Swift has watched the sky since 2004, catching some of the universe’s biggest explosions. Now it is sinking, and time is short. NASA is paying Katalyst Space Technologies about $30mn to save it, the Associated Press reported. Liftoff could come as early as Tuesday.

The plan sounds simple and is anything but. Reach a satellite nobody designed for capture, grab it, and lift it higher.

Why Swift is falling

Every satellite in low orbit fights a slow drag from the thin air up there. The Sun makes it worse. Intense solar activity has puffed up the atmosphere, and the extra drag now pulls Swift down faster than NASA expected.

The telescope now orbits at about 360km. Left alone, it would drop below 300km by October, past the point where a rescue could still work. After that comes re-entry and a fiery end for a working observatory. NASA has already switched off Swift’s instruments to slow the fall, and science observations stopped in February.

That would be a real loss. Swift ranks among the fastest eyes on the sky, swinging within minutes onto gamma-ray bursts, the brief, violent flares that mark dying stars and colliding neutron stars. “If we let Swift reenter, we would lose that telescope,” NASA science chief Nicky Fox told the AP. “We don’t currently have the budget to build another one to replace that.”

The grab

Katalyst’s answer is Link, an autonomous spacecraft about the size of a small fridge with a 12-metre solar wingspan. It carries three arms, each tipped with two pinching grippers. It rides up on an air-launched Pegasus rocket, dropped from a plane over the Marshall Islands in the Pacific.

From there it has to chase down its target. NASA expects Link to take about a month to reach the 1.4-tonne observatory and grab it, then a further couple of months to raise the orbit from roughly 360km to about 600km. If it works, Swift could be back at work by September.

The catch is the hard part. Swift has no docking port and no grip points, because nobody designed it for servicing. Astronauts once fixed Hubble by hand, but that took the space shuttle and a crew. This time a robot works alone.

A new kind of mission

The speed of it is striking. NASA signed the contract only last September with two instructions: hurry, and do not make things worse. Nine months later, Katalyst is ready to fly.

It is also a first for the US. China nudged a dead satellite into a higher graveyard orbit in 2022, but catching a working telescope that was never built to be caught is a harder job. “No one thought it was going to be possible,” said Shawn Domagal-Goldman, NASA’s astrophysics director.

That matters far beyond Swift. A young industry wants to service, refuel and move satellites in orbit rather than let them die. A real rescue, on a real deadline, is the proof such firms have been waiting for.

Why it matters

The maths is part of the appeal. Thirty million dollars is a fraction of the cost of building and launching a fresh space telescope. If a tug can add years to a healthy instrument, the case for saving hardware over scrapping it gets stronger.

Hubble could be next. Katalyst says a bigger robot, due to fly next year, could reach satellites far higher up and give the ageing Hubble its own boost around 2028. Further out, the firm imagines fleets of orbital robots fixing, fuelling and even building in space.

There is a tidier future hiding in this too. Today most spacecraft simply fall and burn when they reach the end of their lives. A working tug fleet could lift the valuable ones, deorbit the dead ones on purpose, and start to clear the junk crowding low orbit.

For now, all of that rests on one launch and one delicate grab. NASA and Katalyst will know within months whether Swift keeps watching the cosmos or becomes a cautionary tale. The countdown has already started.

Rockstar Games has confirmed several new combat features for GTA 6, making the game’s weapon system more detailed than ever before. Official trailers and promotional material have already revealed more than 30 weapons across different categories, including pistols, assault rifles, shotguns, sniper rifles, launchers, melee weapons, and throwables. This guide covers all the GTA 6 weapons revealed so far and highlights the new gameplay features that make combat more immersive.

GTA 6 Handguns List

Handguns play an important role in GTA 6, offering a balance of speed, accuracy, and convenience. Rockstar has already showcased multiple sidearms through official trailers and screenshots, including both pistols and revolvers. Here’s a complete list of the confirmed handguns in GTA 6.

GTA 6 Shotguns List

GTA 6 includes powerful shotguns for close-quarters combat. These weapons are useful during indoor fights and high-action missions. Rockstar has already showcased two shotguns in official trailers and screenshots. Below are the confirmed shotgun weapons in GTA 6.

