs of suspicious activity and requiring officers to use two-factor authentication to log in to their accounts more frequently.
In February, Dutch authorities also arrested a 40-year-old man for an extortion attempt using confidential documents mistakenly shared by the Dutch police.
Automated pentesting proves the path exists. BAS proves whether your controls stop it. Most teams run one without the other.
This whitepaper maps six validation surfaces, shows where coverage ends, and provides practitioners with three diagnostic questions for any tool evaluation.
If you watch anime, Apple just made things a bit more convenient. Crunchyroll is now available as a channel inside the Apple TV app, where you can subscribe and watch directly without switching apps. The rollout is live in the U.S., UK, Canada, and Australia, and it comes just in time for the spring anime season.
Here’s what you get with Crunchyroll inside the Apple TV app
Apple TV users in supported regions can now subscribe to Crunchyroll directly through the app. There is a 7-day free trial, after which it costs $9.99 per month. The subscription is handled entirely through Apple’s billing system.
But there is one important catch. This version is separate from existing Crunchyroll accounts, so you cannot link your current subscription. If you want to use it through Apple TV, you will need a new subscription through the platform.
The channel includes Crunchyroll’s full catalog, depending on availability in your region. Since it is part of Apple TV Channels, you can watch everything inside the app, download content for offline viewing, and even share access with up to six people through Family Sharing.
Why is Crunchyroll expanding beyond its own app?
This partnership is a part of Crunchyroll’s efforts to reach more viewers across platforms. The service has already expanded to places like Prime Video and free streaming channels on Pluto TV, The Roku Channel, and Samsung TV Plus.
Recently, Crunchyroll increased its subscription prices, with plans now ranging from $10 to $18 per month. Bringing it to Apple TV adds another way for users to access anime without being locked into a single app.
For you, it comes down to convenience. If you want everything in one place, Apple TV makes it easier. But if you already have a Crunchyroll account, you might want to think twice before subscribing again.
A month-end streaming deal discounts Paramount Plus to $2.99 per month for two months, and the best part is you can choose any plan.
Get Paramount Plus for just $2.99 per month for 2 months – Image credit: Paramount
From sports to original dramas, Paramount Plus has thousands of programs to watch this spring. And with this month-end streaming deal that gives new and former subscribers access to any plan for $2.99 per month for two months, there’s no better time to sign up for the service.
Get Paramount+ $2.99/mo deal
Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums
Apple’s budget-friendly iPhone, the iPhone 17e, was launched just one year after its predecessor, the iPhone 16e.
With that in mind, what are the differences between the two iPhones? Did Apple do a complete overhaul with the iPhone 17e, or is the iPhone 16e still a great choice for most budget-seekers?
We’ve reviewed both the iPhone 17e and iPhone 16e, and highlighted the key differences and noteworthy similarities between them below. Keep reading to see what really separates the handsets.
Otherwise, visit our iPhone 17e vs iPhone 17 comparison to decide whether you should splurge on Apple’s standard model instead. Finally, our best mid-range phones list has all our affordable favourites from the past year.
Pricing and Availability
The iPhone 17e is Apple’s current affordable handset, with a starting price of £599/$599 for the 256GB handset.
SQUIRREL_PLAYLIST_10208288
Although it just launched back in 2025, the iPhone 16e is no longer available to buy directly from Apple and can only be purchased through authorised resellers instead. The price will vary depending on the retailer, however you can expect to pay around £499 for its 128GB iteration.
SQUIRREL_PLAYLIST_10207301
Design
- Both the iPhone 17e and iPhone 16e share the same general design
- iPhone 17e benefits from Ceramic Shield 2 at its front
- Neither are fitted with Apple’s Camera Control button
Put the iPhone 17e and iPhone 16e next to one another and you’d be hard-pressed to find a difference. Although the iPhone 17e comes in a Pink shade alongside Black and White, both share the same dimensions, have a back glass and sport the customisable Action Button in lieu of the ringer switch.
However, the iPhone 17e does benefit from Ceramic Shield 2 at its front, which is promised to offer three times the scratch resistance compared to Ceramic Shield which the iPhone 16e is decked out in. Otherwise, neither handset includes the Dynamic Island nor the Camera Control button found in the iPhone 17 or iPhone 16.
