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.
Microsoft announced that Windows Server 2022 will reach the mainstream end date in October 2026, but will switch to extended support and continue receiving security updates for five more years.
Windows Server 2022 was first announced in March 2021 and became generally available in September 2021 as the Long-Term Servicing Channel (LTSC) release, with 10 years of support.
“On October 13, 2026, Windows Server 2022 will reach end of mainstream support. The October 2026 security update will be the last mainstream support update available for this version,” Microsoft said in a message center update on Thursday.
“After this date, Windows Server 2022 will transition to extended support, which includes security updates at no additional cost, and will continue to receive monthly security updates through October 14, 2031.”
Customers are now advised to upgrade to Windows Server 2025 (the latest version of Microsoft’s server operating system), which became generally available in November 2024 after first rolling out to Windows Insiders in January 2024.
Windows Server 2025 will reach the end of support on November 13, 2029, with extended support ending five years later, on November 14, 2034. Those who want to test Windows Server 2025 before deployment can use the free 180-day trial available through the Microsoft Evaluation Center.
“Windows Server 2025 is now the latest Long-Term Servicing Channel (LTSC) release for Windows Server. To help keep your environment protected and supported, plan to upgrade to Windows Server 2025 for full mainstream support,” Microsoft noted.”Evaluate upgrade options and begin deployment testing early to help ensure a smooth transition.”
You can find more information about Windows servicing dates using the Lifecycle Policy search tool or on the Windows Lifecycle FAQ page. Microsoft has also shared a list of products that will reach the end of support or will be retired in 2025.
Last month, Microsoft also announced that it has extended Windows Server 2022 hotpatching until October 2027, one year after its mainstream end date of October 2026, for systems running the Datacenter: Azure Edition, and quietly extended the free Windows 10 Extended Security Updates (ESU) program for consumers by an additional year.
More recently, on Wednesday, Microsoft reminded customers that Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB 2016 and the Home and Pro editions of Windows 11 24H2 will stop receiving updates 3 months after reaching end of support.
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.
Why you can trust TechRadar
We spend hours testing every product or service we review, so you can be sure you’re buying the best. Find out more about how we test.
The Sony PS-LX3BT is one of the first new turntables to leave Sony’s R&D department in years. It comes some time after the launch of the Sony PS-LX310BT, one of what TechRadar rightfully deems to be the best turntables for beginners — and has big shoes to fill, accordingly.
And fill them it sort-of does, at least in the most literal of senses. It shares a lot of physical attributes, aims for the same sleek aesthetic, and seeks to corner the same, well, corner of the market with user-friendly interfaces and a no-nonsense approach to playing records. It’s a shame it doesn’t quite stick the landing.
Price is the major sticking point for me — its launch price far overshot similarly specced, and better-featured, turntables in the same market. This was the backdrop against which certain bugbears became serious missteps — from a stylus that Sony insists you need to replace through them, to a cheap-feeling body that feels like it’s come from a device a third of the price.
These things overshadow the PS-LX3BT’s capable performance with audio, via its decent on-board preamp and its star-of-the-show press-and-play Bluetooth connectivity. It could be good — it is good, by some metrics — but not for where it’s asking to sit.
The Sony PS-LX3BT is a fully automatic, Bluetooth-enabled plug-and-play turntable, with an eye cocked squarely at the upper limits of the entry level. At its launch price of $399 / £299 / AU$469, it’s not what I would call cheap; in fact, it’s undercut by a fair few near-equivalent competitors — most compelling of which is the Audio-Technica AT-LP70XBT.
Then, there’s this turntable’s own sibling (they actually launched together), the Sony PS-LX5BT which is pricier but adds a more delicate stylus pressure of 2.0g ± 0.5g, a thicker and more premium rubber mat, a tweaked circuit design engineered to suppress unwanted vibration, a dedicated gold-plated audio jack out port (something not present here) with a cable in the box, plus a slightly more high-end, all-black finish.
Most other competitors in the market, though, do not have ‘Sony’ tastefully emblazoned on the chassis. Sony is a tried-and-tested household brand for AV tech, be it TVs, games consoles, CD players or integrated hi-fi systems.
Hence, the brand is likely better-trusted by new or returning vinyl enthusiasts to deliver something intuitive, fuss-free and of a minimum quality. Is this trust well-founded? The 2019 Sony PS-LX310BT was a huge success, but it was also a lot cheaper (depending on where you lived), having launched at $199 / £200 / AU$399. So, you can see the issue…
|
Dimensions |
430 mm x 117 mm x 366 mm |
|
Motor |
Belt drive |
|
Platter |
Die-cast aluminum |
|
Phono preamp |
Yes |
|
USB |
No |
|
Bluetooth |
4.2 |
|
Speeds |
33 1/3, 45 RPM |
|
Stylus |
Moving magnet |
|
Extras |
USB-C power adapter, 45 adapter |
The Sony PS-LX3BT is an automatic turntable; this means it can be operated entirely by the array of buttons and switches adorning its anthracite-hued surface. Simply select the size and speed of your record, then use the buttons at the front to control the placement or removal of the tonearm. The platter’s rotation is triggered by moving the tonearm past a certain point, so even if you want to use the PS-LX3BT manually (by virtue of the silver finger-rest protruding from where the headshell would be) you literally only have to lift a finger to play a record.
