JP Morgan & Chase, BlackRock, DST Global and Arch Venture Partners have reportedly invested in the lab.
Jeff Bezos’s physical AI lab Project Prometheus has closed a $10bn funding round at a valuation of around $38bn, Bloomberg has confirmed.
A sources has told the publication that JP Morgan & Chase, BlackRock, DST Global and Arch Venture Partners are among those participating in the round. Speculation around the closure of the round was reported earlier this week by the Financial Times (FT).
The company builds AI that assists engineering and manufacturing in a number of sectors, including in computers, aerospace and automobiles.
The lab reportedly amassed an initial $6.2bn in November, partly from Bezos himself. Although demand has further extended the raise, FT reported.
The co-founders are also reportedly leading efforts to raise “tens of billions of dollars or more” for a holding company to acquire parts of other companies likely to be disrupted by AI.
Meanwhile, Prometheus also held talks with sovereign investment funds, including from Singapore and Gulf nations. Additionally, it plans to collect stakes in companies across its target sectors for AI training data.
Advertisement
Prometheus had already hired around 100 employees across San Francisco, London and Zurich by November last year, including researchers from OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Meta. FT sources said that the company is hiring people with experience “building out massive infrastructure projects”.
Apex, a new survival thriller from director Baltasar Kormákur, debuts on Netflix Friday. The film stars Charlize Theron as Sasha, a grief-stricken woman who, after a rather predictable accident on a mountain, travels to Australia to find closure. Once there, she finds herself involved in a grueling cat-and-mouse game as she’s hunted by a ruthless local named Ben (played by Taron Egerton).
There’s a lot the movie could’ve explored during its roughly 90-minute running time, particularly around loss and letting go. Alas, it’s all surface, no depth. It’s a bummer — but at least that surface looks cool.
Let’s back up a minute and discuss the movie’s opening moments. We’re quickly introduced to Sasha, who wakes up in a tent tied to the side of a mountain. This is normal life for her and her husband, Tommy (played by Eric Bana), and it’s understood that the couple does a lot of rock climbing. But Sasha comes to a rock side she just can’t climb over, and, in frustration, they stay on the side of the mountain a bit too long.
Advertisement
All the while, a snowstorm closes in.
Perhaps I watch too many disaster movies, but the story panned out in a predictable manner from there. Due to a rockslide and bad weather conditions, Tommy gets knocked unconscious (or killed immediately) and Sasha must either let go of his rope or die with him.
This opening sequence took place over mere minutes, which, in my opinion, was nowhere near enough time to establish the emotional connection between the two characters that would then inspire her to take a trip alone to the wild backlands of Australia. But we all process grief differently, I guess.
Needless to say, once there, Sasha finds herself in a situation that she wasn’t prepared for. Red flags abound in the form of the cluttered wall of missing persons posters in the local police station and a group of questionable men she soon meets while on her journey to go camping in the unfamiliar terrain.
Advertisement
And this is where Egerton’s seemingly harmless Ben enters the picture. Soon, Apex transforms into something of a horror film, and Ben (along with his trusty crossbow) hunts the American deeper into the woods, because that’s what he does to pass the time.
This is all you really need to know about the story. I’m leaving out some heavy spoilers so you can discover the direction the film takes from there.
Taron Egerton and Charlize Theron star in Apex.
Advertisement
Kane Skennar/Netflix
It brings me no joy to write a negative review. First off, I am fully aware of how challenging it is to make a movie. Not to mention, Apex was shot entirely on location; Theron and Egerton really ran through the Australian woods and battled in all sorts of terrain, from the side of a mountain to white water rapids.
Theron did many of her own stunts and trained to believably portray a rock climber, and she definitely delivered on that front. That focus on realism in the field results in a slew of jaw-dropping visuals that beg to be seen on the big screen. But alas, Apex is a streaming release.
Still, this is all commendable, considering how many Netflix titles are produced entirely on sound stages in front of a blue screen, with digital effects added later to build out the story world. But I can’t help feeling that the focus on tactile detail here came at the expense of the emotional depth a story like this needs.
Apex leans heavily on the acting talents of its leads, and Theron and Egerton deliver the goods, no question. Without their strengths opposite each other, I don’t think Apex would be worth the time at all. This may be Theron’s movie, but Egerton steals the show. More on him in a second.
Advertisement
Charlize Theron stars in Apex.
Kane Skennar/Netflix
When you take a look at Theron’s IMDb page, it’s clear her acting career has been populated with varied roles. She can hold her own in an indie comedy, an arthouse drama, a Marvel blockbuster and even Arrested Development. She brings a haunted stillness to Sasha, which informs the character’s power without spoon-feeding the audience.
All she needs to do is stand and stare at Egerton and her silence speaks volumes. Without much dialogue, she easily steps into the root-worthy entry point for the viewer to connect with.
Advertisement
Egerton, meanwhile, goes all-in on Ben’s atrociousness. He’s a backwoods Hannibal Lecter, complete with his own unique jerky recipe. It should be mentioned that Egerton is British, doing a semi-believable Australian accent, which is not an easy feat. There’s a grab bag of other terrifying quirks that make Ben frightening, on the same level, at times, as Norman Bates. You can tell Egerton is having a blast playing this character. I had a blast watching him.
Performances can only take things so far, though. Outside of the chemistry between Theron and Egerton, the striking visuals and strong camera work, Apex is pretty hollow. That’s a sad thing to type, considering the notion that this is a story about loss, grief and survival.