Winner: iPhone 17e
Screen
- Ceramic Shield 2 is the only difference between the iPhone 17e and iPhone 16e’s screens
- Both have 6.1-inch OLED panels
- Neither are fitted with ProMotion
The main difference with the iPhone 17e and iPhone 16e’s screens is that the former sports Ceramic Shield 2 for better scratch resistance. Otherwise, both are 6.1-inch OLED panels with a 60Hz refresh rate, as neither boast Apple’s ProMotion technology.
Overall, both devices have decent screens, however they certainly don’t measure up to the iPhone 17 or even the iPhone 16. In fact, even if you’re upgrading from a three or four-year old iPhone, you’re unlikely to really notice the difference here.
Winner: iPhone 17e
Camera
- Both have a single 48MP Fusion camera at their rear
- No selfie camera changes
- iPhone 17e has the next-generation portrait mode
There aren’t many changes with the iPhone 17e’s camera hardware compared to the iPhone 16e as both are fitted with just two cameras altogether: a 48MP Fusion lens at the rear and a 12MP selfie lens at the front.
If you enjoy more versatility with your camera, and want to play around with different lenses, then neither iPhone here will likely suit your needs. Instead, you’d be better off with at least the iPhone 16 or iPhone 17, or checking out our best camera phones guide.
Having said that, both the iPhone 17e and 16e have capable and reliable cameras that produce detailed and vibrant shots. Even in darker conditions, both cameras are able to pull in enough light to capture decent shots.
The iPhone 17e also benefits from next-generation portrait shots with focus and depth control too, which the iPhone 16e missed out on. For this reason, we’ll give the win here to the iPhone 17e, however it’s still a close call.
Winner: iPhone 17e
Performance
- iPhone 17e runs on Apple’s A19 chip while the iPhone 16e sports the A18 chip
- iPhone 17e comes with 256GB by default
- iPhone 17e includes Apple’s latest C1X modem
The iPhone 17e runs on Apple’s A19 chip while the iPhone 16e, unsurprisingly, runs on the year-older A18 chip. Although both chips have one-less GPU compared to the iPhone 17 or iPhone 16, we conclude that the two handsets run brilliantly in everyday use. In fact, both the iPhone 17e and iPhone 16e took everything from intense gaming to photo editing with ease.
Dive deeper under the hood, and you’ll find that Apple uses its own modems within the two iPhones. While the iPhone 16e was the first to include the C1 modem, the iPhone 17e benefits from the newer C1X alternative. Essentially, the modems promise users faster and more reliable mobile connectivity, without using too much power.
While the iPhone 17e promises even faster connectivity, in our review we didn’t really notice that much of a difference between it and the iPhone 16e.
Finally, the iPhone 17e comes with 256GB storage as standard which is double that of the iPhone 16e. This is a welcome upgrade, as games and apps are larger than ever so extra storage is always beneficial.
Winner: iPhone 17e
Software
- Both have the Emergency SOS via Satellite and Crash Detection safety features
- Both feature Apple Intelligence
- Both support iOS 26
There’s very little difference between the two iPhones’ software. Both support iOS 26, and therefore sport the somewhat divisive Liquid Glass finish, and both surprisingly run the entire Apple Intelligence toolkit.
While it’s good that both the iPhone 16e and 17e support Apple Intelligence, we wouldn’t say this should be the reason you upgrade. Sure, some features like Live Translation and notification summaries are useful, but overall it doesn’t quite have the same oomph as Samsung or Google’s AI toolkits.
Otherwise, both handsets also support Emergency SOS via Satellite and Crash Detection too. These features will be a welcome addition for anyone coming from an older iPhone.
Winner: Tie
Battery Life
- We found the iPhone 17e and iPhone 16e run for a similar amount of time
- iPhone 17e supports MagSafe for faster 15W wireless charging than the 16e
- Both support 20W wired charging
The biggest difference between the iPhone 17e and iPhone 16e’s respective batteries is the inclusion of MagSafe in the former. Not only does this enable support for plenty of magnetic accessories but it offers 15W wireless charging, compared to the 7.5W on the 16e. Sure, it’s not as fast as the Xiaomi 15T Pro’s 50W, but it’s still an upgrade.
Otherwise, it’s pretty much business as usual with both iPhones here. Both support 20W wired charging speeds and both can comfortably last for a full day before needing a recharge.