Automatic turntable mechanisms are not so new, and this mechanical design doesn’t sound especially new either, with some familiar clunks and whirrs I know from my old Rotel system. What is, at least slightly newer, though, is Bluetooth connectivity, which the PS-LX3BT quite proudly has. More specifically, there’s aptX Adaptive Bluetooth transmission, for low-latency, high-resolution streaming from the turntable to your Bluetooth receiver of choice and accessed via a suavely flush button in the front-left corner of the chassis face.
On top of this Bluetooth connectivity, the LX3BT has connections the old-fashioned way, via a hard-wired stereo RCA cable out from the back. It’s an odd choice to use a permanently attached cable instead of a port – and at that, given the audience for this thing, I’m surprised there isn’t a 3.5mm Aux out either.
Still, that RCA cable feeds a built-in and switchable phono preamp, which means you can plug your turntable in most any amplifier without needing an extra gain stage. On top of that, there’s a gain switch that lets you boost or attenuate your turntable’s output by 4dB. Surprising in a different way; thoughtful, even.
The LX3BT has, like many other entry-level turntables of its ilk, a completely built-in cartridge arrangement with a replaceable stylus element. The stylus part here looks strikingly like one of Audio-Technica’s AT-3600 series, but is “designed specifically for this turntable”, according to Sony’s website FAQ. With a bit of sleuthing, the stylus does appear to be Audio-Technica’s AT3600LAX, a conical stylus with a carbon-fiber cantilever – though Sony’s specs point to a slightly heftier 3.5g tracking force. (Incidentally, my own tracking-force measurements of the tonearm put its exertion at a, for me, troublingly high 3.7g.)
Crucially, this thin layer of proprietariness creates an uneasy route to self-replacement, or indeed upgrade. Sony would prefer you go through its dealers or customer service department for a like-for-like stylus replacement, indicating that “other styluses are not supported”. Built-in cartridges and replaceable styli can be clever entry-level phenomena, and can be executed transparently well, but here, in this manner, it trends a little too close to being anti-consumer for my liking. Minus thoughtfulness points.
For all the grumblings I’ve leveled at the Sony PS-LX3BT thus far, I will contend that it actually does sound good. That definitely-not-an-AT-3600L-in-a-moustache cartridge presents a perfectly reasonable quality of sound — great, even, for its place in the market.
True to the marketing copy, the LX3BT sounds warm, the general color of its cartridge being a little on the soft side with some noticeable roll-off towards the upper reaches. Future Islands’ As Long As You Are sounds no less rich for this character, all big, warbly synths and croon-adjacent missives throughout. It’s an enjoyable listen.
Testing the 7-inch functionality of the automatic mechanism, I chucked on early-80s groover Emergency (Dial 999) by Loose Ends (a DJ-set staple, and an undeniable bop besides — fight me). It ended up being a great conduit by which to recognize the strengths of the PS-LX3BT’s built-in phono preamp. Often in budget turntables, these can be brittle or a little saturating; this one is clear and full, rendering those snappy standout snares and breakout vocal refrains in gratifying detail.
The whole outfit seems to benefit guitars and vocals over anything, though everything sounds, to some extent, present and fulsome; Ryuichi Sakamoto’s Risky, featuring Iggy Pop, is a sparse arrangement benefited by Iggy’s game attempt at a Let’s Dance-era Bowie impression — his voice is a raspy little joy all the time, but rendered to some good effect here.
Unobtrusively good sound quality notwithstanding, the aptX Adaptive Bluetooth connectivity is arguably the star of the show. It’s fast to connect to, and, with regards to fidelity, sounds indistinguishable from its analog alternative. I had a whale of a time in the kitchen listening to Mitski’s Nothing’s About To Happen To Me, in all its full and heartbreaking glory, fuss-free.
Pulling the PS-LX3BT out of the box, I found the chassis to be quite light. Surprisingly light, even. Putting it together, it became clear that almost every element was some form of plastic — besides occasional aspects, and the die-cast aluminum platter. It’s not a reassuring weight, though the turntable is undeniably stable on its feet.
I’m more disappointed by the perceivable cheapness of the construction on display here. A series of design decisions were made that preferred cost to user experience, leading to a pretty nasty-feeling finish on the chassis shell, a flimsy tonearm rest clasp that doesn’t actually clasp, and a spring-assisted tonearm that inspires little confidence.
