TL;DR
Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky plans to back a new AI lab focused on user interaction and design, while remaining at Airbnb. The move puts him in competition with Sam Altman, whom he helped reinstate at OpenAI in 2023.
Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky plans to back a new AI lab focused on user interaction and design, while remaining at Airbnb. The move puts him in competition with Sam Altman, whom he helped reinstate at OpenAI in 2023.
TL;DR
Brian Chesky has spent years as an AI kingmaker. He met Sam Altman through Y Combinator in 2006, advised him on managing OpenAI’s hypergrowth, and helped broker Altman’s return to power after the board fired him in November 2023. He was reportedly considered for a seat on OpenAI’s board.
Now he is entering competition with his protégé’s company. Chesky plans to back a new AI lab of his own, Bloomberg first reported on Wednesday, with a focus on user interaction and design. He will remain as Airbnb’s CEO and will not lead the lab himself. The details are early-stage and could change.
The move reflects a frustration Chesky has voiced publicly for more than a year. He said last year that Airbnb had not struck an LLM partnership because existing products were not quite ready for what he wanted to build. His argument is that travel and commerce require a rich visual interface, not the text-based chatbots that OpenAI and Anthropic have popularised.
Airbnb has not been idle on AI. The company hired Ahmad Al-Dahle, who led generative AI work at Meta including the Llama model family, as chief technology officer in January 2026. It has rebuilt its app around a large language model for conversational search, automated 40% of customer support queries with an AI bot, and rolled out AI-generated listing details and review summaries. A voice-based assistant is planned for later this year.
But Chesky appears to have concluded that buying AI from frontier labs is not enough. He wants to build at the model layer, not just the application layer.
Chesky is not alone. Brett Adcock launched Hark late last year with $100 million of his own money to build a universal AI interface, then raised a $700 million Series A at a $6 billion valuation. Hark is also emphasising user interaction and hardware, with the lead iPhone designer from Apple now heading its design effort.
Mira Murati’s Thinking Machines Lab is pursuing “interaction models” that process continuous streams of audio, text, and video in real time. The common thread is a belief that the frontier labs have focused on intelligence at the expense of interface, and that the next defensible layer sits between the model and the user.
The trend carries a broader implication. When founders of Chesky’s stature stop waiting for OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google to deliver what they need and start building their own research capacity, it signals that the application layer has run into the limits of what commodity models can provide.
The personal dimension is hard to ignore. Chesky and Altman’s relationship spans nearly two decades. Chesky met Altman through Y Combinator, which incubated Airbnb. When OpenAI took off, Chesky began meeting regularly with Altman to advise on scaling a technology company. During the November 2023 board crisis, Chesky advised Altman on public relations and rallied support among Silicon Valley executives.
Now Chesky is building an operation that will compete, at least in part, with OpenAI’s own ambitions in user-facing AI. It is unclear whether the new lab will train its own models or build specialised systems on top of existing ones. But the direction is clear: Chesky wants proprietary AI research, not an API subscription.
Nearly everything about the lab remains unspecified. There is no name, no announced team, no disclosed funding amount, and no timeline. Chesky’s commitment to remaining at Airbnb raises questions about how much of his attention the new venture will receive, and whoever leads it will inherit a founding chair whom TechCrunch described as “known as a micromanager.”
What is clear is the thesis. Chesky has watched the AI lab landscape from closer than almost anyone outside it, and he has decided that the interface problem, making AI useful in rich, visual, consumer-facing contexts, is important enough to warrant its own research operation. Whether a part-time founder can build one that matters is the open question.
“You can’t control what you can’t measure” goes the old chestnut. But that’s a little bit negative, in my opinion. Instead, think of the benefits of sprinkling sensors around everywhere: you gain insight where you simply didn’t have it beforehand.
We were thinking about this in the context of the recent video on pressure advance in 3D printers. Essentially, the unmelted filament acts as a springy piston, and that springiness means that the pressure built up in the melted plastic lags the feedrate of new filament. We usually calibrate this out with a guesstimate constant, but it can be different for every different filament. Measuring that pressure directly with a strain gauge in the hot end makes more sense.
But then there are knock-on benefits of having a sensor in the hot end. You can use the strain gauge as Prusa does to run the nozzle gently into the bed and set the z-axis height. Or you can use over-pressure as a sign that the nozzle is clogged. It’s quite possible that you can use it to signal other things that can go wrong as well, but you can’t tell until you put the sensor on in the first place.
Of course, you don’t want to put a pressure sensor where you want to know the temperature, or vice-versa. But as a general rule, the more you can measure, the more you can discover about the way your system is running. How many strain gauges are too many?
The Playdate is a small handheld console with a dedicated fanbase. Among them is [Cristina Ramos], who recently decided to try and push the limits of the hardware by implementing a 3D renderer for the platform.
[Cristina] began by implementing a raycaster. This is a very simple way to do 3D on limited hardware, and this technique was used by some early games like Wolfenstein 3D. However, for [Cristina], it was more a test to get an idea of the performance limitations of the Playdate. After getting her feet wet with that, she stepped up to implementing a renderer that relied on binary space partitioning, which could load map files in the same format used by the classic Quake engine. There was naturally plenty of work to do to handle things like texture mapping and lighting, too, particularly given the vagaries of working with the Playdate’s 1-bit monochrome screen. Using a simplistic, cel-shaded like approach for textures gave things a good look while preserving visual readability on the low-resolution screen.
The 3D engine and associated game remain a work in progress for [Cristina] — we look forward to seeing where the project goes next. We’ve seen similar projects on resource-limited platforms before, too.
I was told you couldn’t do 3D on the Playdate, so I did it.Then I was told there was no way I could create exterior levels like those in Mirror’s Edge, so I proved them wrong again.