GTA 6 Assault Rifles List

Assault rifles are among the most versatile weapons in GTA 6. They perform well in both close- and long-range combat. Rockstar has confirmed several rifles through trailers and screenshots. Here’s every confirmed assault rifle in the game.

GTA 6 Machine Guns and SMG List

GTA 6 includes several SMGs and machine guns for intense firefights. These weapons are useful during missions, chases, and vehicle combat. Rockstar has already showcased multiple models in official trailers and screenshots. Below are all the confirmed weapons.

GTA 6 Sniper Rifles List

Players who prefer long-range combat will find several sniper rifles in GTA 6. These weapons are designed for precision and serious damage. Official gameplay footage has showcased multiple sniper rifle models. Here’s every confirmed sniper rifle revealed so far.

GTA 6 Launchers List

Launchers deliver the most serious explosive damage in GTA 6. They are the best choice for destroying vehicles and heavily armored targets. Players can also use them during large-scale combat. Below are all the confirmed launchers in GTA 6.

GTA 6 Throwable Weapons List

Not every combat situation requires a gun in GTA 6. Throwables give players another way to attack enemies or create an opening. Each weapon has its own strengths and uses. Below are all the confirmed throwable weapons in GTA 6.

GTA 6 Melee Weapons List

Melee weapons remain an important part of combat in GTA 6. They offer a quiet and reliable way to deal with nearby enemies. Different weapons suit different combat styles. Here’s every confirmed melee weapon revealed so far.

• Baseball Bat
• Crowbar
• Golf Club
• Hammer
• Knife
• Pool Cue
• Fists (Unarmed)

GTA 6 Equipment and Utility Item List

GTA 6 includes more than just guns and melee weapons. Players can use different equipment to complete missions in creative ways. These items add more flexibility to gameplay. Here’s the complete list of confirmed equipment.

• Auto Dialer
• Backpack
• Binoculars
• Body Armor
• Cigarettes
• Cut-off Tool
• Flashlight
• Food & Drinks
• Immobilizer Bypass
• Lock Pick
• Loot Bag / Duffel Bag
• Painkillers
• Slim Jim
• Soda
• Taser
• Torch Flashlight
• Tracker Jammer
• Trauma Kit
• USB Drive
• Wine
• Zipties

Apple’s largest memory suppliers are being sued in California, with consumers and small businesses alleging Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and Micron coordinated DRAM production cuts that drove up memory prices.

Apple isn’t accused of wrongdoing in the lawsuit. Samsung, SK hynix and Micron supply memory used across Apple’s hardware lineup, putting the dispute much closer to customers than it might first appear.

The company has already raised prices on several Mac, iPad and other products after saying higher RAM and storage costs had become too expensive to absorb. Court filings argue coordinated DRAM production cuts contributed to those higher costs, though the plaintiffs still have to prove that claim.

Court filings argue the shift reduced supplies of mainstream DRAM, including DDR3 and DDR4, and drove prices higher across the market. The allegations haven’t been proven, and Micron denied the claims and said it will defend itself, according to Investor’s Business Daily.

The lawsuit targets the AI memory shift

The complaint centers on DRAM, the working memory used in computers, smartphones, tablets, servers and many other electronic devices. Samsung, SK hynix and Micron dominate the global DRAM market, giving them enormous influence over memory supply.

Counterpoint Research said Samsung held a 38% share of global DRAM revenue during the first quarter of 2026, followed by SK hynix at 29% and Micron at 22%. Plaintiffs argue that concentration is central to the lawsuit because a competitive commodity market would normally encourage at least one supplier to expand production as prices rise.

Instead, the complaint alleges Samsung, SK hynix and Micron shifted manufacturing capacity toward HBM, which commands much higher prices from AI companies. Companies are free to pursue more profitable products, and that business decision isn’t illegal by itself.

The lawsuit ultimately turns on whether Samsung, SK hynix and Micron coordinated those production decisions or reached the same conclusion independently. Antitrust law prohibits agreements among competitors, not similar business decisions driven by the same economic incentives.