I’m not going to say Apex isn’t worth your time. If you want some empty-calorie terror to get you through the weekend, you can find it here. Just don’t expect much more than that.
The event is designed to connect students and professionals with key employers, alongside providing industry insights and upskilling opportunities.
This coming Saturday (25 April), the National Institute for Bioprocessing Research and Training (NIBRT) will hold the 12th annual Careers in Biopharma event.
Taking place in the O’Reilly Hall at University College Dublin (UCD), the event is an opportunity for students, graduates and jobseekers to expand their knowledge of the biopharma sector. Attendees can meet with key industry employers, sit in on lectures, engage with upskilling opportunities and expand their networks.
Registration for the event is free and those interested in attending can register in advance. The following is a list of some of the STEM organisations and institutions that will be in attendance.
Advertisement
AbbVie
US pharmaceutical company Abbvie was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Chicago. The organisation has more than 80 global locations, including in Cork, Dublin, Sligo and Mayo. AbbVie focuses primarily on discovering, developing and delivering therapies and treatments for serious illnesses, in areas such as immunology, oncology and neuroscience.
Alexion
Established in 1992 and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, Alexion has been operating in Ireland since 2013, when it opened its first Irish location in Blanchardstown. Between the Dublin and Athlone locations, Alexion employs more than 1300 people in Ireland. Acquired by AstraZeneca in 2020, Alexion focuses on creating therapies and solutions for complex and rare diseases.
Amgen
Biopharmaceutical company Amgen was first established in 1980 and has its primary location in Thousand Oaks California. There are two locations in Dublin and the organisation’s mission involves discovering, developing, manufacturing and delivering innovative medicines to fight some of the world’s most serious conditions, such as heart disease, obesity-related conditions, rare illnesses, inflammatory conditions and cancer. In January of this year, Amgen announced the acquisition of cancer drug discovery platform Dark Blue Therapeutics in a deal valued at up to $840m.
Bristol Myers Squibb
Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) has been active in Ireland for 52 years, beginning operations in 1964 with an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Plant in Swords, Dublin. Currently, in Ireland, BMS runs a biologics drug-substance manufacturing facility in Cruiserath and external manufacturing divisions in Blanchardstown and Shannon. Roughly 1,000 people in Ireland are currently employed by BMS.
Advertisement
Eli Lilly
US pharma giant Eli Lilly manufacturers treatments in areas such as Alzheimer’s, cancer and diabetes. The company has been operating in Ireland since 1978 and employs more than 3,700 people across three sites, in Limerick and Cork. In 2024, the multinational announced plans to invest $1bn into the expansion of its manufacturing site in Limerick, bringing total investment in the build to $2bn. Development on the site continues.
Grifols
Established in Spain in 1909 global healthcare company Grifols has a premises in Dublin, where it offers a range of biopharma products and services. The Dublin location serves as the management center for Grifols Biopharma overseeing the treasury, risk management, supply and demand planning, regulatory, R&D and commercial functions. It is also a hub for labelling, packing, final conditioning, and distribution of finished plasma products. The organisation employs more than 25,000 across the globe, with a presence in more than 30 countries and regions.
ISPE
Established in 1980 and headquartered in Maryland, the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE) is a large non-profit that focuses on scientific, technical and regulatory advancements in the pharmaceutical lifecycle. The organisation has more than 23,000 employees who are involved in building solutions in the development and manufacturing of safe and effective pharmaceutical and biologic medicines and medical delivery devices. Members are dispersed across more than 90 countries around the world.
Johnson and Johnson Innovative Medicine
Healthcare company Johnson and Johnson Innovative Medicine will also be in attendance at NIBRT’s event. The company employs roughly 140,000 people globally and aims to tackle complex diseases via prevention, treatments and cures. The organisation is particularly focused on the areas of oncology, immunology, cardiopulmonary and neuroscience. Johnson & Johnson’s connection with Ireland began in 1935, with more than 6,000 Irish people employed across its 10 locations in Cork, Dublin, Limerick, Galway and Mayo.
Advertisement
MSD
US multinational pharmaceutical company MSD has a strong presence in Ireland, with facilities in Dublin, Carlow, Cork, Louth, Meath and Tipperary. MSD carries out research and creates medicines and vaccines for some of the world’s most challenging diseases, including cancer, HIV, Ebola, emerging animal diseases and recently Covid-19.
OmniSpirant Therapeutics
Galway’s OmniSpirant Therapeutics was founded in 2016 by Gerry McCauley. It is an early stage therapeutics company working on the development of a novel technology that uses inhaled stem cell exosomes to treat cancer and respiratory diseases.
Pfizer
Global pharmaceutical company Pfizer is a well-established name worldwide. Currently the organisation employs around 3,700 people across six sites in Ireland. The first Irish location was established in 1969 and since then, Pfizer has invested $8bn. In March Pfizer announced the launch of its 2026 Apprenticeship Programme which is open to both school leavers and those looking for a new career or educational achievement. The programme is available across Pfizer’s sites in Grange Castle, Dublin; Newbridge, Kildare; and Ringaskiddy, Cork.
ProPharma
Established in 2001, North Carolina headquartered ProPharma helps pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies bring new therapies to the market. Their work covers the early development stages, all the way through to the clinical, regulatory approval and commercialisation phases. The organisation has a strong global presence across Europe, the US and the AsiaPacific reason.
