Self-driving cars promised a future where you sit back, relax, and glide past the gridlock while the car handles everything. A new study from the University of Texas at Arlington has some bad news for that fantasy. According to research, widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles could actually make traffic significantly worse.

Professors Stephen Mattingly and Farah Naz conducted a meta-analysis on how self-driving cars could affect vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Their findings showed an average 5.95% increase in vehicle miles traveled. Non-shared autonomous vehicles pushed that figure even higher, to nearly 7%. 

“The rise of AVs could make commuting more convenient, but it may also lead to more pick-up and drop-off activity, more empty vehicle trips, and new costs.” 

The logic is simple. When your car can drop you off and drive itself home, or cruise around looking for rides, roads get busier. As Dr. Mattingly put it, “Where will commuters send their car when they don’t need it?” Will it be sent to a parking lot, sent to try to find other riders, or sent home?”

Are robot taxis already causing chaos on the streets?

To put it succinctly, the research shows that robotaxis are already causing an increase in vehicle miles traveled, and once their adoption becomes universal, it will put extreme pressure on existing infrastructure. But that’s in the future; if current news reports are anything to go by, the robotaxis are already causing havoc on roads. 

For example, Waymo launched in Nashville on April 7, 2026, and within five days, people were posting viral videos of its robotaxis freezing at intersections and driving into restricted zones. In December 2025, a San Francisco power outage left dozens of Waymo vehicles frozen at intersections city-wide.

Advertisement

It’s not only a US-specific issue. Just a few weeks back, dozens of Baidu robotaxis simultaneously stopped on elevated highways in Wuhan, China, stranding passengers mid-traffic for over an hour. 

NEW: Dozens of robotaxis by Baidu stopped on the road in Wuhan, causing crashes on highways and trapping passengers in the cars—some for more than an hour. One passenger told me it took her 30 minutes to even connect to a customer representative.

Here’s a video of a crash. pic.twitter.com/fTitNMv8kj

— Zeyi Yang 杨泽毅 (@ZeyiYang) April 1, 2026

These are just a few examples. Dozens of similar incidents have occurred over the past few months, where robotaxis have gotten stuck for various reasons and caused traffic jams.

Advertisement

This is happening while robotaxis are still largely in trial mode. Multiply this by a factor of a hundred or even a thousand, and it’s easy to imagine how much worse traffic could become in the future.

So what happens next?

Dr. Naz summed it up well: “AVs are not inherently good or bad. Their impacts will depend heavily on how they are deployed and governed.” Without smart policy ahead of mass adoption, the self-driving dream risks handing us a shinier, more expensive traffic jam. 

If we are to pay that price, autonomous vehicles must clearly demonstrate that they are safer and more reliable than human drivers, which they have failed to do till now.

Advertisement

NASA’s next eye into the cosmos is due to leave our planet later this year. The agency says it’s targeting an early September launch for the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. Roman (for short) has a field of view 100 times larger than Hubble’s.

The September date is the earliest possible launch for Roman. NASA says it will go up (aboard a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket) no later than May 2027.

The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, named after NASA’s first chief astronomer and “mother” of Hubble, was introduced in 2016. (Back then, it was known as the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope, or WFIRST.) The telescope’s mirror is roughly the same size as Hubble’s, but it can capture sections of the sky at least 100 times larger than its predecessor.

“Roman will work in tandem with NASA observatories such as the James Webb Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray Observatory, which are designed to zoom in on rare transient objects once they’ve been identified, but seldom if ever discover them,” Julie McEnery, Roman’s senior project scientist, said in 2023. “Roman’s much larger field of view will reveal many such objects that were previously unknown. And since we’ve never had an observatory like this scanning the cosmos before, we could even find entirely new classes of objects and events.”

After leaving our atmosphere, Roman will set course for a vantage point nearly 1 million miles from Earth. There, it will rely on a pair of instruments to study space. The first is a 300.8-megapixel camera that captures light from visible to near-infrared. There’s also a high-contrast coronagraph that will allow it to capture exoplanets that would otherwise be blocked by starlight.