Why Apple customers should care

Apple has spent months navigating the same memory market pressures described in the lawsuit. Industry analysts have widely attributed rising RAM and storage prices to AI demand, and the company cited higher component costs when it raised prices on some hardware.

Industry analysts have widely attributed rising RAM and storage prices to AI demand

Plaintiffs argue coordinated supply restrictions offer a competing explanation for those higher memory costs. The companies maintain they independently responded to the same market conditions.

Court-ordered discovery could become the most important stage of the case if the lawsuit survives early legal challenges. Emails, production plans and other internal records could show whether Samsung, SK hynix and Micron coordinated production decisions or acted independently.

The DRAM industry has faced price-fixing cases before

The lawsuit arrives against the backdrop of earlier DRAM antitrust cases. Samsung and Hynix pleaded guilty in the 2000s to participating in a DRAM price-fixing conspiracy investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Samsung agreed to pay a $300 million criminal fine in 2005, and Hynix agreed to pay a $185 million criminal fine that same year. Several executives also received prison sentences for participating in that conspiracy.

The earlier convictions don’t establish that Samsung, SK hynix or Micron violated antitrust law in this case. The earlier cases do show the DRAM industry has faced similar allegations before, adding context as the current lawsuit moves through the courts.

A new Supreme Court ruling will require police to have probable cause before using sweeping geofence warrants that rely on people’s personal location data to find criminals.

Police subpoena Apple, Google, and other tech companies for precious user location data using so-called “geofence warrants,” which can serve as a dragnet to catch a single criminal while implicating many others. The Supreme Court says this method is no longer an option without probable cause.

According to SCOTUSblog, breaking down the ruling, a geofence warrant meets the criteria of a “search” as defined by the Fourth Amendment. Simply put, this means that anyone included in a warrant must be there with a reason.

In short, dragnet-style searches with no suspects identified by other evidence will no longer be an option except in very specific circumstances.

That isn’t to say user location data is off-limits for law enforcement. A subpoena to Apple or Google with an individual’s identity that is reasonably suspected of a crime with evidence gathered from other sources remains legal and viable.

There’s also the option of using geofence warrants when tracking a group of criminals or trying to find associates of a known criminal. Of course, warrants will need to be provided on a case-by-case basis.

Previously, law enforcement would simply ask for the location data of everyone that was within an area for a select period of time even when a suspect wasn’t known. If you happened to be passing by, you could be implicated for no reason other than being there with a smartphone.

The Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that this violates the Fourth Amendment.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote that “an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information — even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company.” In other words, suspects will have to be identified using other means.

According to Harvard Law Review, Google was served with more than 11,500 warrants across 2020 for sweeping geofence searches. With this ruling, that number will now be zero without cause for every individual affected by the search.

Robbing a bank with a smartphone

The reason the Supreme Court shared this ruling today is due to a case from 2019 involving a bank robbery. A man escaped with nearly $200,000 and the police had zero suspects. The “zero suspects” bit is key to the ruling.

A geofence warrant was sent to Google, and the company provided 19 accounts that were within 150 meters of the bank robbery spanning that hour. Law enforcement narrowed it down to 9 accounts and requested location information for 2 hours surrounding the robbery.

The results were narrowed to three individuals — one was a man named Okello Chatrie. The location data led police to a residence with nearly $100,000, a gun, and demand notes.

The individual was arrested and pled guilty. However, Chatrie still argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. After two escalating appeals on opposite sides of the issue, the case was pushed up to the Supreme Court.

With Monday’s ruling, Chatrie’s case isn’t over. It is being passed back down to the Circuit Court to determine if the police had reason to access the location data.

Regardless of that outcome, know that your location data is protected by a constitutional right. Police will need more than “wrong place, wrong time” tactics to find suspects in the future.

Apple is contesting a ruling that would force it to pay Optis $502 million for LTE patent infringement, but the UK Supreme Court has yet to reach a verdict.