— Cristina Ramos (@saffroncr.bsky.social) 2026-07-22T08:57:09.594Z
Meta has announced Facebook Verified, a free badge that will be visible on a user’s profile and is designed to confirm whether that user is a real person or an AI without actually checking that a user is who they say they are.
The new badge is separate from Meta’s existing Meta Verified program and is available to eligible Facebook users who are 18 or older. Users must also be in good standing with Facebook’s community standards before they can be verified.
Alongside profiles, Facebook users will also be able to see a person’s verified status in the Marketplace, Facebook Dating, and Facebook Groups initially. However, Meta has confirmed that it intends to bring the badges to the main feed in the future.
Importantly, unlike Meta Verified, Facebook Verified doesn’t require a subscription and is available absolutely free. Users only need to complete the verification process once.
The verification process itself requires Facebook users to record a short selfie video. Facebook then uses the video to check the person’s appearance against their existing profile photos to confirm a match. The process should take just a few minutes.
However, it’s important to know what Facebook Verified actually verifies. Meta says that it means a profile belongs to a real person, not an AI.
Facebook Verified does not necessarily mean that the person is who they say they are. That’s an important distinction to remember when using Facebook from here on out.
Meta says that Facebook Verified will roll out in phases, starting with “select markets.” Unfortunately, it hasn’t confirmed which markets those are.
A massive malvertising campaign is using fake Solana, Luno, and TradingView webpages with malicious JavaScript that instructs browsers to assemble malware directly in memory.
The operation has been active since late 2024 and is localized to 25 languages in 12 countries, primarily in Asia Pacific and Latin America.
A filtering system ensures that only real targets (retail traders and crypto investors) land on the malicious pages, while researchers, scanners, and security bots are redirected to blank pages.
Ad security platform Confiant says that the campaign’s design stands out through its use of the web browser as “a local assembly pipeline” for the malware.
Although the fake portals feature a download button, a ReactJS library on the landing page prepares the browser for a managed download flow, a process typically used for handling various types of file transfers.

According to Confiant’s analysis, the page first registers a service worker, which acts as a download manager and helps build the malware file incrementally.
In the first stage, the page sets up a shared worker that acts as an engine that assembles the malware from components received in the next steps of the attack.
The researchers say that in the second stage “the landing page uses its SharedWorker to request itself for a ‘/config’ response” with seed and size parameters that are randomized and specific for each session.
By rotating these parameters, the threat actors make sure that the resulting malware file has a unique hash to bypass static detection.
Confiant explains that “‘/config’ is an assembly response rather than a normal download response. It returns a template and the inputs the browser needs to build the file locally.”
Remote components retrieved this way and the locally generated bytes are then used to create the malicious payload from a clean version of the Bun executable.
After building the final malware executable, the fake download page hands it to the service worker at the beginning of the process and triggers a same-origin download path.
“From the browser’s point of view, the user is downloading an executable from the landing page domain,” Confiant researchers say, and the mark-of-the-web tag is added, despite some of the components originating from a different source.
The advantage of this technique is that no finished file is transmitted over the network, making detection less likely, and analysis becomes more challenging.
Confiant says that earlier variants of the SourTrade campaign used the StreamSaver project on GitHub to deliver the malicious payload. Since April, though, the operation switched to the same-origin ServiceWorker delivery method.
While Confiant researchers do not reveal the nature of the payload, they found evidence supporting a Bitdefender report in 2025 about a resilient malvertising campaign that used StreamSaver to distribute malware.
Bitdefender found that the payload had the following capabilities:
Since the SourTrade campaign targets retail traders and crypto investors, users engaged in these activities are advised to avoid downloading financial or cryptocurrency apps from social media advertisements or sponsored search results.
The researchers advise getting executable files from the company’s official website. As an added precaution, they should verify the installer’s digital signature and publisher before running it.
Security teams log 54% of successful attacks and alert on just 14%. The rest move through your environment unseen.
The Picus whitepaper shows how breach and attack simulation tests your SIEM and EDR rules so threats stop slipping by detection.
Samsung
Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra has better camera specs and a higher-capacity battery than its smaller sibling, but its dimensions aren’t as well-suited to video streaming, and it costs more.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 is smaller than its Ultra counterpart and lacks a telephoto camera, but it also costs less, has just as much power, and boasts a compact display that may suit some users better.
Samsung has unveiled three new foldable phones — the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, and the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8. And while the last of that trio falls into its own category, the former two phones have a lot in common.
Aside from having similar names, they’re both book-style foldables, and they also share plenty of specs. But between very different form factors and differences in their respective camera setups, there’s lots to differentiate them, too.
So, below, we’ve compared the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, so you can easily understand how they stack up. We haven’t reviewed either model just yet, but we have been hands-on with both, and so have been able to draw some early conclusions as to who they’re best suited to.
Latest Videos FromTechRadar
Before we look closer at the key features of these two phones, we’ve detailed their core specs below, so you can see their major similarities and differences at a glance.
| Header Cell – Column 0 |
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra |
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 |
|---|---|---|
|
Dimensions (unfolded): |
158.4 x 143.2 x 4.1mm |
161.4 x 123.9 x 4.5mm |
|
Dimensions (folded): |
158.4 x 72.8 x 8.9mm |
81.9 x 123.9 x 9.7mm |
|
Weight: |
215g |
201g |
|
Foldable display: |
8.0-inch 2256 x 2504 AMOLED, 120Hz |
7.6-inch 1828 x 2448 AMOLED, 120Hz |
|
Cover screen: |
6.5-inch 1080 x 2520 AMOLED, 120Hz |
5.5-inch 1248 x 1972 AMOLED, 120Hz |
|
Chipset: |
Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy |
Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy |
|
RAM: |
12GB / 16GB |
12GB / 16GB |
|
Rear cameras: |
200MP wide, 50MP ultra-wide, 10MP telephoto |
50MP wide, 50MP ultra-wide |
|
Front camera: |
10MP and 10MP |
10MP and 10MP |
|
Battery: |
5,000mAh |
4,800mAh |
|
Charging: |
45W wired, 20W wireless |
45W wired, 20W wireless |
|
Storage: |
256GB / 512GB / 1TB |
256GB / 512GB / 1TB |
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 were both announced on July 22, with pre-orders opening the same day.