Winner: iPhone 17e
Verdict
Firstly, if you own the iPhone 16e then we’d argue there’s very little reason to upgrade to the iPhone 17e. Although Apple has made a few tweaks, overall the differences are negligible to really warrant splurging on the newer model.
However, if you’re coming from an older iPhone and want a cheap way to upgrade to a newer iteration, then the iPhone 17e is a brilliant option. Not only will you benefit from a speedy chip, but the camera is solid and Apple Intelligence is present too.
Having said that, if your budget is really tight, then the iPhone 16e is still a great option. Not only will you still benefit from a decent chip, Apple Intelligence support and a solid camera, but you can also pick the phone up with a hefty price drop.
Microsoft has released the KB5079391 preview cumulative update for Windows 11 24H2 and 25H2, which includes 29 changes, such as Smart App Control and Display improvements.
The KB5079391 update is part of Microsoft’s non-security preview schedule, which pushes updates at the end of each month to test new features and fixes that will roll out during the next month’s Patch Tuesday. However, unlike regular Patch Tuesday cumulative updates, monthly preview updates do not include security updates and are optional.
With the March 2026 optional update, Microsoft is gradually rolling out improvements to the Windows 11 Smart App Control security feature, allowing customers to toggle it without reinstalling the operating system.
“You can turn Smart App Control (SAC) on or off without needing a clean install. To make changes, go to Settings > Windows Security > App & Browser Control > Smart App Control settings. When turned on, SAC helps block untrusted or potentially harmful apps,” Microsoft said.
KB5079391 also includes a set of Display reliability improvements, such as support for monitors reporting refresh rates higher than 1000 Hz, native USB4 monitor connections, and improved HDR reliability.
You can install this update either by downloading it from the Microsoft Update Catalog or by opening Settings, clicking Windows Update, and then selecting “Check for Updates.”
Because this is an optional update, you will be asked whether you want to install it by clicking the “Download and install” link unless you have the “Get the latest updates as soon as they’re they’re available” option enabled, which will cause the update to install automatically.
Windows 11 KB5079391 highlights
Once installed, this optional non-security update will upgrade Windows 11 25H2 and 24H2 devices to builds 26200.8116 and 26100.8116, respectively.
The March 2026 preview update adds further improvements, some of the more important ones highlighted below:
- [Performance & Reliability] This update improves stability in Windows Recovery Environment (Windows RE) when you run x64 apps on ARM64 devices. These apps run more smoothly and respond as expected.
- This update improves the reliability of downloading required updates when you’re prompted in Settings > System > Advanced.
- [Windows Hello] This update improves the reliability of Windows Hello Fingerprint on certain devices.
- This update improves the design of the dialog boxes in Settings > Accounts > Other users to match the modern Windows look and support dark mode. The visibility of the dialog box option depends on whether the device has a domain-joined work or school account.
Microsoft says there are currently no known issues with this update, and the full release notes are available in this support bulletin.
Last month, the KB5077241 optional cumulative update rolled out improvements to the BitLocker Windows security, native System Monitor (Sysmon) functionality, and a new network speed test tool.
Automated pentesting proves the path exists. BAS proves whether your controls stop it. Most teams run one without the other.
This whitepaper maps six validation surfaces, shows where coverage ends, and provides practitioners with three diagnostic questions for any tool evaluation.
Wonder Man season 2: key information
– Announced in late March
– Release date or trailer yet to be revealed
– Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Ben Kingsley set to return
– Other cast members haven’t been announced
– No confirmed plot brief, but should pick up after the season 1 finale
– Unclear if there’ll be a third season
Wonder Man season 2 is officially in development. The Marvel TV show, which debuted to critical acclaim in late January, will not only return for another run, but also reunite us with thespian besties Simon Williams and Trevor Slattery.
Those details aside, little else is publicly known about the Disney+ show’s next installment — but when has that ever stopped me from speculating? In this guide, I’ll do just that. Indeed, I’ll offer my prediction on its eventual launch, discuss its possible plot, and try to figure out which other characters may return from Wonder Man‘s first season. Altogether now: lights, camera, aaaaand… action!