Advertisement
Sanofi
Paris-based pharmaceutical manufacturing company Sanofi produces drugs across a wide range of therapeutic disciplines, treating illnesses such as MS and diabetes. The R&D driven, AI-powered biopharma has a presence in more than 60 countries and currently has two Irish sites in Waterford and Dublin.
Veolia
Headquartered in France, Veolia employs more than 700 employees across Ireland. The organisation works with customers to manage scarce resources through their expertise in operations, engineering and technology. The aim is to reduce the environmental impact of public, business and industrial activities. This is achieved via a focus on three key areas, decarbonisation, reducing pollution and maximising resource efficiency.
WuXi Biologics
Headquartered in China, WuXi Biologics is an open-access biologics technology platform that offers end-to-end services in order to accelerate the development and manufacturing of biologics. WuXi employs more than 13,000 employees across China, the US, Ireland, Germany, and Singapore. A global team that includes experts and scientists in biologics R&D and manufacturing, technology innovation, and operations. Located on a 26-hectare site, WuXi has a location midway between Dublin and Belfast, in Dundalk, Louth. The site is one of the largest in the world utilising single-use bioreactor technology.
Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.
As part of the effort to push Large Language Model (LLM) ‘AI’ into more and more places, Anthropic’s Model Context Protocol (MCP) has been adopted as the standard to connect LLMs with various external tools and systems in a client-server model. A light oversight with the architecture of this protocol is that remote command execution (RCE) of arbitrary commands is effectively an essential part of its design, as covered in a recent article by [OX Security].
The details of this flaw are found in a detailed breakdown article, which applies to all implementations regardless of the programming language. Essentially the StdioServerParameters that are passed to the remote server to create a new local instance on said server can contain any command and arguments, which are executed in a server-side shell.
Essentially the issue is a lack of input sanitization, which is only the most common source of exploited CVEs. Across multiple real-world exploitation attempts on the software of LettaAI, LangFlow, Flowise and Windsurf it was possible to perform RCEs or perform local RCE in the case of the Windsurf IDE. Although Flowise had implemented some input sanitization by limiting allowed commands and the stripping of special characters, this was bypassed by using standard flags of the npx command.
Advertisement
After contacting Anthropic to inform them of these issues with MCP, the researchers were told that there was no design flaw and essentially had a ‘no-fix, works as designed’ hurled at them. According to Anthropic it’s the responsibility of the developer to perform input sanitization, which is interesting since they provide a range of implementations.
Over 10,000 Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) instances exposed online are vulnerable to ongoing attacks exploiting a cross-site scripting (XSS) security flaw, according to nonprofit security organization Shadowserver.
Zimbra is a popular email and collaboration software suite used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, including hundreds of government agencies and thousands of businesses.
The vulnerability (tracked as CVE-2025-48700) affects ZCS 8.8.15, 9.0, 10.0, and 10.1 and can allow unauthenticated attackers to access sensitive information after executing arbitrary JavaScript within the user’s session.
Synacor released security patches to address the flaw in June 2025, when it warned that CVE-2025-48700 exploits require no user interaction and can be triggered when a user views a maliciously crafted email message in the Zimbra Classic UI.
The U.S. cybersecurity agency also ordered Federal Civilian Executive Branch (FCEB) agencies to secure their Zimbra servers within three days, by April 23.
On Friday, Internet security watchdog Shadowserver also warned that over 10,500 Zimbra servers exposed online remain unpatched, most of them in Asia (3,794) and Europe (3,793).
This phishing campaign (codenamed Operation GhostMail by security researchers at Seqrite Labs) also targeted the Ukrainian State Hydrology Agency (a critical infrastructure entity under the Ministry of Infrastructure that provides navigational, maritime, and hydrographic support) and delivered an obfuscated JavaScript payload when recipients opened the malicious emails in vulnerable Zimbra webmail sessions.
“The phishing email has no malicious attachments, no suspicious links, no macros. The entire attack chain lives inside the HTML body of a single email, there are no malicious attachments,” Seqrite Labs said at the time.
Advertisement
Zimbra flaws are frequently exploited in attacks and have been used to breach thousands of vulnerable email servers in recent years.
For instance, Russian Winter Vivern cyberespies used another reflected XSS exploit to breach Zimbra webmail portals in February 2023 and steal emails sent and received by NATO-aligned organizations and individuals, including military personnel, government officials, and diplomats.
More recently, in October 2024, U.S. and U.K. cyber agencies warned that APT29 (a.k.a. Cozy Bear, Midnight Blizzard) hackers linked to Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) were targeting vulnerable Zimbra servers “at a mass scale,” exploiting a security issue that had been previously abused to steal email account credentials.
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.
Samsung’s memory business is central to the current upswing in the chip market. Alongside SK Hynix and Micron, the company is one of the three major producers of DRAM and high-bandwidth memory (HBM). These chips are now critical for AI training and inference systems, where memory bandwidth has become as… Read Entire Article Source link
Editor’s Note: Nick Hanauer is a Seattle entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and founder of Civic Ventures. He was an early investor in Amazon and is co-founder of Second Avenue Partners. This piece is a reply to Chris DeVore’s “Make Democracy Capitalist Again.”