General availability for both phones starts on August 7, though if you pre-order, you might get them earlier — at the time of writing, we’re seeing an August 3 delivery date in the UK, for example.
As for pricing, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 starts at $1,899.99 / £1,699 / AU$2,699. The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is more expensive, with a starting price of $2,099.99 / £1,899 / AU$2,999. In both cases, that’s with 256GB of storage, though you can pick either model up in 512GB and 1TB configurations.
So, in other words, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra starts at $200 / £200 / AU$300 more than the standard Galaxy Z Fold 8.
|
Storage |
US price |
UK price |
AU price |
|---|---|---|---|
|
256GB |
$2,099.99 |
£1,899 |
AU$2,999 |
|
512GB |
$2,299.99 |
£2,069 |
AU$3,299 |
|
1TB |
$2,699.99 |
£2,409 |
AU$3,899 |
|
Storage |
US price |
UK price |
AU price |
|---|---|---|---|
|
256GB |
$1,899.99 |
£1,699 |
AU$2,699 |
|
512GB |
$2,099.99 |
£1,869 |
AU$2,999 |
|
1TB |
$2,499.99 |
£2,209 |
AU$3,599 |
In some ways, the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 have similar designs — after all, they’re both foldable phones that fold and unfold horizontally like a book. However, their shapes and dimensions differ a lot.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra looks a lot like the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7, with a tall, narrow design, leading to dimensions of 158.4 x 143.2 x 4.1mm when unfolded, 158.4 x 72.8 x 8.9mm when folded, and a weight of 215g.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, on the other hand, is shorter and wider, looking more like a passport than a book, with dimensions of 161.4 x 123.9 x 4.5mm when unfolded, 81.9 x 123.9 x 9.7mm when folded, and a weight of 201g.
Both phones, though, have an IP48 rating, meaning they’re water-resistant to depths of 1.5 meters for up to 30 minutes, and also resistant to dust and other objects greater than 1mm in size.
They also both have aluminum frames, and share Samsung’s Flex Titanium technology, meaning their hinges are similarly invisible (you will notice their respective hinges at certain angles, but Samsung has come a long way in this department since the days of the original Galaxy Fold).
As for colors, while the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is sold in Graphite, Cream, Green Shadow, and Violet Shadow, the Z Fold 8 can be bought in Graphite, Cream, Lavender, and Pistachio shades.
Now we get to the biggest difference between these two phones: their displays. Or rather, the shape and purpose of those displays.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra has an 8.0-inch 2256 x 2504 foldable AMOLED screen and a 6.5-inch 1080 x 2520 AMOLED cover screen, both with a 120Hz refresh rate and around 422 pixels per inch.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 has a 7.6-inch 1828 x 2448 foldable AMOLED screen with around 403 pixels per inch and a 5.5-inch 1248 x 1972 AMOLED cover screen with roughly 428 pixels per inch.
So, both screens on the standard Z Fold 8 are noticeably smaller, but the aspect ratios arguably make a bigger difference, with the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra having an almost square 1.11:1 foldable screen and a narrow 21:9 cover screen.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, on the other hand, has a 4:3 foldable screen, which is ideal for widescreen content, and a 10:16 cover screen, which is a bit more square than a typical phone and can be easily covered with one hand from top to bottom.
The taller, narrower Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra does have size benefits of its own, mind. It’s harder to stretch your thumb to the top of this phone’s display, but it’s more easily covered with one hand from left to right. And when open, the Ultra is better suited to productivity apps that display square-shaped content like spreadsheets.
For video streaming, you’ll want to go for the Galaxy Z Fold 8, since most video content is displayed in 16:9 (you’ll see smaller black bars on a 4:3 screen), and it’s arguably the better-shaped phone for gaming, too.
There are big differences between the cameras on these two phones, with the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra coming out on top. This device has a 200MP f/1.7 wide camera, a 50MP f/1.9 ultra-wide with a 120-degree field of view, and a 10MP f/2.4 telephoto with 3x optical zoom. It also has a 10MP selfie camera on each screen.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 has one fewer camera and fewer megapixels in its wide one. Specifically, you’re getting a 50MP f/1.8 wide camera, a 50MP f/1.9 ultra-wide with a 120-degree field of view, and two 10MP selfie cameras. So, it lacks the telephoto snapper found on the Ultra.
Both phones, though, are capable of recording video in up to 8K quality at 30fps, or in 4K at up to 120fps.
We haven’t had a chance to test both phones’ cameras just yet, but we’ll update this article with images when we have. The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra will, for obvious reasons, be the superior zoom shooter, but there isn’t likely to be too much to choose between the phones’ 200MP and 50MP wide cameras, since both will default to smaller photo sizes anyway, as is standard practice for modern smartphones.
There’s nothing to choose here, with both the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and the Z Fold 8 having a Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy chipset and 12GB of RAM — unless you get a 1TB model, in which case you’ll get 16GB of RAM.
This combination of specs will ensure top-end performance regardless of what you’re doing on your phone, and in our short time with both devices, they’re equally capable gaming phones and productivity powerhouses (notwithstanding their respective display sizes, which makes each better suited to different tasks).
Both the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and Galaxy Z Fold 8 also run Android 17 overlaid with One UI 9, and come with the promise of seven major Android upgrades.
Samsung has finally started putting silicon-carbon batteries in its phones, allowing for higher-capacity batteries in the same footprint. As a result, it’s managed to pack a 5,000mAh battery into the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra (up from 4,400mAh in the Z Fold 7).