Wonder Man season 2 release date: what we know so far
Simon Williams and Trevor Slattery will return for Marvel Television’s #WonderMan Season 2, co-created by Destin Daniel Cretton and Andrew Guest, coming to @DisneyPlus. pic.twitter.com/XnOBYrYHaAMarch 23, 2026
Marvel Studios might have officially announced Wonder Man season 2, but it hasn’t confirmed when it’ll be released on Disney+, aka one of the world’s best streaming services.
Article continues below
That’s no great surprise. Its first season only aired on January 28, so it’s likely that very little pre-production work — script writing, cast auditions, et cetera — has been conducted yet. Unless the development pace really picks up in the months ahead, it could be some time before filming begins — and even longer before it returns to our screens.
My guess? It’ll have to come out before Avengers: Secret Wars. That’s the Multiverse Saga’s final film, whose ending is expected to result in a soft reboot of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). With Secret Wars set to arrive in December 2027, Wonder Man season 2 will have to premiere before said reboot, meaning it’ll have to air by November 2027. Better get a move on, then, Marvel.
Wonder Man season 2 trailer: is there one?
No – and, if past promotional campaigns for Marvel TV shows are anything to go by, a trailer won’t be with us until a month or two before Wonder Man season 2 is released. Once one is revealed, I’ll add it to this section.
Wonder Man season 2 confirmed cast
Potential spoilers follow for Wonder Man season 1.
Here’s the confirmed cast for Wonder Man season 2 so far:
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Simon Williams
- Ben Kingsley as Trevor Slattery
The aforementioned actors were co-leads in season 1, so it’s not shocking that they’ll be back for Wonder Man season 2. However, last season’s finale ended on something of a cliffhanger (more on this later), so it’ll be interesting to see when and where we’ll be reunited with them.
Unsurprisingly, there’s no word on which other actors will reprise their roles from the MCU TV Original’s debut outing. Zlatko Buric’s Von Kovak, X Mayo’s Janelle Jackson, Arian Moayed’s Agent P. Cleary, Shola Adewusi’s Martha Williams, and Demetrius Grosse’s Eric Williams all seem like safe bets. We’ll have to wait for Marvel to say if one or all of these stars are part of the proceedings, though.
Wonder Man season 2 story speculation
Wonder Man season 2’s story synopsis hasn’t been released yet. However, based on its forebear’s ending, we can infer where things may go next.
Need a reminder of what happened in last season’s finale? My Wonder Man ending explained piece has got you covered. I’ll be expanding on some of the plot elements from that article moving forward, too, so be advised: full spoilers immediately follow for Wonder Man‘s debut season.
Last season’s finale episode saw Williams bust Slattery out of the Department of Damage Control’s (DoDC) supermax prison. Slattery was jailed after he impersonated The Mandarin again, which he had done to take the fall for the carnage Williams caused with his powers in episode 7.
Anyway, the very last shot of season 1 episode 8 showed Williams and Slattery flying off to whereabouts unknown.
The best place for its follow-up season to start, then, would be reuniting us with this fan-favorite bromance, and showing if they’ve gone into hiding to evade the DoDC or simply returned to Los Angeles and their acting careers. In my view, the former will be the more likely scenario. Why risk heading back to LA to resume their professional and personal lives if the DoDC will be hot on their heels?
Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Ben Kingsley are a pitch-perfect pair in Wonder Man, Marvel’s terrific new tragicomedy. https://t.co/UCleqOoR65January 23, 2026
Regardless of which of the above scenarios plays out, Wonder Man 2 will need to address the elephant in the room: how did Williams acquire his superhuman abilities?
Speaking to TechRadar before season 1 launched, co-creator Andrew Guest said he “didn’t feel the need” to shed light on Wonder Man‘s biggest mystery. With season 2 on the way, though, we’d all appreciate it if a definitive answer was given – even if, as some fans have theorized, Williams is confirmed to be a mutant. That would be a major (and potentially displeasing) departure from his superhero origin story in the comics, but at least it would solve the mystery.
The final big question on my mind is one I touched on in this guide’s release date section: will Wonder Man season 2 arrive ahead of Secret Wars‘ December 2027 release?
Hopefully, the answer will be “yes”. Secret Wars will not only bring down the curtain on the MCU’s Multiverse Saga, but also likely reset Marvel’s cinematic franchise.