Nick Hanauer. (Civic Ventures Photo)
Chris DeVore and I have been acquainted a long time. We move in the same Seattle circles — investors, founders, civic types who’ve spent careers betting on entrepreneurs. So when he published his GeekWire piece last week arguing that Democrats have lost their minds and declared capitalism the enemy, I read it carefully. Chris is a thoughtful person, and his argument deserves a serious response.
I’ll first acknowledge that I agree with some of Chris’s critiques of the Democratic Party. Many have indeed lost their way, in this state and nationally. Recent efforts to make Washington the least attractive place in the country for wealthy citizens are producing a stampede to other states — virtually every wealthy friend I have has either left or is planning to. It’s a catastrophe.
The most recent legislation to tax income above one million dollars is sensible on its own; it’s the combination of everything piled on top that makes our state so unattractive. Making the total tax burden here 5–10 times the alternatives isn’t progressivism; it’s stupidity.
But I don’t agree with Chris’s basic analysis. He is defending something real, with the wrong argument, in a way that obscures the actual problem we face. The reason he can’t quite see it is the reason many of our friends can’t — we’ve spent our adult lives inside a paradigm so dominant it feels like the weather.
Advertisement
There is no such thing as “capitalism”
Chris treats capitalism as a single thing. A motive force. A powerplant. Something you either embrace or demonize.
But there is no such thing as capitalism in the singular. There are many capitalisms. The capitalism of 1880s America — child labor, company towns, no weekends — was capitalism. The capitalism of 1955 America — 35% union density, 91% top marginal tax rates, the GI Bill building the largest middle class in human history, GDP growth rates double what they are today — was also capitalism. Denmark is capitalist. Singapore is capitalist. The neoliberal version we have run in America since roughly 1975, delivering four decades of stagnant wages for most workers while routing nearly all productivity gains to the top, is also capitalism.
These systems produce radically different outcomes — in wages, mobility, life expectancy, civic trust, democratic stability. The question is never “capitalism, yes or no.” The only question that has ever mattered is: which capitalism, designed how, for whose benefit?
Once you see that, Chris’s piece stops being a defense of an embattled principle and becomes something much harder to defend: a defense of the particular neoliberal form of capitalism we happen to have. The rules we happen to have written. The distribution we happen to be producing. As if this version were synonymous with the American project itself. It isn’t. And the conflation is the central error of his argument.
Advertisement
What his piece can’t see
Read Chris’s 1,500 words and notice what isn’t there. The word “inequality” does not appear. Not once. “Wages” does not appear. “Workers” appears once — as a count of people who receive paychecks from founders, never as economic actors in their own right. Monopoly power, corporate concentration, the middle class, housing affordability, life expectancy — none of it.
In Chris’s America, there are founders, consumers, taxpayers, and a state that either facilitates or confiscates. That’s the whole cast.
This isn’t an oversight. It is a worldview — the one producing the carnage Chris seems unable to perceive. When the bottom 90% of a country spends half a century watching productivity double while their wages stagnate, it is not “populist” for them to notice. It is arithmetic.
Since 1975, roughly $79 trillion has been redistributed upward from the bottom 90% to the top 10% — not through theft, but through the steady accumulation of rules written to favor capital over labor, shareholders over workers, assets over wages. If productivity and wages had stayed linked the way they did from 1945 to 1975, the median American household would be earning $120,000 a year today instead of $75,000. In 1985 it took one worker 39.7 weeks of work to pay for the basics of a middle-class life. By 2022 it took 62 weeks.
Advertisement
American life expectancy is declining — the first sustained decline in a developed nation in a century. Deaths of despair have killed more Americans in the past decade than died in every war we have fought. A generation of young people cannot afford to buy a home.
The small-business owners Chris invokes as victims of “confiscatory taxation” are being crushed — not by taxes, but by monopoly concentration across every sector from retail to healthcare to agriculture, and by a customer base that cannot afford to spend.
Consider our “capitalist” healthcare system — the most market-driven in the developed world. We spend roughly twice as much per person as every other advanced country and get worse outcomes by nearly every measure: shorter lives, higher infant and maternal mortality, more preventable deaths. Medical bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in America, a phenomenon that does not exist in any peer nation. If markets were the self-regulating miracle Chris describes, this would be impossible. It is the predictable result of a system designed to extract rents rather than deliver care.
Or consider time itself. American workers get less paid vacation, parental leave, and sick leave than workers in any other rich country. A French worker averages 30 days of paid vacation, a German 28, an American roughly 10, and a quarter of us get none. We built an economy in which labor has almost no leverage and capital has almost all of it. The differentials in GDP per capita that many point to as proof the American system works better can almost entirely be accounted for by this.
Advertisement
None of this happened by accident. Starting in the 1970s, a particular idea took over American business and policy: that the sole purpose of a corporation is to maximize returns to shareholders. Milton Friedman wrote it down. Jack Welch operationalized it. Business schools taught it for 50 years.
And it was a scam — a piece of ideology, dressed up as economic science, that licensed the systematic transfer of wealth from workers, customers, and communities to a narrow class of shareholders and executives. It is the reason insulin tripled in price, and the reason a company can lay off ten thousand workers and see its stock rise the same afternoon. It is not capitalism working. It is a specific ideological distortion of capitalism most of the developed world never adopted.
The defining feature of the paradigm we’ve been operating in for fifty years is not that it is cruel. It is that it is blind. When a paradigm cannot see the crisis, it blames the people pointing at it.