Unsurprisingly, the smaller Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 features a lower-capacity battery (4,800mAh), which should allow the Ultra to last slightly longer — but not by much.
Samsung claims you’ll get 27 hours of video playback from the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, while the standard Galaxy Z Fold 8 is rated for 26 hours. In our early anecdotal testing, we’ve managed to use both phones for multiple days without needing to charge them, so those playback estimates are likely accurate.
Both phones also support up to 45W wired charging and 20W wireless, so you won’t be losing out on charging speed by picking one phone over the other.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra has bigger, more productivity-friendly screens than the Galaxy Z Fold 8, along with an extra camera, more megapixels in its wide camera, and a slightly higher-capacity battery. However, it also costs $200 / £200 / AU$300 more, and offers identical power.
Its larger screens also won’t be desirable for everyone — indeed, the Galaxy Z Fold 8’s screens are much more video-friendly, and may soon become the norm for foldables — so the only indisputable advantages of the pricier model are its cameras and larger battery (though on the latter, we’re talking fine margins).
Whether those extra features are significant enough to justify the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra’s higher price will, of course, be subjective, but you might want to wait for our full reviews to see how these two phones compare in practice.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.
Ripple effect: As rising memory costs push up the prices of everything from PCs and smartphones to game consoles, one key hardware supplier after another has announced that it can no longer delay price hikes. This time it’s Qualcomm, with a fast-approaching adjustment that could make smartphones, tablets, wearables, and some laptops even less affordable.
Qualcomm issued a letter to its clients on Friday warning that its chips will soon become more expensive due to rising supply costs. The company develops chips that power most Android devices, numerous wearables, automotive systems, and a rising crop of Arm-based laptops, so the impact is expected to be widespread.
Bloomberg, which obtained the letter, reports that price hikes will rise by an unspecified double-digit percentage, and will apply to components shipped after September 1. Qualcomm has been unable to escape the skyrocketing supply costs that have impacted Microsoft, Apple, Sony, and numerous other manufacturers.
Memory and storage are the biggest culprits, having quintupled in price since late last year as AI data center construction absorbs most of the available production capacity of DRAM and NAND manufacturers. RAM prices could rise by another 40% to 50% in the third quarter of this year, then an additional 30% to 40% in Q4. The ripple effect has also pushed up the prices of CPUs, printed circuit boards, and other components. Qualcomm at least partially blames its upcoming price hike on the need to find alternative suppliers.

Samsung phones, which are powered by Qualcomm’s Snapdragon processors, might be the most popular affected products. However, wearable devices like smart glasses and VR headsets also use chips from the same family. Additionally, Microsoft and various PC manufacturers are attempting to promote an alternative Arm-based version of Windows via new lineups of more powerful Snapdragon SoCs.
Qualcomm’s adjustment might also affect Google’s plans to launch a lineup of Snapdragon-based laptops using a new Android-based operating system later this year.
Qualcomm’s products even extend to the AI data centers responsible for the component shortages. The company recently unveiled ambitious plans to compete with Nvidia in the server CPU market.
The situation is expected to worsen next year due to further price hikes from the manufacturer that Qualcomm, Apple, Nvidia, Google, Amazon, Arm, and MediaTek all rely heavily upon: TSMC. Recent reports indicate that the chipmaker will raise prices for most of its semiconductor nodes at least once next year by around 10%, creating a much broader ripple effect.
“Everybody’s on their phone at my program!” joked Charlie Bailey, a librarian in South Philadelphia. He’s just asked his audience to pull out their phones so that he can walk them through the steps of disabling Apple Intelligence and Gemini.
Bailey stands at the front of a library classroom that’s outfitted for children – the focal point is the vibrant rug he’s standing on, which reminds us that M is for “moon” and Z is for “zebra.” But the 20-odd adults in the room aren’t here to learn about the alphabet. They’re at a workshop called Avoiding AI, which, in this context does not stand for “apple” and “igloo.”
“I was inspired by the feeling of people’s frustration with AI tools being kind of forced onto them, and feeling like AI tools we didn’t ask for are suddenly everywhere in our lives,” Bailey told TechCrunch.
Bailey starts the hour-long workshop with an overview of how AI chatbots and other consumer AI tools work, explaining why people might want to use these products, and why they might opt to abstain. Then, he walks through all of the most popular tech platforms and devices, showing step-by-step instructions on the projector to guide people through turning off specific features.
“As a librarian, I think it’s important to see this as advancing digital literacy and helping people reclaim their autonomy over whether they want to use AI tools,” Bailey said. “It’s important, especially when it can be so difficult not to use them, and when the design seems to force adoption.”

Bailey got the idea for the Avoiding AI workshop from Hannah Cyrus, a librarian in Maine. He was one of dozens of librarians from around the world who contacted Cyrus after she published a journal article about developing her own workshop.
“This has never happened before with anything I’ve worked on,” Cyrus told TechCrunch. “Nobody has ever been emailing me like, ‘Can you give me your Intro to Computers slides?’”
At the Bangor Public Library, patrons turn to Cyrus when they need help with anything involving technology.
“More and more, I was getting questions about, ‘How do I turn this [AI] stuff off? Why is it trying to write my emails for me? Why is it trying to summarize my one-sentence email that I can easily read?’” Cyrus said. “I just decided that with so much media hype out there about AI products, it would be a good opportunity to teach people about the basics of what is happening when you’re using this technology, and then getting into how to turn it off if you don’t want to use it.”
Usually, Cyrus’ classes like Intro to Computers get about a dozen attendees. But so many people expressed interest in her first Avoiding AI workshop that she had to cut off registration at 30 people, open a waitlist, and share the workshop on Zoom. Including the livestream, about 70 people attended each of Cyrus’ first two workshops.