Roman’s mission: “to settle essential questions in the areas of dark energy, exoplanets and astrophysics.” Despite decades of study, astronomers know surprisingly little about dark energy, which makes up about 68 percent of the universe’s contents. And while scientific discoveries are cool and all, you’ll be pleased to know that Roman is also sure to beam back more dazzling pictures of our cosmos.

A new Mirai-based malware campaign is actively exploiting CVE-2025-29635, a high-severity command-injection vulnerability affecting D-Link DIR-823X routers, to enlist devices into the botnet.

CVE-2025-29635 allows an attacker to execute arbitrary commands on remote devices by sending a POST request to a vulnerable endpoint, triggering remote command execution (RCE).

Akamai’s SIRT, which detected the Mirai campaign in March 2026, reports that, although the flaw was first disclosed 13 months ago by security researchers Wang Jinshuai and Zhao Jiangting, this is the first time in-the-wild active exploitation has been observed.

“The Akamai SIRT discovered active exploitation attempts of the D-Link command injection vulnerability CVE-2025-29635 in our global network of honeypots in early March 2026,” reads Akamai’s report.

“This vulnerability exists in D-Link DIR-823X series routers in firmware versions 240126 and 24082, and allows an authorized attacker to execute arbitrary commands on remote devices by sending a POST request to the /goform/set_prohibiting endpoint via the corresponding function, which can trigger remote command execution.”

The researchers who discovered the flaw briefly published a proof-of-concept (PoC) exploit on GitHub, but later retracted it.

Akamai’s observations show attackers are sending POST requests that change directories across writable paths, download a shell script (dlink.sh) from an external IP, and execute it.

The script installs a Mirai-based malware named “tuxnokill,” which supports multiple architectures.

In terms of capabilities, it features Mirai’s standard distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack repertoire, including TCP SYN/ACK/STOMP, UDP floods, and HTTP null.

Akamai has also found that the threat actor behind this campaign also exploits CVE-2023-1389, impacting TP-Link routers, and a separate RCE flaw in ZTE ZXV10 H108L routers. The same attack pattern was observed across all of them, leading to the deployment of a Mirai payload.

The impacted devices reached end of life (EoL) in November 2024, so it’s likely the latest firmware available for the model does not address CVE-2025-29635. D-Link does not make exceptions when active exploitation is detected, so it’s unlikely the vendor will provide a fixing patch now.

BleepingComputer has contacted D-Link with questions about the reported activity and the status of the fix, and we will update this post as soon as we hear back.

Meanwhile, users of routers that have reached EoL are recommended to upgrade to a newer model that enjoys active support with frequent security fixes, disable remote administration portals if not needed, change default admin passwords, and monitor for unexpected configuration changes.

AI chained four zero-days into one exploit that bypassed both renderer and OS sandboxes. A wave of new exploits is coming.

At the Autonomous Validation Summit (May 12 & 14), see how autonomous, context-rich validation finds what’s exploitable, proves controls hold, and closes the remediation loop.

Advertisement

Claim Your Spot

A group of third grade students gather around a board game on a Wednesday afternoon in a Charleston classroom, grabbing game pieces, discussing potential moves and reading out playing cards. The games are not Monopoly, Sorry, or any others of yore – they’re focused on identifying, and boosting, students’ strengths and weaknesses.

It’s part of a shift in school districts’ gifted and talented programs. While many programs focused on a small group of high achieving students, instructors across the nation are now focusing more on inclusion, using data to help them zero in on students’ talents, a method that has the potential of capturing more students for advanced instruction.

For Vanessa Hill, the gifted education coordinator for Amphitheater Public School District in Tucson, Arizona, focusing on strengths and weaknesses helps to solve what she sees as a universal problem with gifted identification.

“Something I’ve been thinking deeply about that tends to be a universal problem is that gifted identification does not match the metrics of your district,” says Vanessa Hill, the gifted education coordinator for Amphitheater Public School District in Tucson, Arizona. “I’m constantly thinking of that, so our demographics can get closer. This new tactic is about exposure to critical thinking and reasoning – what does that look like, how to reason through a problem?”

Re-assessing the methods and ultimately changing the definition of “gifted” comes as some question the value of standardized tests and a push-and-pull to diversify programs.