The cycle of renewal is the case for a different capitalism
The single strongest data point in Chris’s piece — the 45 of the top 100 companies that didn’t exist 50 years ago — is actually the best evidence against his argument. Amazon was built on internet infrastructure funded by DARPA. Google’s search algorithm was funded by NSF. The iPhone is a stack of publicly-funded research: GPS, touchscreen, lithium-ion batteries, Siri. Moderna’s mRNA vaccine rested on decades of NIH funding. The AI revolution was built on transformer research funded by federal grants.
Advertisement
The dynamism Chris celebrates is not capitalism in the abstract. It is the output of a specific mixed economy — a partnership between state capacity and private enterprise that we spent eighty years building and the last forty dismantling. His piece is, without quite realizing it, an argument for the system he imagines he’s defending against.
And about that other administration
Something else worth naming: Chris’s defense of free markets, written in 2026 and aimed at Democrats, contains not a single mention of the administration currently in power.
By any definition Chris himself would recognize, the Trump administration is running the least free-market, most state-interventionist economic regime in a generation. It imposes tariffs — which are taxes, however much the White House insists otherwise — at levels not seen since the 1930s, by executive fiat rather than legislation. It demands direct equity stakes in private companies as the price of regulatory approval. It plays open favorites, rewarding loyalists and punishing disfavored firms with investigations. It governs by slogan and grievance rather than rule of law. If a Democratic administration were doing a tenth of this, Chris would be writing a very different op-ed.
And yet much of the tech world — our world — has embraced it, with founders cheering moves from Trump they would have denounced from a Democrat. The permission structure is frustration with Democrats over taxes, regulation, and cultural politics. I share some of that frustration.
Advertisement
But frustration is not a principle, and the administration our peers have lined up behind is not capitalist in any meaningful sense. It is crony state capitalism — the kind that has hollowed out economies from Argentina to Russia to Hungary, run by people who have figured out that the fastest way to get rich is to be close to power. You cannot write a credible defense of free markets in 2026 without naming the regime dismantling them in real time.
The democracy problem
Chris titled his piece “Make Democracy Capitalist Again.” But the relationship is exactly backward. The threat to American democracy today comes from fifty years of an economic system that has made a small number of people vastly richer every year while the majority of Americans have grown relatively poorer, less secure, and less hopeful. No democracy in history has survived that arrangement indefinitely.
When economic gains flow overwhelmingly to a narrow elite for long enough, the political system eventually follows the money — through campaign finance, lobbying, regulatory capture, media ownership. Ordinary citizens watch their lives deteriorate while the rules keep getting written for someone else. They lose faith in institutions. They look for a strongman.
Trumpism is not the cause of our democratic crisis. It is the symptom of an economic order that has been hollowing out democratic legitimacy for forty years. The authoritarian turn we are living through is what happens when you run neoliberalism long enough.
Advertisement
When Chris argues that the path back to a healthy democracy runs through recommitting to capitalism, he has the causation inverted. The capitalism we have been running is what broke the democracy. You cannot have a functioning democracy and a runaway oligarchy at the same time. Eventually, you have to choose.
To Chris, and to people like us
The people working hardest to save American capitalism right now are not the ones defending it as-is. They are the ones willing to change it. The longer the version of capitalism we have chosen keeps failing the majority of our fellow citizens, the more likely it becomes that they will eventually decide to throw capitalism out altogether.
That is the lesson of every historical moment like ours — the 1890s, the 1930s, the late 1960s. When a system stops delivering for most people, most people stop defending it. And what comes next is rarely anything the people at the top of the current system would prefer.
The quicker people of good faith — investors, founders, civic leaders, Democrats and Republicans who genuinely believe in markets and in America — recognize that the form of capitalism we’ve chosen isn’t working for the majority of our fellow citizens and get serious about changing it, the less likely it becomes that those citizens will conclude capitalism itself is the problem.
Advertisement
That is the actual choice. Not capitalism versus demonization. Reform now, or reckoning later. I’d rather do the reform. I think, if he thinks about it, Chris would too.
General Motors launched the first 6.6L Duramax V8, known among diesel engine enthusiasts as the LB7, in 2001 for its heavy-duty pickup trucks. The LB7 Duramax engine design resulted from a collaboration between GM and Isuzu. The design featured first-of-a-kind diesel engine innovations, such as aluminum cylinder heads and common-rail fuel injection (at least among American-made diesel engines for pickup trucks.
In 2001, GM’s 6.6-liter Duramax produced 300 horsepower and 520 pound-feet of torque. While those numbers don’t stack up well against modern HD pickup diesel engines, the LB7’s power was a significant improvement over Ford’s 7.3-liter Power Stroke and the Cummins used by Chrysler in 2001. The Duramax diesel improved over its six generations, gaining more power with each iteration.
Advertisement
The current Duramax generation, a $9,990 engine option for 2026 known as the L5P, is among the best for the 6.6 Duramax. The L5P Duramax debuted in 2017 with 445 horsepower and 910 lb-ft of torque, but refinements over the years have increased its output to 470 horsepower and 975 lb-ft of torque. Those specs are impressive, especially when compared to 2001 diesel engine specs. However, Ford and Cummins have improved their diesel engines, ultimately surpassing the Duramax diesel’s output.