When Bailey followed Cyrus’ lead to host a workshop in Philadelphia, the reception was similarly unprecedented. The library’s Instagram post about the “Avoiding AI” event got over 2,000 likes and 220 shares, whereas most of the library’s posts don’t get more than a few dozen likes. He scheduled a second program because the first got too many registrations.
“As an information professional, it feels good to see people skeptical of AI,” Bailey said. “It felt really good to see how many people share this feeling.”
There’s a sense of camaraderie among the room of strangers during the workshop. When Bailey invites attendees to share their own tips, one person explains that when you append “&udm=14” to a Google Search, it will hide AI results. Bailey writes the string of characters down on a whiteboard next to the log-in credentials for the teen Wi-Fi server.
“You have to go through all the trouble to buy a home in today’s world, and two years from now, there could be a data center next to your house,” one workshop attendee named Johnny says.
“I keep getting AI shoved down my throat at work, and every time I see it, I think about the environment,” another attendee named Gabrielle adds. But she’s also not writing off AI as a technology altogether. “I’m not against AI in terms of medical breakthroughs.”
AI naysayers know that this technology is far broader than just chatbots and deepfake apps. Cyrus mentioned how useful optical character recognition is for scanning old documents at the library. But for her and the people who go to her workshops, the anti-AI movement isn’t about rejecting technology altogether so much as it is about advocating for more control, agency, and freedom in how people use technology.
“I think the forced adoption of AI on people’s devices might be the straw that’s breaking the camel’s back in some ways,” she said. “The awareness has been growing for a long time that these products and these companies that make them have an outsized influence over us, and that we’re not really using these products in the way that we would like to.”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
No punishment is too vindictive. No cruelty is too small. The administration that is openly seeking to create a white Christian nationalist autocracy will do whatever it can to expel as many non-white people from this nation as possible.
Trump and his cabinet members constantly claim the country has been overrun by dangerous foreign migrants, many of them from (direct quote right here) “shithole countries.” They blame Biden for this completely imaginary “crisis” and preach the same message to the faithful over and over again: “worst of the worst.”
But it’s not that and it’s never been that. If the administration was simply trying to eject dangerous criminals, ICE wouldn’t be sending officers to immigration courts to pounce on migrants who are following the rules for staying in this country. ICE wouldn’t have set up a fake college to snare foreigners following the visa rules by continuing their education. And the government wouldn’t be telling its lawyers to dismiss ongoing removal proceedings solely for the purpose of making migrants attending scheduled probation check-ins immediately arrestable.
It’s only getting nastier and uglier. The Trump administration is now moving up immigration hearing dates for the sole purpose of generating more unearned “wins” that will, in turn, generate more deportations. Here’s Gwynne Hogan with the brutally nasty details for The City Reporter:
The mass immigration hearings picked up in New York City in early June, The City Reporter reported at the time. They were dubbed mega masters because a single judge could be assigned a docket of more than 100 cases a day, about double a regular master calendar docket before.
In addition to the large number of cases, many of these hearings were scheduled just weeks in advance and replaced hearings people might have had on the books months or years away.
The City Reporter observed one such mega master hearing where, on a docket of 121 cases, 39 people and their family members were ordered removed for failing to show up to court. In some instances, family members’ cases were linked.
As this report notes, for years most hearing dates were generally scheduled 180 days out from the initial hearing. But in the past few months — along with the creation of these so-called “mega masters” — the lead time has dropped precipitously. In May, the average was 98 days. By June, it was 42 days.
This is deliberate. Migrants engaged in the legal process would have no reason to believe their cases would be accelerated. After all, the mass deportation surges the Trump administration has generated tens of thousands of new cases, which would generally result in additional delays, rather than sudden accelerations.
And while the government is required to notify migrants of schedule changes, it’s not as though it’s a push notification via the normally accepted form of human connection these days. It’s a letter sent by snail mail. And it’s not as though this government is going to perform any due diligence to make sure the notification is seen by the intended recipient.
What’s happening here is the administration flooding the docket and ambushing migrants who fail to check their hearing status daily and who would have no reason to do so when they hadn’t seen any changes to hearing dates for several months.
The plan is as ugly as it is shitty: accelerate thousands of hearing dates and send federal officers out to scoop up migrants who are now on the wrong end of in absentia rulings handed down by judges who are deliberately overloaded to prevent them from fully engaging with these cases.
This is all in service to the impossible deportation goals set by the administration. You can’t get 2-3,000 arrests per day without cheating. Here’s how this has been playing out over the past couple of months.
In June, 4,447 people were ordered removed by immigration judges in the [New York City] “in absentia,” meaning they’d missed their hearings, the report found. That was more than double the number in May when 2,189 were ordered removed in absentia.
The analysis found the surge echoed a rise in absentia removal orders across the country. There were 53,808 such orders nationally in June, a 55% jump from a month earlier.
The real human cost is as incalculable as it is heartbreaking:
On Friday morning, several dozen people managed to make it to a courtroom inside 26 Federal Plaza for their mega master hearing where Immigration Judge Thanos Kanellakos appeared virtually from a courtroom in Maryland, overseeing a docket of 90 cases.
Most of the people who made it to court had traveled hundreds of miles from Tennessee, Georgia, North Dakota and Illinois to attend.
[…]
Several people at court told The City Reporter they’d had a court date scheduled months or even years away when they happened to double-check the online portal recently and learned they had a new hearing scheduled a few days away.
There is no legitimate reason for the government to be doing this. There is only the constant desire to hurt human beings this administration considers to be less than human. That’s why it’s trying to eradicate temporary protected status for all but the whitest migrants. And that’s why it’s engaging in barely disguised entrapment to keep its flying rail cars and prison camps loaded with its preferred scapegoats.
Filed Under: bigotry, dhs, doj, due process, ice, mass deportation, mega master, trump administration
Prediction market Kalshi sent Netflix a cease-and-desist letter on Friday demanding that the streaming service take down the trailer for an upcoming documentary. In the letter, Kalshi claimed the trailer is “defamatory” and contains “both fabricated documents and false and misleading statements.”