At least the LX3BT is an easy thing to set up — as easy as seating the platter belt, plugging in a power adapter and delivering the hardwired stereo RCA cable to your amp or speaker of choice. It couldn’t be more plug-and-play, nor more foolproof to use via its clearly labeled buttons and knobs.
Again, the best bit of the Sony PS-LX3BT seems to be its Bluetooth. Where many other devices struggle unduly with one-touch connectivity, connecting this turntable to my portable speaker was the easiest time of my life; a single button press, a modicum of patient waiting with speaker held (camply) in-hand, and it was paired.
This aptX Adaptive connectivity can be utilized simultaneously to the PS-LX3BT’s analog outputs, too. This means dual-zone listening; I got to enjoy hi-res Mitski in the kitchen while my wife bopped along in the living room, too. And, again, it sounded great! A positive side-effect design decision, that pitches the Sony LX3BT well for casual home listening.
To be completely frank, I find it difficult to square the price of this against its own quality, let alone the standards set by other turntable brands. It’s the top end of the entry level, and yet it has the same unfriendly design principles as the cheap-and-cheerful, ten-a-penny budget turntables it’s meant to outclass.
The caveat is that it does, ultimately, deliver on its core purposes. It’s an automatic turntable, and it does indeed automate much of the turntable-playing process — for the most part successfully, too. It’s a Bluetooth-enabled turntable, and its Bluetooth just works, which is something you can’t say for some other devices. And through it all, it sounds pretty darn decent.
But these are all things that turntables a third cheaper can offer. You deserve so much more for $400 / £300 than a brand logo; if you let it, that same amount of investment could buy you a solid turntable that delivers better quality sound, and gives you the keys to the kingdom vis-a-vis calibration and repairs too.
Here, it is worth my acknowledging that, in the intervening weeks since the LX3BT’s launch, there seems to have been a post-launch price-adjustment of sorts; many outlets are offering it at $348 / £250, or even slightly less. This makes the turntable a much more palatable prospect investment-wise, but I do think my criticisms stand — and that other turntables have met the moment a little better.
|
Attribute |
Notes |
Score |
|
Features |
AptX Adaptive Bluetooth and a fully automatic mechanism let down by an opaque approach to stylus and stylus replacement |
3 / 5 |
|
Sound quality |
Warm, full sound; a clear preamp and unobtrusive Bluetooth connection make for clear and easy listening |
4 / 5 |
|
Design |
A quintessential Sony design, sleek and minimal — but cheap in-hand, in a number of places |
3 / 5 |
|
Value |
A hard turntable to recommend at its launch price — cheaper and better-specced competitors exist |
2.5 / 5 |
| Header Cell – Column 0 |
Sony PS-LX3BT |
Audio-Technica AT-LP70XBT |
FiiO TT13 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Dimensions |
430 x 117 x 366 mm |
110 x 400 x 330mm |
114 x 450 x 350mm |
|
Motor |
Belt drive |
Belt drive |
Belt drive |
|
Platter |
Die-cast aluminum |
Die-cast aluminum |
Die-cast aluminum |
|
Phono preamp |
Yes, switchable |
Yes, switchable |
Yes |
|
USB |
No |
No |
No |
|
Bluetooth |
SBC / aptX / aptX Adaptive |
SBC / aptX / aptX Adaptive |
SBC / aptX / aptX LL / aptX HD |
|
Speeds |
33 1/3, 45 RPM |
33 1/3, 45 RPM |
33 1/3, 45 RPM |
|
Stylus |
Moving magnet |
Audio-Technica AT-VM95C |
Audio-Technica AT3600LA |
|
Extras |
Dust cover, 45 adapter |
Dust cover, felt mat, 45 adapter, 1m RCA cable |
Dust cover, remote control, RCA cable |
The Sony PS-LX3BT spent a month or so atop my living-room hi-fi stack, as my primary means of listening to records. As such, its output was treated by a Cambridge Audio A2 integrated amplifier, which itself fed a pair of Dali Sonik 1 bookshelf speakers.
Bluetooth connectivity was tested with my trusty kitchen speaker, a Soundcore Motion 300. For testing, I listened to a wide variety of favored records across genres, to get a comprehensive feel for the LX3BT’s performance.
Apple TV is to screen director Sian Heder’s follow-up to the Oscar-winning “CODA,” a biopic about the life of a woman who got the government to take action over the rights of disabled people.
In 2022, Sian Heder directed and co-wrote “CODA,” which earned Apple TV the first-ever Best Picture Oscar for a streaming service. Apple immediately announced that it was backing Heder to direct a dramatization of Judy Heumann’s bestselling memoir, and the finished film is now heading for theaters and Apple TV.
Co-written by Heder and Rebekah Taussig, “Being Heumann” stars Ruth Madeley as Heumann. Best known for “Doctor Who” and Russell T. Davies’s “Years and Years,” Madeley has spina bifida and is wheelchair-bound.
Heumann contracted polio in the late 1940s aged 18 months and spent most of her life in wheelchairs. According to Entertainment Weekly, Heder was shown a documentary about her and cold-emailed Heumann about making a film of her life.