Before that reboot occurs, it’ll be in the comic titan’s best interests to wrap up every major storyline and character arc in its remaining Marvel Phase 6 movies and TV shows so the MCU can start afresh. For that to happen, production will have to be completed on Wonder Man 2 by mid-2027 before it potentially airs before next December. Otherwise, MCU 2.0 will need to pick things up where Wonder Man‘s first season left off, which won’t be in Marvel’s best interests if it wants to restart its cinematic universe with a clean slate.
Will there be a Wonder Man season 3?
I don’t know, and I suspect the series’ cast and crew don’t, either.
Again, a lot will depend on whether the MCU undergoes its reported reboot post-Secret Wars. If it does, the chances of Wonder Man season 3 being greenlit are slim. The only ways it would be is if a) season 2 is as highly-rated, popular, and cost-effective as its predecessor, and b) Williams and Slattery continue to exist in version 2.0 of the MCU.
Until Avengers: Secret Wars is out, then, nobody can say for sure if a third season renewal is on the cards.
For more Marvel coverage, get the scoop on everything we know about Spider-Man: Brand New Day and then get the full lowdown on Avengers: Doomsday. Alternatively, learn all there is to know about X-Men 97 season 2 and what we know so far about VisionQuest.
The meeting was running long, so someone said what they always say: “let’s take this offline.”
For Krystal Graylin, that phrase — hollow corporate shorthand for a problem deferred, not solved — became something else entirely.
She actually did it.
Graylin, a former Microsoft product manager, and her friend from college, Lucy Kong, an auditor at EY, both watched as their industries raced to automate and cut headcount. They responded by betting on the one thing they figured AI couldn’t replicate — handing someone a drink and watching that person’s face light up.
The result is Offline Coffee Co., a new cafe in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood that opened last month, drawing on Chinese cafe culture for its menu and aesthetic, leaning into the “third place,” and serving as a deliberate departure from the corporate world both founders left behind.
In a city full of tech and coffee, Graylin and Kong are an unlikely pair to be running a cafe. Neither had worked professionally as a barista, aside from operating their home machines and hosting apartment cafe parties with friends. One was monitoring the health of Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform. The other was auditing Amazon’s books at EY.
“Some people we talked to were like, ‘You guys have no business opening a coffee shop. You haven’t been a barista or owned a food business before. What makes you think like you can just quit your job and open a cafe,’” Graylin said, adding, it’s a “fair concern.”
Friends since their days at the University of Washington, Graylin said she and Kong joked for years about the cafe idea, but only started taking it seriously last April. They considered what it would mean to give up a steady income and sign a lease for a retail space.
“Going into this, it was not like, ‘we hate our jobs so much that we want to escape and do something completely different,’” Graylin said. “We knew it would be risky, but we knew that going through this experience, it would make us change in a way that we couldn’t pay someone to teach us.”
They got the keys to 711 Bellevue Ave E. last July and quit their jobs in August. For several months they worked on building out the space, adding their design touches with light wood finishes, a tiled main bar, and thrifted furniture before opening in February. The menu is built around floral syrups and flavor combinations that Graylin and Kong would bring back from trips to China — cafe ingredients that she said are harder to find in Seattle.
“It feels crazy,” Graylin said. “I cried five or more times the first week we were open, because I was so stressed but also I was so happy to see all the people in here.”
Friends have been visiting, others work on laptops in the cafe, and neighbors are making Offline a regular stop on their dog walks. Graylin said it’s cool to become part of someone’s routine.
But the leap from tech to coffee wasn’t just about escaping the corporate grind. It turns out, Graylin said, that being a product manager prepared her for more than she expected.
Negotiating contracts, managing people, de-escalating difficult customers, knowing how to prioritize — all of it transferred. So did a comfort with AI tools, which she and Kong have leaned on to close knowledge gaps, whether researching equipment, navigating legal questions, or estimating costs before bringing in an expert.
But it was also AI, and what she saw it do to the people around her at Microsoft, that helped push her out the door.
“So much of the focus was on, how can we use AI to 10x, and cushion the impact of layoffs to avoid losing revenue,” Graylin said. “Rather than, how is everyone on the team doing with all these layoffs? How can we [use AI] to improve the work-life balance on the team?”
The cafe, she said, felt like an answer to that question — a deliberate bet on what she believes advancing technology can’t touch.