The legal battle between Apple and Optis goes back to February 2019, and there’s still no end in sight all these years later. Apple was accused of infringing upon Optis’ LTE patents, which ultimately led to lawsuits in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

The latter case resulted in Apple’s victory, as it avoided paying Optis $300M in damages in February 2026. The outcome of the UK lawsuit, however, isn’t quite as clear-cut.

As spotted by 9to5mac and reported by The Financial Times, Apple now wants the UK Supreme Court to overturn a 2023 Court of Appeal ruling that would force it to pay Optis $502 million.

Initially, Apple was only supposed to pay $56 million, as decided by the High Court in London. Later, the Court of Appeal increased that amount to $502 million by using Optis’ deal with Google as a baseline and adding royalties dating back to 2013.

Apple, however, claims the increase was “arbitrary” and that the Court of Appeal “erred in law.” The outcome of the UK lawsuit remains to be seen, but the case could drag on for years to come.

Apple vs. Optis: The progression of the UK lawsuit

Back in 2020, the UK Supreme Court ruled that UK courts can set the payment rate for patents worldwide, even though the court can only consider the infringement of UK patents. This was good news for Optis, as it was free to seek more damages from Apple.

Optis claims that Apple violated its patents on LTE technology.

Advertisement

In July 2021, Optis wanted to force Apple into paying $7 billion in damages, along with a global royalty rate. Apple called the fee “commercially unacceptable” and threatened to leave the UK market if it was forced to pay such a high amount.

Later, in March 2022, the London High Court declared that Apple infringed two 4G patents held by Optis, which it described as “standard essential patents.”

Apple tried to argue that none of the patents were essential, and said it hadn’t committed any infringement. Still, its appeal was ultimately denied in July 2023.

Instead of the $7B sought by Optis, the London High Court said Apple had to pay only $56.43 million. However, Optis filed an appeal, which was ultimately successful. A $502 million fine was imposed by the UK Court of Appeal in May 2025.

This amount represents a lump sum covering 2013 to 2027, and was supposed to serve as a global license to use Optis LTE patents in the iPhone, Apple Watch, and other devices.

“[We are] pleased the UK Court of Appeal has recognized and corrected a clearly flawed prior ruling,” an Optis spokesperson told AppleInsider at the time, “and has made meaningful progress toward affirming the true value of our patents to Apple devices.”

Now, however, it’s up to the UK Supreme Court to decide just how much Apple will have to pay.

AI-related job loss fears grow each time another company announces a round of layoffs. Through May of 2026, companies announced that close to 90,000 job cuts were tied to AI, and, by some accounts, up to 15% of U.S. jobs are projected to be eliminated by AI over the next five years. Promises from the tech industry that AI will also create new jobs does little to ease fears, especially for the generation wondering if anyone will be hiring when they graduate. 

A recent report from Ramp and Revelio Labs, which track enterprise AI spend and workforce records from nearly 22,000 companies, respectively, complicates that gloomy narrative. 

The report found that companies spending heavily on AI are growing headcount faster, even in the entry-level roles that many fear are doomed. According to the report, “high-intensity adopters” — firms that spend on average $30 per employee per month on AI in the first three months — saw headcount increase 10.2%.

Headcount also rose across functions, including engineering, sales, administration, customer service, finance, marketing, and scientist roles. The strongest job growth among high-intensity adopters was in the information sector, which includes software, internet, media, and tech-adjacent firms. 

Despite these positive signals, the data isn’t as rosy as it seems. It skews heavily towards tech-forward, knowledge-work firms — ones that might have VC-backing and are growing fast anyway, making it difficult to say whether AI is contributing to the hiring or just showing up at companies that are expanding anyway.

“This paper does not show that AI universally creates jobs,” the paper’s authors admit, “but it does counter claims that AI will lead to broad job losses.”

It also counters claims that AI is killing all junior jobs. Recent research from Goldman Sachs found that AI has already erased about 16,000 net jobs per month over the past year, with Gen Z and entry level workers taking the brunt of the burden. But in tech-forward firms, the report finds that entry-level headcount actually rose by 12%.