“She was so forceful and hilarious and blunt and empathetic and all of these contradictions,” says Heder. “And I thought, ‘I do need to tell this story, and I’d love to meet this woman.’”
Heumann became known as the mother of the Disability Rights Movement, chiefly because of her 1977 sit-in. Aiming to persuade President Carter to enact the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Heumann led sit-ins that occupied federal buildings including Washington, D.C., and New York City.
The protests were known as the 504 Sit-ins, after section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act which states that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual could be excluded from programs that receive federal funding. Heumann helped with the recognition of disabled rights and section 504 was finally enacted..
Heumann died unexpectedly in March 2023, aged 75. She had one Zoom call with actor Madeley before then. “I was completely in awe. I was so desperate for her to like me,” Ruth Madeley says. “I feel really privileged that she knew my name.”
“Her grit, her joy, and her complexities all make her so much fun to play,” she continued. “Also, to have Sian at the helm was a huge pull for me.”
Judy Heumann headed the 1970s sit-ins that led to greater disability rights – image credit: Apple TV
The film is based on the book “Being Heumann: An Unrepentant Memoir of a Disability Rights Activist” by Judy Heumann. Co-writer Rebekah Taussig is also the author of the 2020 memoir “Sitting Pretty: The View from My Ordinary Resilient Disabled Body.”
“Being Heumann” is to open the 2026 Toronto International Film Festival, which runs from September 10, 2026, to September 20. It will then get a theatrical run from November 6, 2026, before streaming on Apple TV from November 13.
Whether or not “Being Heumann” has any chance at repeating Heder and Apple’s Oscar success depends on exactly how the film’s theatrical window is managed. Directly following Apple’s win, the Academy Awards introduced new rules which limit what films can qualify for the Oscars.
To be eligible for consideration, the initial one-week release of “Being Heumann” in theaters will have to include one of six US metro areas including Los Angeles County, New York, Chicago, the Bay Area, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Atlanta. It will then have to be followed by another week-long run in 10 of the top 50 US Markets, no later than 45 days after that initial release.
There are more rules, and they vary for different Oscar categories. But overall the rules have effectively made it harder for streamers to win the Best Picture Oscar.

Knockoff is an extension that shows you which brands on Amazon are fake.
Ordinary Systems
Amazon’s search engine has become flooded with gibberish-named knockoff brands in recent years. To make your shopping experience a bit less phony, developer Josh Pigford built Knockoff, a free extension that will clean up your feed by automatically hiding or dimming listings from all those sketchy, mass-produced brands.
Knockoff is available for Firefox, Chrome and all Chromium-based web browsers such as Microsoft Edge, Opera and Brave. It’s also available as a Safari extension.
Pigford launched the tool earlier this month, and it’s since gone viral, with tens of thousands of downloads. A few days before the launch, Pigford posted on X, “Built a little chrome extension that lets you dim (or hide!) all the crap, mass-produced, fake brands on Amazon.” The post garnered 22,000 likes.
Knockoff is now live!
Filter out the knockoff crap brands on Amazon.
Sorry to brands like WNPETHOME, EHEYCIGA, YXYL, LU&MN, JOYIN, TOMY, GODONLIF, YOOJEE, LINGTENG, LANEIGE, VISCOO, BIODANCE, COOFANDY, BALENNZ, TOSY and LUENX.https://t.co/9mLk0EAsfG https://t.co/K07lMkepOW
— Josh Pigford (@Shpigford) July 7, 2026
It works pretty simply. Once installed, any products from fake brands, dropshippers or otherwise suspicious vendors are marked and grayed out, highlighting the more reputable brands you might actually know. There’s also an option to automatically hide the fake brands so you don’t even have to see them at all.
In an interview with 404 Media, Pigford says that Knockoff is built on prior extensions that aim to do this, such as AmazonBrandFilter and Amazon Brand Detector. The extension, which runs locally, doesn’t require an account, doesn’t send data to any company servers and doesn’t cost anything. It’s also open-source (as of version 0.7.2), and you can find the source code on GitHub.

The extension’s functions are pretty simple to understand. If it’s grayed out, it’s likely a fake brand, but the extension does need some fine-tuning.
Joe Hindy/CNET
Anything sounds good on paper, but the proof is in the pudding. I took Knockoff for a test drive to see how well it filtered the mass-produced junk.
My trial wasn’t terribly complicated. I searched for a variety of products across several categories using Knockoff’s stock settings to see how well the extension would filter out the knockoff brands without any additional tuning.
The short answer is that it did quite well. While searching for vacuum cleaners, it left most of the listings intact since they were from known brands, including Shark, Bissell and Dyson. Only a few listings were grayed out, mostly because no brand name was listed in the product description.