“AI is good for automating things that are really tedious and unpleasant,” she said. “But social interactions — those are things that don’t need to be sped up.”
By Yair Kuznitsov, Co-Founder & CEO, Anecdotes
Every week I talk to enterprise GRC teams who understand exactly what agentic AI can do for their profession. They’ve read the articles, seen the demos, and can articulate the difference between AI that makes a workflow go a little, or even a lot faster, and an agent that replaces it entirely.
Yet still, some remain reluctant to make the shift to agentic GRC.
When I ask why, the conversation moves away from technology pretty quickly. Most of them have the “AI budget” available, but something is holding them back from making the move and they can’t always name what it is.
The conversations all eventually lead to the same place, even if they can’t say it in so many words: they’re not sure who they are when the operations aren’t theirs anymore. It’s an identity and even value question above all else.
Most GRC practitioners carry an implicit belief about where their value comes from. That belief isn’t wrong, but it’s describing a role that’s being restructured, and those who make the transition the fastest will be the ones leading the industry in the coming years.
The Competence That Got Us Here
GRC professionals built their expertise around operational competence. Knowing how to gather the right evidence, managing audit cycles under pressure and keeping a complex compliance program running when it’s understaffed and under-resourced have been signs of a valuable GRC team member for years.
That competence took years to develop, and the people who have it are genuinely good at what they do and are rightfully valued by their business.
The problem with agentic GRC is that it doesn’t reward that competence the same way. Agents can gather evidence, open remediation tasks and can manage most of the audit cycle alone. Given that agents can handle those operations, the actual question is what a GRC professional is supposed to be doing instead, and most organizations haven’t asked it yet.
Real GRC Engineers Don’t Live in Spreadsheets. They declare controls in Terraform, version them in Git, and route every update through pull requests and CI/CD pipelines.
Download GRC Engineering 101 to learn how to get started
The Shift They’ve Been Waiting For
GRC wasn’t designed to be an operational function. It was designed to help organizations understand and manage risk. The evidence collection, the audit cycles, the status updates were always implementations of that purpose, not the purpose itself. The practitioners who got into this field weren’t drawn to it because of the “fun” of evidence collection.
They cared about whether the organization was actually protected, or just appearing to be, and wanted to provide that insight to the business.
What happened over time is that the tooling didn’t scale with the programs, and the operational burden consumed everything. The people who were supposed to be thinking about risk spent most of their time keeping the machine running, not because it was ever the point of the role, but because someone had to do it and there wasn’t another way.
What Agents Do, and What They Can’t
Agentic GRC doesn’t speed up workflows, it replaces them. Evidence no longer flows through a person; it’s pulled continuously from integrated systems. Controls aren’t checked periodically; they’re monitored in real time. Remediation isn’t tracked in spreadsheets; tickets are opened, assigned, followed up on, and closed automatically.
But agents don’t design themselves.The logic that drives them (what to collect, what constitutes a pass or fail, what triggers an escalation, what the auditor will accept as evidence) comes from a key combination: data context and human insight.
Someone has to define the risk appetite, decide what “remediated” actually means, know when the output looks right and when something is missing that the system can’t see.
Agentic GRC in Anecdotes is built around exactly this model. The agents handle the operations end to end, based on the robust data foundation we have spent years building, and the logic the GRC team defines.
When agents can handle the evidence chains, control testing, and audit prep, the question of what GRC should actually be doing shifts. And for practitioners with real depth, that answer is what they’ve always known how to do. But that doesn’t make the shift easy.
Redefining a role is hard and comes with real fears. Many people are worried about their jobs because of AI, some more rightfully than others.
For GRC professionals specifically, this is less a threat than it is the opportunity they’ve been waiting for.
The practitioners who’ve made this shift describe it less like learning something new and more like getting permission to do what they were trained to do.
Their job became telling the agents what matters: setting the right risk appetite, deciding which controls are genuinely protecting something and which ones exist because they always have, knowing when an automated finding is a real problem and when it’s noise, and translating business context into compliance logic in ways no agent can replicate, because that translation requires judgment built from years of experience.
That judgment has been sitting in GRC teams all along, waiting for the operational load to lift.