Advertisement
The 6.7L Cummins produces more torque than the 6.6L Duramax
A comparison between the 6.6 Duramax and 6.7 Cummins diesel engines concludes that the inline-six-cylinder Cummins produces 100 lb-ft more torque. While defenders of the popular Duramax will quickly point out that the GM diesel engine makes 40 more horsepower than Ram’s diesel, when it comes to providing the most diesel engine power, torque is a key characteristic.
The 6.7 Cummins is available in Ram pickup trucks as well as the chassis cab configuration popular with commercial truck applications. The current High-Output (HO) version of the fifth-generation Cummins 6.7L engine, available as a $12,995 upgrade for some consumer-grade Ram HD pickup models, produces 430 horsepower and 1,075 lb-ft of torque.
When the 6.7 Cummins was introduced in 2007 as the 5.9 Cummins’ replacement, its output was rated at 350 horsepower and 650 lb-ft of torque. Cummins improved the design over the years, incrementally increasing the 6.7’s horsepower with each passing generation while making bigger gains in torque output.
Advertisement
Ford’s standard output 6.7 Power Stroke is more powerful than the 6.6 Duramax
Ford introduced its 6.7 Power Stroke V8 diesel engine in 2011. That first-generation 6.7, ending with the 2014 model year, ranks among the worst years for the 6.7 Power Stroke engine. Second- and third-generation 6.7 Power Strokes, 2015 to 2019 and 2020 to present, respectively, are generally considered more reliable.
The standard output 6.7L Ford Power Stroke turbo diesel is an $11,495 option for most Super Duty pickups and standard issue for the F-450 and some commercial-grade Super Duty trucks. The latest iteration, available in 2026 Super Duty pickups, produces 475 horsepower and 1,050 lb-ft of torque.
Advertisement
That’s a sizable improvement over the first-generation 2011 6.7 Power Stroke’s 400 horsepower and 800 lb-ft of torque. Ultimately, the standard-output 2026 6.7 Power Stroke makes only five more horsepower than the 6.6 Duramax, but its additional 75 lb-ft of torque is a notable metric to consider.
Advertisement
Ford’s High Output 6.7 Power Stroke diesel engine is even more powerful
Ford’s High Output (HO) 6.7 Power Stroke V8 has been the most powerful diesel engine available for consumer-grade heavy-duty pickup trucks since 2023. There are a few differences between the standard and high-output 6.7 Power Strokes, but the power output of the HO 6.7 is substantially higher.
Specifically, the HO 6.7 Power Stroke makes 500 horsepower and 1,200 lb-ft of torque. That gives the HO engine a 25-horsepower and 150 lb-ft of torque advantage over its standard-output stablemate. Compared to the 6.6 Duramax, the HO Power Stroke adds 30 horsepower and 225 lb-ft of torque.
While selecting the optional standard output 6.7 Power Stroke adds $11,495 to the price of 2026 Super Duty pickups, the HO Power Stroke diesel option adds $13,495. Both versions of the 6.7 Power Stroke are available on all Super Duty pickup models; however, the HO 6.7 is required equipment for package options such as the Platinum Plus, Tremor Off-Road, F-250 High Capacity Axle Upgrade, and F-450 High Capacity Gooseneck Tow Package.
Advertisement
Methodology
In our search for diesel engines with more power than the 6.6-liter Duramax diesel engine used by General Motors, we consulted published specifications and reputable reviews of potentially capable engines. While we found some very powerful units used in large commercial trucks and semi-trucks, we didn’t include them, as comparing commercial big-rigs to consumer pickups is an unfair matchup.
Although the 6.6 Duramax sits at the bottom of the power rankings for diesel-powered pickup trucks, GM loyalists will surely point out that there’s more to owning a diesel pickup than raw power. We won’t dive into the details of the Duramax’s favorable attributes here, leaving that discussion for another time, but we’ll quickly point out that it is the lowest-cost diesel engine option among the four we’ve presented.
Photo credit: Max_Tech Dummy units of the iPhone 18 Pro series and a super-sleek new foldable Ultra model have leaked, giving people a good idea of what Apple has in store for the September debut. Case makers received these prototypes based on the final CAD files, thus they are quite similar to the production hardware in terms of shapes, sizes, layout, and so on. Owners of current phones will notice some little but important changes rather than a complete redesign, with one exception that stands out.
Starting with the iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max, both retain the general look and feel of their predecessors, as well as the elegant titanium frames and flat edges. The Pro version is slightly larger in two dimensions, 0.36 mm taller and 0.39 mm broader than the iPhone 17 Pro, but the thickness remains same. Old cases will still fit nicely, however rubber ones may feel a little loose. The Pro Max follows a similar path, but adds extra bulk where it counts most. The camera area is now 11.54 mm thick, up from 11.23 mm on the previous Max, and the total thickness including those lenses is 13.77 mm, compared to 12.92 mm previously. That extra stuff adds 7 grams to the weight, bringing it to 240 grams, and users who use their phones for extended periods of time will notice the difference in their hands.
【Acer 7-in-1 Wireless Charging station】30W Max Total Output,Fast Charging for iPhone, Apple Watch,AirPods (Note: Only compatible with wireless…
【Dual Wireless charger station for Two Phones】 Power up two devices Charging station. Effortlessly charge any combination of iPhones (including…
【Smart LED Clock with Dual Time Setup】Experience effortless time management with Bluetooth-enabled automatic synchronization—simply connect to…
Every single extra millimeter is driven by camera hardware. The rear lenses on the Pro models are noticeably larger than those on the iPhone 17 series, all lined up in the same old square configuration but raised somewhat to accommodate the larger glass pieces. The camera island on the Pro Max appears to be a little more hefty from the side, but this is a purposeful choice to give us a sneak peak at better optics without affecting the phone’s overall design. Buttons and ports are where you’d expect them to be, and the front display notch has dropped in width, allowing for more screen real estate. These dummy models show no substantial changes in materials or colors, so we get the same polished titanium look and glass back.