Solar lights fared much worse. Knockoff actively blocked dozens of listings for lack of brand names and also blocked listings from Jkimk, Technet, Tonulax and other unrecognized brands (most of which are stylized in all capital letters), while keeping listings for established brands, such as Brightown, a real company based in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Some product categories did better than others. Solar lights were awash in fake brands, but vacuums only had a few.
Joe Hindy/CNET
Phone cases are where things start to get trickier. The extension blocked brands such as Supfine, Dumkery, Hiearcool and several others. However, it initially also blocked Torras, a well-known case brand with in-store stock at Best Buy, which holds thousands of global patents for many of its products. It doesn’t get much more real than Torras, but the company’s products were flagged because its name is stylized in all caps, which the extension checks. Torras was added as a trusted brand in subsequent updates.
Knockoff listed some lesser-known but still legitimate earbuds brands, such as Tozo and Linsoul, as real companies, while it properly flagged phony hand tool brands, including Wgge and Horusdy. Brands that aren’t recognized by the extension often appear highlighted, but on the product page, the extension flags them as suspected fakes or entirely unrecognized.
It helps that Knockoff has a system for reporting brands that are incorrectly labeled as legitimate (or wrongly marked as fake). If the extension flags a product as fake when it’s legit, you can click the badge and “report as a real brand.” Likewise, if the extension flags a product as legit when it’s really fake, you can click the badge and “report as junk” when you click on a badge over a brand that the extension recognizes. You may have to turn on badges for good brands in the settings to do this.
Knockoff lets you report brands that are good or bad to help make the extension more accurate over time. All reports are handled by hand.
Joe Hindy/CNET
Since Knockoff’s launch, Pigford has released an update that addresses user responses, including a method to directly send feedback if you want to report a brand. The latest versions need a few extra permissions, but they’re mostly for enabling new features.
Overall, Knockoff is a useful extension in a digital marketplace dominated by AI-generated assets and unverified third-party products.
When you’re shopping, the biggest benefit is avoiding low-quality off-brands. Even if you’re not actively shopping for anything, it’s fun (and terrifying) to see how many grayed-out product listings you can find in any given product category. We recommend turning on badges for known brands, but otherwise, the stock settings performed the best.
At the same time, Knockoff shows you brands likely to be fake on Amazon, but it doesn’t tell you which products are actually good or bad. Fake brands often come with fake or bot-written reviews more often than legitimate brands.
Still, it all depends on what you’re shopping for. If all you need is a pack of zip ties for light cable management or to attach a tomato plant to a garden trellis, the ones sold by dropshippers will work just fine and save you a couple of bucks.
And while Knockoff certainly makes it easier to shop for quality items, the extension still needs some fine-tuning and human analysis. Updates to the extension seem to be doing exactly that, so if you’re just now discovering the tool, it’s likely the extension has gotten even better over time.
Knockoff certainly makes it easier, but it’s still good to know how to spot these yourself so when your package arrives, you’re happier.
Amazon
An eagle-eyed shopper can spot a knock-off brand from a mile away if they know where and how to look at product listings.
The first step, according to Russell Holly, director of commerce content at CNET, is to look for the brand outside of Amazon.com. “If it seems like a string of random characters and that brand name isn’t selling elsewhere, there’s a good chance the seller is not the manufacturer,” said Holly.
Holly also says to pay closer attention to negative reviews, since brands often fake only positive reviews. Negative reviews can be a better indicator of quality problems that may help explain why a product is cheaper than others in the same category.
Similarly, you can also look for a brand’s product support. If the only way to report a problem is directly to Amazon, Holly says you’re most likely dealing with a dropshipper that doesn’t offer product support if something breaks.
Another way to spot a fake brand is to find the same product sold under multiple brands. An example is a Broserengy alarm clock, Bluetooth speaker, phone charger combo. It is nearly identical to this product from Fansbe, including the RGB lights at the bottom, the placement (and labeling) of the buttons and the auxiliary USB port around the back for charging an accessory. These are two subtly different versions of the same product.
Not too long ago, the entire car industry felt a massive shift toward electrification. At the time, it seemed like the days of the internal combustion engine were numbered, with EVs and hybrids poised to take over. That belief had backing: the European Union set a target for zero CO2 emissions from all new cars and vans sold from 2035 onward, effectively banning the sale of new gas and diesel cars by that date.
Still, the EV transition didn’t play out the way the EU hoped, and the bloc has since walked that promise back. The European Commission now wants to scale the requirement down to a 90% emissions reduction rather than a full 100% cut — a softening automakers lobbied hard for and environmental groups have sharply criticized, saying it undermines climate goals.
Either way, the push toward an all-electric future has made automakers adjust course. Mercedes-AMG, for one, swapped the C63’s V8 for a turbocharged four-cylinder plug-in hybrid, and the new car ended up roughly 882 pounds (400 kilograms) heavier than its predecessor, all while lacking the V8 character that made the C63’s name.