“Instadocs: The Prediction Games” is a documentary about the rise of prediction markets. According to Netflix, the film — part of the streamer’s “Instadoc” series of fast-turnaround documentaries — features interviews with both Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan and Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour.
The trailer, however, focuses on a recent party in Las Vegas, where men who have “made millions of dollars on prediction markets, probably eight figures, just over the course of the World Cup” have gathered to watch the World Cup final. One of the guests declares, “I like betting on Kalshi,” while another shows off an apparent $5,000 bet on their phone.
However, Kalshi is currently banned from operating in Nevada due to a court order. In its cease-and-desist letter, Kalshi said the bet shown on the phone is actually a screenshot of a bet made on May 16, 2025 — long before the ban. But the company argued that in the trailer, Netflix “misled its millions of customers into believing this individual was able to successfully trade sport event contracts in Nevada on July 19, 2026.”
In its letter, Kalshi also said that it recently spoke to a Netflix employee who “agreed not to feature the receipt in the documentary when it is released” on Sunday, July 26.
“However — despite Kalshi demonstrating to this employee that the claims in the video were demonstrably false — Netflix inexplicably refused to remove the receipt from the trailer currently circulating on the homepage of the Netflix app,” the company said.
Netflix doesn’t dispute that the screenshot is of a bet from 2025, but a spokesperson told The Hollywood Reporter that none of the documentary footage was fabricated.
“The footage was filmed at the Winible World Cup Watch Weekend in Las Vegas on July 17, 2026,” the spokesperson said. “The featured trader with the trade on Spain showed us a screenshot of his bet, that was made in May 2025 prior to any Nevada court order. Any specific trades or bets referenced during that weekend are between the individual and the app in which they placed the trades.”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
When it comes to collecting items from movies and television shows, there are plenty of options. Above all, there are the vehicles, and in many shows and films, they’re highly collectible. More than a few people have built replicas of the TARDIS from “Doctor Who,” though this is something that only a handful of folks can do.
However, when you move to real vehicles, the costs skyrocket. This is especially true when they require heavy modifications. Add to that the fact that high-profile productions often pull out all of the stops to make their vehicles stand out, and getting your hands on something like Baby from “Supernatural” isn’t an inexpensive undertaking.
Restoring something built decades ago isn’t cheap, and costs tend to rise when collectability is taken into account. Regardless, there are a select few who have shelled out a ton of cash to ride in style. Each of these 15 vehicles comes from an incredibly popular show or movie, and while you can technically buy them all, odds are the sticker shock will keep you away.
“Bullitt” is one of the greatest car-chase movies from the 1960s, and its car has long been highly desired by collectors. In the film, Steve McQueen plays SFPD Lt. Frank Bullitt, and he drives a beautiful 1968 Ford Mustang GT 390 Fastback; and much of the action takes place on the road.
The car is painted Highland Green with the GT package, featuring the 390 FE V8 engine with some modifications for filming. Two were used in the movie, and after filming wrapped, they disappeared. There’s a great story about how the car from “Bullitt” was finally found, but even if you wanted to get your hands on a film-used car, you’re going to have a tough time.
The last time one sold was in 2020, and it went for $3.74 million. Fortunately, a non-screen-used ’68 GT 390 Fastback isn’t too hard to locate, so you can find them for sale every so often. Depending on condition, you can probably get your hands on one for around $58,000, though some sell for considerably more.
“Supernatural” is all about Dean (Jensen Ackles) and Sam (Jared Padalecki) Winchester, two brothers who travel about the United States killing monsters. The show ran for 15 seasons, and while it’s not exactly a character in and of itself, “Supernatural’s” 1967 Chevrolet Impala, known affectionately by Dean as “Baby,” might as well be one.
Prior to the show’s first episode airing in 2005, the ’67 Impala wasn’t the most iconic car. That’s since changed, and the Chevy has become one of the most collectible cars on the market for lovers of the series. There are several variations, but for Baby, it’s the 1967 SS Impala four-door hardtop with an eight-cylinder 427ci Turbo-Jet V8 engine.
Finding one in good condition isn’t too difficult, though because of the series, the cost of these beauties has steadily risen. On average, you can expect to pay around $66,750 for a decent one. Some sell for considerably more, while lower-end cars can run you as little as $20,000. The production used several Impalas, though Ackles managed to get the main one off the lot when filming wrapped.
Tom Selleck dominated ’80s prime-time television on “Magnum P.I.,” and he did so while driving a red 1979 Ferrari 308 GTS. The car is iconic and expensive, though, fortunately, even Ferraris can become affordable (to some) after 50 years. That’s not to say that Thomas Magnum’s ride is cheap or easy to find.
The production used three Ferrari models, changing it up over the seasons, beginning with a 1979 308 to a GTSi, and finally a 1984 GTS Quattrovalvole, but the differences weren’t too noticeable to fans unfamiliar with the minor differences between models. They required modifications to accommodate Selleck’s height, but were otherwise the same cars a select few could afford to drive in the early 1980s.
In 2017, a 1984 model driven by Selleck on the show sold for $181,500. If you want to get behind the wheel of one that wasn’t seen on television, it won’t cost as much, but expect to shell out some serious cash. These average for around $77,000; like any car, condition matters, and some can go for around $130,000 or more.
When it comes to great car movies from the 1970s, look no further than “Smokey and the Bandit.” The action comedy film features an all-star cast and some seriously great driving scenes. Bo “The Bandit” Darville (Burt Reynolds) sat behind the wheel of a 1976 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am.
The car used in the film is a 1976 Trans Am with its front end restyled to look like the 1977 edition. Regardless, there are plenty of tribute cars decked out in black paint and gold trim that look, to the average viewer, like a so-called “Bandit Edition” Trans Am. You can usually find these cars for sale, but they often require some modifications.