All eyes are now on the iPhone Ultra mockup, which is Apple’s first attempt at a foldable phone, with a book-style design that folds up like a small little notebook. When closed, it is only 11 mm thick, which is quite slim and feels solid in the hand. The outer screen is about 5.5 inches, which isn’t bad for something that’s supposed to be incredibly portable, and the interior display is 7.8 inches with an aspect ratio similar to a tiny tablet. When folded up, it’s a slim 71 mm tall, with a width roughly equal to an iPhone 17 Pro Max turned on its side, which is really cool given the new hinge.
Material choices are consistent with the Pro series, with polished titanium on the frame, while the Ultra takes a different approach. The typical unibody construction has been abandoned in favor of the fold. A raised part on the back panel holds the two rear cameras, which are perfectly arranged to keep the design from feeling cluttered or unbalanced. On the right side, you’ll find a power button that also serves as a Touch ID sensor for secure, one-touch unlocking, as well as a dedicated camera button that has been intelligently placed so that you can easily access it with one hand. The volume controls are located at the top edge, same as they are on smaller tablets. Wireless charging is still a possibility, but you must purchase a case that supports it because there isn’t enough space inside for the standard built-in magnets. [Source]
Amazon just scored a major coup with Meta thanks, once again, to Amazon’s own homegrown chips. Meta has signed a deal to use millions of AWS Graviton chips to power its growing AI needs, Amazon announced Friday.
Note that the AWS Graviton is an ARM-based CPU, (a central processing unit, the chip that handles general computing tasks) not a GPU (a graphical processing unit).
While GPUs remain the chip of choice for training large models, once those models are trained, AI agents built on top of them are causing a shift in the type of chip is needed. Agents create compute-intensive workloads like real-time reasoning, writing code, search, and the the coordination involved in managing agents through multi-step tasks. AWS’s latest version of Graviton was designed specifically to handle AI-related compute needs, the company says.
This deal brings more of Meta’s cash back to AWS instead of competitors like Google Cloud. Last August, Meta signed a six year, $10 billion deal with Google Cloud, though Meta had, until then, primarily been an AWS customer that also used Microsoft Azure.
Advertisement
We couldn’t help but notice that AWS timed the announcement of this deal right as the Google Cloud Next conference wrapped up, like a virtual smirk at its cloud rival. Google, of course, also makes its own custom AI chips and announced new versions of them at the show.
True, Amazon makes its own AI GPU as well: the Trainium, which, despite its name, is used for both training and inference — the stage that happens after a model is trained, when it’s actively processing prompts.
But Anthropic had already swooped in with a deal announced earlier this month that commandeered many of those chips for years to come. The Claude maker agreed to spend $100 billion over 10 years to run its workloads on AWS — with a particular focus on Trainium — while Amazon agreed to invest another $5 billion (bringing its total to $13 billion of investment) into Anthropic in return.
Techcrunch event
Advertisement
San Francisco, CA | October 13-15, 2026
Ultimately, the Meta deal is allowing Amazon to showcase a huge AI customer as a proving point for its homegrown CPUs. These are chips that compete with Nvidia’s new Vera CPU, which is also ARM-based and designed to handle AI agentic workloads. The difference, of course, is that Nvidia sells its chips and AI systems to enterprises and cloud providers (including AWS). AWS only sells access to its chips through its cloud service.
Advertisement
Earlier this month Amazon CEO Andy Jassy took aim at Nvidia and Intel in his annual shareholder letter, saying that enterprises want better price-performance ratios for AI, and that he intends to win deals on that basis. This also means the pressure couldn’t be higher on Amazon’s internal chip building team to deliver, a team that we visited last month in an exclusive tour of their lab.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
I’m separating the Dyson PencilVac Fluffycones (yes, that’s the full name) because, while it’s still a stick vacuum, its design is so different that it stands apart from any other stick vacuum I’ve tried.
The primary difference is that the motor, dustbin, and battery are all contained in the slim handle. No more bulky, top-heavy build that these cordless vacuums are known for. The body and feel remind me of using a Swiffer, but it’s a vacuum instead of just a slapdash mop. The PencilVac uses Dyson’s Hyperdymium motor—the same one that’s usually in the brand’s hair tools—and has a tiny 0.08-liter dustbin, but compacts the debris to make that small amount of space last. It also has a short battery life of only 30 minutes.
Advertisement
It has much lower power than the other vacuums in Dyson’s lineup and can only be used on hard floors. It has four fluffy rollers, aptly named Fluffycones, on the cleaner head, and they’re designed to keep hair from getting tangled. It works, but instead of getting tangled, the vacuum sometimes balled up my hair and spat it back out instead of sending it into the dustbin. It was great for quick cleans for things like litter, dust, and cereal, but it’s a high price to pay for something that’s more limited than cheaper vacuums.