The organizations that move first on this won’t win because their teams are better at AI. They’ll win because their GRC teams finally have the time and the mandate to do what compliance was supposed to do: think clearly about risk, act on what actually matters, and stop managing a program and start leading one.
Why Letting Go Feels Like Losing
The reluctance that comes up in these conversations makes more sense when you frame it this way.
Practitioners aren’t afraid of losing their value; they’re afraid of losing the operations that became their identity, even though those operations were never what they wanted. Letting that go feels like losing something, which makes it hard to see what’s waiting on the other side. And what is waiting is far more aligned with why they got into this work in the first place.
The shift, when it happens, is less a transformation than a return to what the role was always supposed to be.
Learn more about agentic GRC with Anecdotes at anecdotes.ai
Sponsored and written by Anecdotes.
The class of 2025 graduated into the worst entry-level job market in five years. Now a growing number of them are using AI tools during live job interviews, and a cottage industry of startups is rushing to sell them the means to do it. Whether that constitutes cheating or common sense depends on which side of the hiring table you sit on, but the numbers behind the trend are not in dispute.
Unemployment among recent college graduates aged 22 to 27 climbed to 5.7 per cent by the end of 2025, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, well above the 4.2 per cent national rate. Underemployment, which measures graduates working in jobs that do not require a degree, hit 42.5 per cent, its highest level since 2020. The tech sector, once the default destination for ambitious graduates, shed roughly 245,000 jobs in 2025, according to tracking data from Layoffs.fyi and TrueUp. Another 59,000 have gone in the first three months of 2026.
The graduates who entered this market did so having watched an older cohort get hired, promoted, and then laid off at companies like Meta, Amazon, and Google in the space of 18 months. The lesson they drew was not subtle: competence and loyalty are insufficient protection. And so they arrived armed with a technology that their universities had spent four years telling them to learn.
The tools and the companies selling them
The phenomenon surfaced this week in a press release from LockedIn AI, a startup that sells a product called DUO: a service that combines real-time AI transcription of interview questions with a live human coach who can see the candidate’s screen and provide strategic guidance during the conversation. The press release, distributed via GlobeNewswire, was framed as a trend piece about generational resilience. It was, more precisely, a product advertisement.
LockedIn AI is not alone. Its founder, Kagehiro Mitsuyami, also co-founded Final Round AI, a similar product. Both companies have faced questions about the authenticity of their marketing: reviews on Trustpilot appear to be AI-generated, and independent reviewers have noted that the software can be visible to interviewers when candidates switch between windows. A Gartner survey of 3,000 job seekers found that six per cent admitted to interview fraud, including having someone else impersonate them. Fifty-nine per cent of hiring managers suspect candidates of using AI to misrepresent themselves.
The market for these tools is growing precisely because the conditions that created them are getting worse, not better. The National Association of Colleges and Employers found that 45 per cent of employers characterised the job market for the class of 2026 as “fair,” down from “good” the previous year. Hiring projections for new graduates are essentially flat, at 1.6 per cent growth. For candidates submitting dozens of applications and receiving interview invitations at rates below two per cent, the temptation to use every available advantage is considerable.
The hypocrisy argument
The most effective argument in favour of AI-assisted interviewing is not about fairness in the abstract. It is about a specific inconsistency in how technology companies treat AI.
Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, disclosed during an April 2025 earnings call that more than 30 per cent of the company’s new code is now generated with AI assistance, up from 25 per cent six months earlier. Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta all encourage their engineers to use AI coding tools daily. Applicant tracking systems powered by AI screen and reject resumes before a human ever reads them. The hiring pipeline is automated from end to end, except on the candidate’s side.
For graduates who spent their university years being told that AI fluency would define their careers, being asked to pretend the technology does not exist during a 45-minute interview feels less like a test of competence and more like a test of compliance. The companies asking them to do so are, in many cases, the same ones that will expect them to use AI tools from their first day on the job.
This argument has real force, but it also has limits. There is a difference between using AI to write code more efficiently and using AI to answer questions about your own experience, judgment, and problem-solving ability. An interview is, at least in theory, a conversation designed to evaluate what a candidate knows and how they think. Outsourcing those answers to a language model, or to a human coach whispering through an earpiece, undermines the purpose of the exercise regardless of how unfair the exercise may be.