Indeed, the car used in the film was heavily modified and made to look very different from what it actually was. It is occasionally possible to get your hands on one tied to the movie, as a promo car used by Universal Studios was sold at auction in 2016 for $550,000. Thriftier collectors can usually get a ’76 or ’77 Trans Am for around $82,000 on average.
Since his introduction in 1939, Batman has driven tons of vehicles, though the Batmobile is the most recognizable. There have been several versions over the years, but the most iconic is easily the car featured in the 1966 television series starring Adam West as the Caped Crusader. It may come as a surprise, but the production used a legit car to make the Batmobile.
The retro-futuristic design came about thanks to the 1955 Ford Lincoln Futura concept car, which was modified heavily to align with the show’s theme. Eventually, the Batmobile switched over to the 1966 Ford Futura, but the overall design scheme remained pretty much the same.
Owning the Batmobile isn’t an inexpensive endeavor, and the one featured in the 1966 feature film sold at auction in 2010 for $4.2 million. While it’s possible to find a reasonably priced replica for around $85,000, most require tons of modifications to bring them up to Batman’s approved specs, as the car that hit the market looks very different from the one driven by the Dark Knight.
“Smokey and the Bandit” wasn’t the only production to glamorize the Pontiac Trans Am, and one of the most well-known cars in ’80s television was a 1982 model. “Knight Rider,” the show that made David Hasselhoff a star, features a 1982 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am as K.I.T.T., voiced by William Daniels.
Because of the show’s popularity, the ’82 Trans Am became highly collectible — especially when the car is modified to feature K.I.T.T.’s various upgrades and alterations. These are fairly extensive, beginning with a light bar in the car’s grill and moving to the interior, which is not stock by any stretch of the imagination.
There are plenty of tribute cars out there, including one “Knight Rider” car that got a speeding ticket while parked in a museum. Tribute cars that look like K.I.T.T. can get expensive, running around $130,000 to as much as $150,000. That said, newer replicas sell for considerably less, with one from the 2008 revival series going for $44,000 in 2009, though it was hardly an ’82 Trans Am. Without modifications, one of those runs around $12,000.
Before “Back to the Future” hit the silver screen in 1985, the DeLorean DMC-12 was a failed car. After, it was a pop culture icon that’s so recognizable, the DeLorean nameplate managed to return from the dead. Regardless of the real vehicle’s fate, the movie car is one of sci-fi’s most celebrated, and it’s possible to own one.
While your 1981 DMC-12 won’t fly or travel through time, it can be modified to look just like the one from the movies. Most tribute cars and replicas take the car’s look from “Back to the Future Part II,” which features a Mr. Fusion alongside other items like the Flux Capacitor introduced in the first movie.
Getting a film-used DeLorean from “Back to the Future” isn’t likely, so you can do one of two things: buy a used ’81 car and modify it yourself or buy one that’s already been outfitted with all the bells and whistles. Unmodified, they can sell for around $40K, though the average price is around $130,000 for a pristine, working car. A modified one might run as much as $200,000.
One of the most recognizable cars from ’80s television is the General Lee, the 1969 Dodge Charger used in “The Dukes of Hazzard.” The car is painted bright orange with the number “01” emblazoned on the doors, while the Confederate Battle Flag is painted across its top.
The car is probably best known for its amazing stunts, but don’t be fooled — the production went through a lot of them. Across the series’ seven seasons, the folks behind “The Dukes of Hazzard” went through at least 329 different cars, destroying as many as two each episode. One of the best-known stunts involves the car flying up into the air after hitting a ramp while the Duke cousins cheer “Yahoo” while it arcs through the air.
If you don’t think that destroys a car’s vital parts, you’d be wrong. The ’69 Dodge Charger is highly collectible and has been featured in numerous series, including being Ghost Rider’s “Hell Charger” in “Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD.” On average, these cars go for around $150,000 in good condition, though a tribute car went for $62,700 in 2022.
When it comes to classic cars and movies, the franchise with perhaps the most is James Bond. Beginning in 1962 with “Dr. No,” the Bond franchise exploded to include dozens of movies and plenty of iconic actors. It also features a ton of automobiles, and one of the most impressive arrived in 2006’s “Casino Royale,” which introduces Daniel Craig as the new Bond.
In the film, Bond gets behind the wheel of a beautiful 2007 Aston Martin DBS V12, which didn’t technically exist when the movie was shot. Aston Martin provided the production team with a 2006 model that featured a mockup of the body panels for the 2007 model.
This isn’t apparent when watching the movie, and the car looks incredible. As any enthusiast knows all too well, Aston Martin doesn’t make inexpensive cars, and this model’s MSRP was $256,000 in 2008. You can buy a 2007 model for around $222,000, but condition is everything, and a superb example can run considerably more. Still, if you’re incredibly lucky, they can sometimes sell for $110,000.
While most people weren’t interested in riding around in a hearse, that changed in 1984 when the ECTO-1 found its way to screens in “Ghostbusters.” The white hearse with tons of techno gadgets and the Ghostbusters logo became a cinematic pop culture icon, leading a small number of collectors to get their own versions.
For most people, that wasn’t an easy task, as the car used for the famous hearse was the 1959 Cadillac Miller-Meteor Futura Duplex, which was a huge vehicle that was used for all sorts of things, including functioning as a limousine and ambulance. It was also a hearse and much more, but there aren’t many of them left in the world.
Getting one from the movies is unlikely, as there are too few, but you can sometimes find them for sale sans modifications for around $231,000. You can also rent a replica through the Volo Car Museum, so there are options. One re-creation sold in 2025 for $297,000, so expect to shell out some serious cash on your way to becoming a semi-professional Ghostbuster.
Even if you didn’t know a thing about Ferraris, you probably winced when Cameron (Alan Ruck) destroys his father’s 1961 Ferrari 250 GT Spyder California in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” The car is such a focal point of Ferris and company’s skip day that it stands as one of the most important elements in the movie.