The Shift In Gifted and Talented

The gifted and talented programs run the gamut of names and acronyms depending on the district, including advanced learning program, TAG (talented and gifted), LEAP (Learning Enrichment Alternative Program) or REACH (Realizing Excellence through Academic and Creative Help), among others.

Regardless of the name, the program has undergone several major shifts over the last few decades. Schools previously often only selectively tested students, often at the behest of involved parents or by a teacher recommendation. That brought a large amount of inequity in the programs, with many moving to a universal screening practice. Some states, including Washington and Missouri, made it a state mandate to test all students while in elementary school. The screening practice itself evolved from an IQ test to aptitude and ability tests, though how accurate those are is up for debate.

“Society is really unequal along socioeconomic and racial and ethnic lines, and these tests are just reflecting that,” says Scott Peters, director of research consulting at NWEA, a nonprofit education assessment organization. “You can change tests all day long, but at the end of the day, you can’t give some kids three years of $40,000-a-year preschool and also wonder why this kid that’s never been to school until first grade doesn’t do as well.”

Often, schools’ gifted and talented programs do not represent their overall school population and instead skew heavily toward white and Asian students. Zohran Mamdani, the widely-watched mayor of New York City, made it part of his platform to phase out gifted and talented programs because of the inequity.

“Ultimately, my administration would aim to make sure that every child receives a high-quality early education that nurtures their curiosity and learning,” he said in a 2025 statement to the New York Times.

There is no silver bullet test that accounts for inequality and a child’s upbringing, although Peters said when factors such as income, race and other equity gaps are controlled in tests, most inequities disappear.

“This isn’t a factor of, ‘Oh, there are students of color scoring high, but they’re still not getting in,’” he says. “It’s that there’s not enough students of color scoring high because of that larger societal inequality issue.”

Because of the often-skewed gifted and talented population, schools are shifting toward “talent development” with all students, versus focusing on strengthening some students’ already solid skills.

“Because of the baggage of the past, we’re moving toward a new perspective where we’re identifying the strengths of students — whether academic, social or emotional — versus people for a program,” says Kristen Seward, clinical professor in gifted, talented and creative studies at Purdue University. “And I think this twist in how we approach education as gifted researchers is going to benefit everybody.”

Using Data for ‘Talent Development’

Developing talent for gifted programs, much like the name itself, varies depending on the district. Seward says many teachers have enriched curriculums, which enhance things like vocabulary, science and social studies — topics that have been put on the back burner over the years in favor of standardized testing. Teachers are trained to spot students’ strengths and respond to those, which in turn, helps with students’ weaknesses.

For example, if a student has a strong vocabulary but struggles in math, the teacher might focus on math vocabulary during math class to put the lesson on a level the child understands.

“I don’t want it to turn into a thing where the teacher is the gate, and if they don’t open the gate, then the students don’t get identified – which has been a problem,” Seward says. “We have to train teachers to be talent scouts, presenting the enriched curriculum. Hopefully it’s not something additional, but something they’d naturally do in their role.”

Elizabeth McLaurin Uptegrove, now the assistant academic director in Charleston County School District, created a “strength or stretch” system that involves the games the students played in the aforementioned classroom. When Uptegrove first arrived in Charleston’s school district, South Carolina used to require all second grade students be tested for the gifted and talented program. But after that year, selection changed to a nomination system.

“Which sounds elitist, and it is,” she says, adding white, affluent children were three times more likely to be in the programs.

She pushed for universal testing again for all fourth grade students, which yielded three times as many students identified as gifted, jumping from 40 fourth graders to 150 across the district. Several schools across the country have adopted similar strength-or-stretch systems.

But Uptegrove’s efforts go beyond identifying candidates for gifted programs through teacher observation: her game-based system uses data. With the aptitude test, there are verbal, quantitative and nonverbal subsections. The tests indicate if a child is low or high achieving in those areas. Then the children are placed in groups with those of similar abilities to play games that can enhance those skills.

“Typically a teacher is not very well-equipped to come up with activities or lessons that can actually reach their level of thinking ability and games do that really quickly, in a way that’s not as boring for children as a typical worksheet,” Uptegrove says. “That’s where the magic of the games comes in. We’re making rigorous, hard thinking almost irresistible so students are willing to do the activity for longer.”