The employer response
Companies are already adapting. In-person interview rounds rose from 24 per cent in 2022 to 38 per cent in 2025, according to hiring industry data. Seventy-two per cent of recruiting leaders now conduct at least one in-person stage specifically to combat AI-assisted fraud. Some firms have moved to whiteboard exercises, pair programming sessions, and unstructured conversations that are harder to augment with real-time tools.
The deeper question is whether the interview itself is the right mechanism for evaluating candidates in an AI-saturated labour market. If the goal is to assess what a candidate can produce with the tools they will actually use on the job, then banning those tools during the evaluation makes little sense. If the goal is to assess raw cognitive ability and domain knowledge, then AI assistance defeats the purpose entirely. Most interviews attempt to do both, which is why the current system satisfies no one.
What is clear is that the class of 2025 did not create this problem. They inherited a job market reshaped by pandemic-era overhiring, aggressive cost-cutting, and an AI revolution that is simultaneously creating and destroying opportunity at a pace that neither employers nor candidates have fully absorbed. Their decision to use AI in interviews is not rebellion. It is the predictable behaviour of rational actors in a system that has told them, repeatedly and in every other context, that AI is not optional. The fact that the system now objects to them taking that message seriously is, at minimum, worth examining.
In the US, the standard PS5 will increase from $549 to $649, while the Digital Edition rises from $499 to $599. The PS5 Pro sees the largest jump, climbing from $749 to $899, and the PlayStation Portal moves from $199 to $249.
Read Entire Article
Source link
News Videos7 seconds ago
XRP HOLDERS! DOUBT IS CREEPING IN! THIS IS AN XRP IMPACT CATALYST!
NewsBeat1 minute ago
How to watch Liverpool legends v Dortmund charity match on TV for free?
Business2 minutes ago
Scholar Rock: From Manufacturing Hurdle To Commercial Muscle, Maintaining Buy Rating (NASDAQ:SRRK)
-
NewsBeat3 days agoManchester United reach agreement with Casemiro over contract clause amid transfer speculation
-
News Videos3 days agoParliament publishes latest register of MPs’ financial interests
-
Crypto World7 days agoBest Crypto to Buy Now: Strategy Just Spent $1.57 Billion on Bitcoin During Fear While Early Investors Quietly Enter Pepeto for 150x Potential
-
Crypto World7 days agoBitcoin Price News: Bhutan Sells $72 Million in BTC Under Fiscal Pressure, but the Smart Money Entering Pepeto Sees What the Market Does Not
-
Sports5 days agoRemo Stars and Kano Pillars Strengthen Survival Hopes in NPFL
-
Sports5 days agoGary Kirsten Accuses Pakistan Cricket Board Of ‘Interference’, Mohsin Naqvi Responds
-
Business6 days agoNo Winner in March 21 Drawing as Prize Rolls to $133 Million for Next
-
Tech6 days agoGive Your Phone a Huge (and Free) Upgrade by Switching to Another Keyboard
-
Tech6 days agoAI enters the chat: New Seattle dating app relies on tech to facilitate meaningful human connections
-
News Videos5 days agoCh 9 Financial Management Part 1 | Detailed One Shot | Class 12 Business Studies Boards 2026
-
Tech7 days agoToday’s NYT Connections Hints, Answers for March 22 #1015
-
Business2 days agoInstagram, YouTube Found Responsible for Teen’s Mental Health Struggle in Historic Ruling
-
Business6 days agoWill Duke Basketball Win It All? Duke Basketball Enters Second Round as Third Favorite to Claim NCAA Title
-
Sports5 days ago2026 Kentucky Derby horses, odds, futures, preview, date: Expert who hit 12 Derby-Oaks Doubles enters picks
-
Entertainment5 days agoCynthia Bailey Dishes on ‘RHOA’ Season 17, Discusses Kandi
-
Tech5 days agoSamsung will soon let you control smart home devices from your car’s dashboard
-
NewsBeat16 hours agoThe Story hosts event on Durham’s historic registers
-
NewsBeat6 days agoUpdate on Wisbech river crash as search for teenage boy enters fifth day
-
NewsBeat3 days agoTesco is selling new Cadbury Dairy Milk bar and people can’t wait to try it
-
Tech7 days agoSteamOS update adds support for Steam Machine and other non-Valve hardware
You must be logged in to post a comment Login