When talking to Motor1, one Mercedes-AMG representative admitted the new powertrain “failed to resonate with our traditional customers.” It’s just one example, but it captures a broader mood: enthusiasts want their power the old-fashioned way, and some automakers are listening.
When we looked at whether Mercedes is bringing back the V8 last year, it seemed like the CLE63 would be first in line, debuting before the end of 2025 and then spreading to the E-Class lineup and a future G-Class. That timeline didn’t hold. The V8’s actual debut is going to the S-Class instead, with a flat-plane-crank M177 arriving in the 2027 S580.
The old S580 used a cross-plane version of the same 4.0-liter twin-turbo V8, and the switch is meant to sharpen throttle response and push the redline higher. In the mild-hybrid S580, it produces 573 horsepower and 553 lb-ft of torque, and the CLE63 is expected to be one of the first AMG models to receive it after that.
The bigger signal came directly from Mercedes-Benz. In a February 2025 investor and strategy press release, the company confirmed that Mercedes-AMG’s future lineup will include “a next-generation, high-tech electrified V8” alongside dedicated high-performance EVs. Mercedes-Benz also confirmed in that release it already has a full slate of “future-proof EU-7 ready engines and transmissions,” ranging up to eight cylinders. Mercedes even said it will continue offering V12s in certain markets.
However, there’s no indication the C63 itself is getting the V8 back — instead, it’s set to be replaced entirely by a six-cylinder C53. The C53 will rely on the same 443-hp turbocharged inline-six found in the CLE 53. In simpler terms, the six-cylinder CLE53 is now getting a more powerful V8 CLE63 treatment, while the four-cylinder C63 is now becoming a six-cylinder C53.
Ram pulled the 5.7-liter HEMI from its 1500 lineup back in 2024, replacing it with the twin-turbo 3.0-liter Hurricane inline-six, offered in a 420-hp tune and a 540-hp high-output version. The backlash was immediate enough that Ram confirmed the HEMI V8 would return for the 2026 Ram 1500, just one model year later.
Motor1 covered Ram brand CEO Tim Kuniskis commenting on the reversal, stating that “Ram screwed up when we dropped the HEMI.” The returning 5.7-liter HEMI produces 395 hp and 410 lb-ft of torque, paired with Ram’s eTorque 48-volt mild-hybrid system. Notably, Ram isn’t ditching the six-cylinder — the Hurricane stays in the lineup as the standard engine.
The brand is now pitching it alongside the V8 as a matter of buyer choice, rather than a straight replacement. Orders for the 2026 Ram 1500 opened this year, with deliveries beginning this summer. It’s a similar case to AMG, where the automaker publicly admits it misjudged things, but Ram reversed course quite a bit faster.
Ram is going even further at the top of the range: the 2027 Ram 1500 TRX SRT is returning with a 6.2-liter supercharged HEMI V8 making 777 hp and 680 lb-ft of torque, a 75-horsepower jump over the previous TRX generation. This should do it to fully cure the “no V8” Ram disease.
Jeep’s 6.4-liter HEMI V8 has looked finished more than once. The engine was slated to end after the 2024 model year, then got a “Final Edition” farewell for 2025 — and it was pulled from Canadian Wrangler order books before the 2025 model year even began. However, now it seems the 6.4 is going nowhere.
Besides the aforementioned Ram 1500, the Wrangler Moab 392 is also one of 2026’s car models getting a Hemi engine. This one is rated at 470 hp and 470 lb-ft of torque, and priced over $20,000 below the outgoing 2025 Rubicon 392. Jeep CEO Bob Broderdorf didn’t dress up the reversal. Mopar Insiders covered him saying “Our community made their voices heard, and we listened.”
The Moab 392 kicks off Jeep’s “Twelve 4 Twelve” campaign, which will see a special-edition Wrangler released on the 12th of every month through 2026 to mark the brand’s 85th anniversary — and it wasn’t the last V8 edition, either. Jeep followed with the Wrangler Willys 392, pushing the price of a V8-powered Wrangler down under $70,000.
However, not every Jeep model is getting the same treatment. The V8 hasn’t returned to the Grand Cherokee, and the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer are sticking with the twin-turbo Hurricane six instead. For now, the HEMI’s comeback is a Wrangler story specifically, not a brand-wide one.
Unlike the other brands on this list, GM never actually killed the V8, but it came close. In 2021, the company set a target of selling only zero-emission light-duty vehicles by 2035, leaving no room for gas-powered trucks or SUVs past that date. That shifted in May 2025, when GM announced an $888 million investment in its Tonawanda Propulsion plant, where GM is set to build its new V8. This is the single largest sum GM has ever put into one engine facility, to put things in perspective.
The sixth-generation small-block family is already rolling out, too. The Corvette got a related 6.7-liter LS6 version, and the 2027 Chevrolet Silverado redesign carries two more variants, a 5.7-liter and a larger 6.6-liter, both naturally aspirated.