Still, I think there’s a use case here, especially from an accessibility perspective. This is a good option for households where someone might not be strong enough or have the mobility to easily push and hold up a top-heavy stick vacuum, and the charging base makes it easy to quickly store and grab without putting it down or bending over. The compact size is also an argument for small homes, and it did fit into smaller crevices better than standard-sized stick vacuums (think the space between the toilet and wall). The Dyson V15 is a better all-around buy, but I think there are people to whom this specific vacuum could really appeal. Dyson also launched the PencilWash last month, a similar design but a wet vac, which I’m testing next.
Honorable Mentions
Advertisement
We haven’t tried a vacuum yet that we absolutely hate. The ones below are solid vacuums and, in some cases, much cheaper than our top picks, but we didn’t like them quite as much.
Bissell IconPet Turbo Edge for $200: Bissell’s OG stick vacuum is a popular model that’s been around for a while. It does a good job picking up hair and cat litter, and easily turns into a handheld vac too. The battery lasts a little longer, but former WIRED reviewer Medea Giordano wasn’t impressed by its Cheerio-gathering skills, and it can’t stand up on its own.
Bissell’s PowerClean FurFinder for $200: This is a great stick vacuum, and it was our previous top pick. It does an all-around good job on all kinds of flooring, comes with a nice range of accessories, and has the FurFinder tool to help with pet hair. It’s still a great vacuum, especially if you have pets, but unless you’re using the FurFinder tool frequently, you can get the slightly cheaper regular Bissell PowerClean for a similar experience.
Advertisement
Bosch Unlimited 10 Cordless Stick Vacuum for $699: This vacuum has six cleaning modes and can bend in the middle, but it didn’t always contain the debris after I was done cleaning. It does have a 10-year warranty on the motor, which is more than other brands offer.
Black & Decker Powerseries Extreme Max for $169: The Black & Decker Powerseries Extreme Max is a great stick vacuum at a lower price than most others. It stands up on its own, has three power levels you can easily control from the handle, and handles well on the different surfaces in my home. I liked this vacuum a lot, but it wasn’t as stable as the Bissell above, and the handle felt a little plasticky compared to it and other vacuums I tested. It did have a larger-capacity dustbin, though.
Dyson V12 Detect for $550: The V12 Detect is worth considering if you want something even slightly cheaper and lighter than the V15 (though it’s less powerful and has a smaller bin).
Eufy Robot Vacuum 3-In-1 E20 for $500: WIRED reviewer Adrienne So was stoked to try Eufy’s E20, which is a stick vacuum, handheld vacuum, and robot vacuum all in one. It’s a handy, well-designed device, but it’s only good for light cleaning.
Eureka Stylus Elite for $280: This is a good stick vacuum with a self-emptying bin at a reasonable price. It cleaned up a litter mat especially well, and there are specific settings for carpet and hardwood. However, to suck up larger pieces like Cheerios, I had to lift the vacuum up and place it directly on top of them.
Levoit LVAC-300 for $270: This is a well-rounded stick vacuum that has a good price point (and often on sale). It has an hour of battery life, comes with a couple of accessories, and has similar specs to our favorite Dyson vacuum. The 6.6-pound weight also made it fairly easy to clean the three sets of stairs in WIRED reviewer Luke Larson’s home, and it has HEPA filtration. While it can stand on its own, it easily tips over in the process.
Advertisement
Ryobi 18V One+ HP Advanced Stick Vacuum Kit for $399: This is our runner-up cordless vacuum pick for the best pet hair vacuums. It has powerful suction, cyclonic filtration, a brushless motor, an easily removable roller bar, and lights on the vacuum head to better see pet hair and dander.
Tineco Pure One Station 5 for $459: I love that this vacuum has a self-emptying base station. It’s a solid vacuum overall, but my favorite part about it was the docking station. You don’t need to choose Tineco to get that, though; Shark has a few models now with self-emptying stations, and Dyson has one due out this year.
Cordless vacuums, also known as stick vacuums, are what the name suggests: They don’t need a cord to work. Instead, they have a battery you need to charge and are designed with a battery and motor at the top with a long, thin, sticklike body connecting that to the head of the vacuum. They’re much lighter than an upright vacuum and have become popular since they’re much easier to store and move around the house. I especially love using one as someone who lives in a three-story home. Stick vacuums also can usually have the stick portion removed to transform into a handheld vacuum, though they’re much heavier than a true handheld vacuum (but the battery life is much better).
How Long Do Cordless Vacuums Last?
Advertisement
Overall, vacuums tend to last around five years, but that depends on the frequency with which you vacuum and the vacuum’s build quality. Some cheaper stick vacuums might last only about a year or two, though, according to Eufy, so it’s worth investing in a good-quality stick vacuum. If you’re curious what signs might indicate your vacuum needs replacing, check out our guide to how long vacuums can last. If you’re curious whether you’re vacuuming enough, check out our guide to how often you should vacuum.
How Does WIRED Test Cordless Vacuums?
The best way to test a vacuum is to use it like you usually would. So, for a few months, we lived with these cordless vacuums, rotating through them to handle day-to-day messes and weekly deep cleans on hardwood floors, area rugs, and carpets. We charged them, asked our partners to use them, and even took some to a retail store to clean up after antique furniture and heavy foot traffic.
We also performed head-to-head testing, comparing how each picked up piles of Cheerios and cat litter, seeing if they blew debris around or needed several passes. We also took heaps of already matted dust and dirt from inside the vacuum bins to see how easily the vacuums could suck them back up in their thickened state.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login