You’ll be happy to know that they didn’t actually destroy a real car because the production couldn’t afford it. They had three different replicas made for the shoot, which used a Moderna Spyder with no engine for the destroyed one seen in the movie. A real Ferrari 250 GT Spyder California sold in 2016 for $17.16 million, which explains the swap.
The real GT Spyder wasn’t worth as much in 1984, but it was still too expensive to destroy for a movie; the replicas were good enough. One of the two that weren’t destroyed sold for almost $400,000 in 2020, so while that’s out of most people’s price range, for a select few, it’s possible to get their hands on a “real” car used in the film.
Perhaps one of the most famous racing movies of the 1980s is the Burt Reynolds comedy “The Cannonball Run.” The film is all about the real outlaw road race called the Cannonball Baker Sea-to-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash, which started in Connecticut and ended in California.
Reynolds plays J.J. McClure, and while he drives a 1974 Chevrolet Laguna, that’s not the most impressive car in the movie. That honor goes to the black 1979 Lamborghini Countach LP 400 S driven by Marcie Thatcher (Adrienne Barbeau) and Jill Rivers (Tara Buckman) in the film’s opening credits. The spandex-clad ladies flash some cleavage to distract some pursuing Nevada Highway Patrol officers.
As you can imagine, the car isn’t on the lower end, but you can buy your own version of the 1979 Lamborghini Countach from “Cannonball Run” with enough cash. They average around $536,000 in good condition, though they can sell for nearly $700,000 on the higher end. That’s not bad for a car that had an original MSRP of only $41,000, though that would be $188,595 in 2026 when adjusted for inflation.
There are tons of great motorcycles seen in movies and TV shows, but when you get right down to it, the most influential comes from “Easy Rider.” The road film sees two bikers make their way across parts of the United States, carrying cash from a drug deal as they ride the open road.
Dennis Hopper plays Billy, while Peter Fonda is Wyatt, and it’s his bike that’s the most iconic. He rides a 1969 Harley-Davidson Chopper with a Stars & Stripes paint job that earned him and the bike the nickname “Captain America.” The chopper is one of the most iconic motorcycles of the 1960s, and because it’s a chopper, you know that it’s already a custom job.
It features an elongated front end and stretched-out frame with a paint job that makes it stand out. The original bike from the film sold in 2024 for a record-smashing $1.35 million, and based on that and other sales figures, they can average as much as $592,000. Don’t let that sticker shock scare you away because some tribute bikes have been built for far less, amounting to around $30,000.
While it would be nice to score Tony Stark’s (Robert Downey Jr.) armor from “Iron Man,” that’s pretty unlikely to happen anytime soon. Fortunately, there are other options, and if you pay attention to Stark’s garage, you’ll see that the man has a pretty sweet collection of classic cars.
While it doesn’t get much screen time, one of his most impressive is a 1967 AC Shelby Cobra. These are among the most desirable cars on the market, and it’s painful to see Iron Man crash into his, destroying it as you see in the above image. Thankfully, they didn’t actually smash a real one for the movie and instead opted for a so-called “re-creation rolling chassis.”
This was little more than an aluminum rendition of a ’67 AC Shelby Cobra. One of the rolling chassis sold in 2015 for $24,200, but don’t expect to get the real deal for anywhere near that price. There’s a pretty wide range, depending on condition, but it’s not uncommon to see a ’67 AC Shelby Cobra like the one recreated for “Iron Man” sell for around $1.1 million, while running replicas cost around 10-20% as much.
While the Aston Martin featured in “Casino Royale” is an amazing piece of machinery, the most iconic vehicle from the franchise debuted decades earlier. Bond’s most recognizable car is his 1963 Aston Martin DB5 featured in 1964’s “Goldfinger.” Technically, it was a DB4 with prototype DB5 parts, but most fans couldn’t care less.
While you’ll be hard-pressed to load one with as many gadgets, it’s not impossible. Granted, you’re going to have to star in the next James Bond movie to be able to afford your very own because the ’63 Aston Martin DB5 is one of the most desired and expensive automobiles on the planet. The car’s model appears in eight of the franchise’s movies, though from different years.
Still, the ’63 model is at the top of most collectors’ lists. Aston Martin made 25 re-creations, fitted with plenty of gadgets and gizmos, which boasted a sticker price of $3.63 million, but there’s a cheaper option. A legit ’63 model can often go for as much as $1.7 million, though you might get away with spending only $1.3 million of your hard-earned cash to add one to your collection.
Weekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
Democrats look to World Cup watch parties to register thousands of voters
Big Money Is Entering XRP
Sail Virtually Aboard The “Itanic” With IA-64 Emulator
Grayscale Files For Worldcoin ETF, WLD Registers Sharp Rise
Turtle Beach Command Series KB7 review: a nifty screen-equipped gaming keyboard
Unregistered fitter used Gas Safe logo on business flyers
New Jersey voter registration controversy explained: How 6,600 noncitizens got on the rolls, and what happens next
Johnny Depp’s R-Rated Gothic Cult Classic Gets New Release Ahead of Sydney Sweeney Remake
Ethics, other provisions in crypto Clarity Act to be further discussed
Watch Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley discuss the future of surveillance at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026
Shanghai science forum photos show China’s AI and robotics advances in rivalry with US
Circle’s President Sold Over 360,000 Shares, The Filings Explain Why
Subway Sandwich Computers Get a Second Life as Gaming Machines
2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
The Peugeot Family: How 200 Years of an “Old Money” Dynasty Died in A Boardroom
16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
How To Use Claude’s Reflect Dashboard And Learn When It’s Time To Touch Grass
The 35 Best Board Games for Family Game Night
Stephen Colbert Returns to Social Media After Late Show End
You must be logged in to post a comment Login