So what can we take away from this? Perhaps that AI isn’t always a tool for labor substitution, but that it can be a tool for firm-expansion instead. 

“For software and technology firms, AI can make core output cheaper or faster to produce: writing code, debugging, building internal tools, producing technical documentation, and supporting product development,” the report reads. “Lower production costs in these workflows can raise the return to expanding the whole firm, not just the engineering team.”

But companies that buy subscriptions and run pilots, yet did not go on to make sustained investments, don’t tend to see any gains in headcount, per the report. 

That sets up the potential for a widening gap between firms that have the resources — like capital, technical staff, founder networks, and management bandwidth — to turn AI adoption into actual business gains and those that are stuck experimenting with subscriptions. In other words, this report suggests that firms that already have the resources are the ones who will see the largest gains. 

The paper’s authors speculate such a divide may continue to grow, saying: “Firms without those channels may fall behind.”

from the nice-try-fascist dept

It’s no secret that Donald Trump has been waging an Orwellian war on knowledge and information for most of his second term thus far. While purging history of American racism, slavery, and anything else that makes us look less than perfect has been the primary focus in this war, so too has Trump attempted to simply disappear data and information around climate change from the public view. This attempt to make us all more ignorant about the harms and potential negative outcomes from climate change is, of course, completely insane and self-destructive. But if you’re an octogenarian suffering from a textbook case of narcissistic personality disorder, what happens years after you’re going to be worm-food probably doesn’t concern you all that much.

Most recently, the Trump administration shut down climate.gov, a website that contained a wealth of information and research generated by government researchers and third-party scientists that worked at the request of government. Decades and decades of content and data, wiped away with the wave of a bruised hand by Trump.

Over decades, researchers in the US government and programs it sponsored built up a tremendous number of climate resources, from comprehensive analyses to massive datasets to basic explainers meant to inform the public. And people within the government built the climate.gov website to make it all accessible. But if you try to navigate there today, you get redirected to the climate page of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and are greeted with the following message:

In compliance with Executive Order 14303 (“Restoring Gold Standard Science”), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s June 23, 2025 Memorandum (“Agency Guidance for Implementing Gold Standard Science in the Conduct & Management of Scientific Activities”), 15 USC § 2904 (“National Climate Program”), 15 USC § 2934 (“National Global Change Research Plan”), and 33 USC § 893a (“NOAA Ocean and Atmospheric Science Education Programs”), you have been redirected to NOAA.gov. Future research products previously housed under Climate.gov will be available at NOAA.gov/climate and its affiliate websites.

This is, of course, nonsense. Or, to borrow a phrase, a litany of inconvenient truths that gave Trump indigestion and therefore had to be done away with. This was a repository of knowledge. It was a public good, making information on climate science available to anyone who sought it out. It didn’t cost a bunch of money. It contained work done by real scientists doing real science.

And, poof, it was gone.

Except many of the people who worked to build and maintain the site seem to have anticipated that this might happen. I don’t know how else to explain how they managed to not only maintain the full library of the site, but also spun up their own non-profit organization to host and maintain a nearly identical site on their own. And because this is material the government can’t copyright, it appears there is fuck-all the Trump administration can do about it.

While the government didn’t hesitate to delete inconvenient climate information, dedicated volunteers outside the government managed to preserve copies of much of the material, which the federal government is prohibited from copyrighting. The volunteers and former climate.gov admins got together and launched climate.us. On Tuesday, the team announced that it had completed the project to restore everything lost when climate.gov shut down.

The website features Climate.gov’s 15-year collection of climate news and stories, expert blogs, visual status reports on key climate indicators, maps and data pathways, climate literacy resources, classroom materials, and restored access to the Fifth National Climate Assessment.

If our own government is going to attempt to make us more stupid by trying to hide information, this is all of our jobs now. It may be a shame that it is the work of citizens to restore what our government is attempting to steal from us, but it is also a necessity. This is how you fight back against an authoritarian. It takes work. It takes effort. And it takes some money.

But this knowledge isn’t Trump’s property to erase. It belongs to all of us.

Filed Under: climate change, climate.gov, data, donald trump, transparency