A turbocharged four-cylinder and a diesel inline-six round out the rest of the lineup. The same underlying architecture powers the GMC Sierra, Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, GMC Yukon, and Cadillac Escalade, so the new engine’s reach extends well past one truck. GM’s timing wasn’t subtle.
As Caleb Jacobs over at the The Drive pointed out, the investment landed just as Ram was working to win back the customers it lost by cutting the HEMI. Where Ram, Jeep, and Mercedes-AMG all had to walk back a decision they’d already made, GM’s approach was to just not make it in the first place — and to spend nearly $900 million making sure it wouldn’t have to.
Porsche’s flagship SUV was supposed to prove the brand could go all-electric at the top of its range. However, when we looked at the 2026 Porsche Cayenne Electric, we noted its lack of character and difficult-to-justify price. Now, the brand’s newest flagship is changing course.
The upcoming Porsche K1, a three-row SUV slated to sit above the Cayenne, was set to be Porsche’s first EV-only nameplate, built on Volkswagen Group’s dedicated electric architecture. Instead, the K1 is switching to VW Group’s Premium Platform Combustion architecture, the same platform underpinning the upcoming Audi Q9, and gas power is now the plan at launch: a twin-turbo eight-cylinder and a six-cylinder, each available with plug-in hybrid assistance.
This shift happened for a couple primary reasons: the platform’s software wasn’t ready in time, and EV interest is cooling across the market. Porsche hasn’t abandoned the electric version entirely — it’s still planned for a later date — but the combustion K1 is now set to arrive first, roughly a year after the Q9. Porsche has been consistent about why gas power still matters to the brand.
Speaking with Edmunds, SUV drive systems manager Timo Henn said a V8 option “is maybe important to some customers,” pointing to the more mechanical feel some buyers still want from the drivetrain. It’s a quieter reversal than Ram or Jeep, but the direction is the same: an automaker that planned to leave the V8 behind, choosing instead to build its newest flagship around one.
These brands aren’t the only automakers bringing V8s back — Porsche’s rivals at BMW never abandoned it, and Toyota and Nissan are still holding out on their own reversals. We picked these five because they represent the clearest and most publicly documented cases: a brand cutting the V8, facing real backlash, and reversing course on the record, whether through a CEO’s own words or a formal engineering announcement.
It’s also worth remembering that none of this is permanent. Emissions targets shift constantly — the EU’s own 90% proposal could change again before it’s finalized — and hybridization is only going to get more common as automakers try to keep V8s alive under tightening rules. The V8 clearly isn’t dead yet, but nobody, including the automakers themselves, seems to know exactly how long it will last.
To keep this list grounded in verified reporting rather than speculation, we relied on primary sources — official statements and press releases from Mercedes-Benz, Ram/Stellantis, Jeep, GM, Chevrolet, and Porsche — wherever possible, along with reporting from publications like Autocar, Motor1, Car and Driver, Hagerty, The Drive, Mopar Insiders, Edmunds, Auto123, and Autoblog, as well as the European Parliament’s own documentation on emissions policy.
Since the first V2 rocket sailed above the Kármán line back in 1944 and right up until the modern era, the trajectory of most space-bound rockets was more or less the same: after expending their propellants they would either crash into some desolate steppe or plunge into the ocean. In either event, the rocket was disposable. The important bit up top might go on to explore the stars or send a human crew off on their mission, but the booster rocket that lifted the spacecraft out of the atmosphere was always going to be sacrificed for the cause.

With the benefit of hindsight, we now know the Shuttle wasn’t quite the spaceflight revolution that NASA had hoped for. The age of reusable rockets didn’t truly begin until 2015, when SpaceX landed the first stage of their Falcon 9. To date they’ve repeated the feat nearly 600 times, all the while increasing the reliability and speed of their operations. Today the Falcon 9 is the most prolific launch vehicle in history, and nearly every other rocket in active development is being designed to include some element of reusability.
Most recently, China demonstrated that they could recover their Long March 10B rocket by gently bringing it down into what amounts to a giant butterfly net. While it might seem a bit quaint compared to rockets that land on their tails like something out of a 1950s sci-fi movie, the idea offers considerable promise.
But why did it take 70+ years before we were able to regularly refly orbital-class rockets? It’s not that there’s anything inherently complex about reusing a spent rocket. Sure, there’s a case to be made that material science improvements have made the engines robust enough for repeated use. But even if you had to rebuild the engines after each flight it would still be better than slamming the whole vehicle into the ocean. Similarly, there’s nothing particularly unique about the structure of the Falcon 9 that enables it to fly multiple times — it’s a big metal tube with tanks inside of it, just like essentially every rocket that has flown before it.
The revolutionary technology demonstrated by SpaceX in 2015 didn’t have anything to do with making their rocket go up, it was that they were able to safely bring it back without damaging or physically altering it. The Falcon 9 first stage that came back to Earth was in the same condition it was when it left the launch pad eight minutes or so earlier, albeit with empty propellant tanks and a layer of soot on the outside.