Hill, the Arizona-based education coordinator, initially implemented Uptegrove’s game strategy across third grade classrooms in five schools: three Title 1 schools and two non-Title 1. She says the schools that have the strength or stretch program in place have higher passing rates of “proficient” or “highly proficient” scores than those who do not.

“To me, it’s the difference between being a passive learner and active learner; by being able to engage in the games, it’s more active learning,” Hill says. “You raise the exposure to critical thinking and are taught to apply those skills to any situation, whether it’s on an achievement test or on the playground with a friend.”

The Future of the Program

Both researchers and teachers acknowledge the “talent development” approach to gifted and talented programs is far from perfect. It is often costly, whether it is buying the games, instilling teacher training or taking out time from testing. Hill pointed to four schools within her district that are closing this year because of financial constraints.

“Ordering the games is no small cost; I feel so blessed it’s that level of importance that we will find the funds,” she says. “As far as critical thinking games, yes that was missing. It is a hole we were filling. I think that while the core curriculum is doing its best, it can oftentimes be a bit surface level.”

Uptegrove agrees, saying she believes the talent development method is becoming more popular, but “there’s a long way to go in belief and funding for it.”

Peters, who has long studied the best educational methods and practices, believes the shift in gifted and talented is a good step. But he has concerns about the larger moves needed for lasting impact.

“It’s easy to have a 30-minute gifted program; it’s hard to have a second through eighth grade math development pipeline involving everyone in the school,” he says. “And advanced learning isn’t enough of a priority for most schools.”

Business laptops are a niche that suits only a few, but if there were one laptop you could do every single job with, it’s the ExpertBook Ultra. This laptop debuts Intel’s Panther Lake processors in India, and they pack serious performance not only in the CPU but also in the graphics department, with the Taiwanese laptop maker claiming GPU performance similar to the RTX 4050 on the ExpertBook Ultra, which weighs less than 1kg. Here’s everything you need to know about it.

Flagship All Around

Asus is pitching the ExpertBook Ultra as its most premium business laptop yet, and it’s easy to see why. It features an ultra-light design starting at just 0.99 kg and is built using magnesium-aluminum alloy. We took the Ultra for a spin at the launch event, and it looked beautiful. The finish shimmers in sunlight, making the whole experience even more premium.

Open the lid, and you’re greeted by a beautiful 3K Tandem OLED display that nails the colors and delivers deep blacks. But that’s not actually the highlight. The highlight is the 1400-nit peak brightness in HDR mode, which keeps the display legible even in direct sunlight. The nano coating also keeps the panel smudge-free.

Under the hood lie Intel’s latest Core Ultra Series 3 processors, along with an integrated AI engine (NPU) to handle on-device AI workloads. While we are yet to test the performance of the ExpertBook Ultra, Asus’s demos have set expectations very high, as their benchmarks show the laptop topping the charts among other laptops. The processor can be coupled with up to 64GB of LPDDR5X RAM and 2TB of M.2 2280 NVMe PCIe 5.0 SSD.

Graphics are handled by the Intel Arc B390, which Asus says offers performance comparable to the RTX 4050. The company also ran a series of benchmarks comparing the two in a variety of games. The ExpertBook Ultra is run by a 70WHrs battery with a claimed all-day battery life of up to 26 hours.

ExpertBook P Series Gets an Upgrade

Alongside the Ultra, ASUS has expanded its ExpertBook P series with new models like the P3 and P5, targeting a wider range of business users.

These laptops will deliver scalable performance and AI capabilities for professionals and small- to medium-sized businesses. ASUS says the goal is to provide flexibility across configurations while maintaining strong performance and reliability.

Pricing & Availability

The ASUS ExpertBook Ultra is now available for pre-order on Flipkart, starting at ₹2,39,990. Pre-order offers include extended warranty, accidental damage protection, bank discounts, and bundled subscriptions. Meanwhile, the ExpertBook P3 starts at ₹94,990, while the P5 is expected to launch soon with a starting price of ₹2,14,990