As such, most of the variability we see when comparing the reuse of past, present, and future rockets comes not from how the vehicle ascends, but how it ultimately comes to rest back down on Earth.
Without question, the easiest way to recover a rocket intact is to simply slow it down before it hits the surface of the ocean using parachutes This is how all American crewed capsules, and more applicably the Space Shuttle’s Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), have been recovered after their flights.
But even when descending under multiple huge parachutes, splashdown isn’t exactly a gentle event. It could probably best be described as “survivable”, in that the vehicle and crew will come through the experience in one piece, but neither is likely to be terribly happy about it.
The situation of course ends up being even worse for the rocket, as its structure is going to be subjected to the brunt of the impact force. Additionally, a complex aerospace vehicle getting partially submerged in salt water is a recipe for corrosion and electrical issues, to say nothing of the thermal shock the hot engines will experience when getting dunked.
One could argue that the only reason this method of recovery worked for the Shuttle SRBs is because of their relative simplicity when compared to a liquid-fueled rocket capable of independent flight. At the risk of oversimplifying the structure of the SRB, at splashdown it was effectively a hollow tube with minimal avionics and thrust vector control (TVC) hardware that could simply be replaced before the next flight.
Still, the NASA document Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) Refurbishment Practices goes over the considerable work required to bring each booster back to flight status after coming down in the ocean. Given the challenges of refurbishing the boosters, it’s perhaps unsurprising that NASA elected to forgo their reuse on the Space Launch System despite its SRBs being largely identical to their Shuttle predecessors.
In the very early days, while they were still trying to reach orbit with the Falcon 1, SpaceX had actually considered a Shuttle SRB-style recovery procedure. But in the end they decided to outfit the Falcon 9 with deployable landing legs and the rest, as they say, is history.
Landing legs allow a rocket to come down on effectively any flat surface, be it a concrete pad next to the launch facility or a floating platform. But there are some fairly serious drawbacks to this approach. For one thing, the requirement for precise terminal guidance means parachutes are out of the question. The rocket needs fins, attitude thrusters, or other control surfaces to come down on the center of the pad.
It also means the rocket needs to perform a propulsive landing. That is, use its own primary engines to bring its velocity on touchdown to as close to zero as possible. This in turn requires engines that can not only restart in flight — a capability that has not traditionally been required by first stage boosters — but are able to throttle down low enough to control the rocket’s descent without simply pushing it back upwards. It’s difficult to overstate how unnatural a state of operation this is for a rocket. Indeed, it’s the antithesis of how nearly every rocket has operated since the Song Dynasty started experimenting with gunpowder in the 10th century.
Even if you can accomplish all that, the true cost of landing a rocket is in the extra mass. Although the legs will be stowed away and unused for 99.8% of the rocket’s flight time, it still has to lug all that weight uphill. If that wasn’t bad enough, there’s also the extra weight of whatever control mechanism is in place to guide the rocket’s descent trajectory as well as the propellant that needs to be kept in reserve for the landing burn.
All told, landing a rocket on legs comes with a massive payload penalty. In the case of the Falcon 9, the rocket’s maximum capacity to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its expendable configuration is approximately 22,800 kg (50,300 lb). But when outfitted with the hardware necessary to land, that number is reduced by nearly 25% to 17,500 kg (38,600 lb).
There was a time, not so very long ago, when critics doubted the financial viability of recovering and reusing rockets like the Falcon 9. But today, reuse has gone from theoretical to standard operating procedure. Outside of a few Old Space holdouts, it’s top of mind for every launch provider and critical for remaining competitive in a fast-moving commercial market. In November, Blue Origin even managed to land their New Glenn heavy-lift rocket on only its second flight.
So at this point the question isn’t whether or not future rockets will be reusable, but rather, what is the most efficient way to achieve that reusability?
With that in mind, it’s easy to see the appeal of China’s net recovery. While the rocket must still perform a propulsive descent — although in theory the necessary positional accuracy, and therefore the technical challenge, is somewhat reduced — it doesn’t need to have landing legs installed. This mass savings increases the vehicle’s useful payload capacity, which in turn makes it more profitable to operate. Achieving the same end goal while being easier and cheaper is an improvement in anyone’s book.
Admittedly, having the rocket come down in a huge net adds a certain amount of whimsy to the whole endeavor, but the overall logic is sound enough. It should also be said that SpaceX, for all the success they’ve had with landing their Falcon 9 on a set of deployable legs, are themselves planning on catching both the first and second stages of their next-generation Starship vehicle. Instead of a net, their goal is to pluck the rocket out of the air with a huge robotic pincer mechanism.
One is reminded of the old joke about how the Americans and Russians approached the problem of writing in space: NASA spent millions of dollars developing a pen that would work in microgravity, while their Russian counterparts simply used pencils. If China can demonstrate the ability to reuse a rocket they snagged in their net, the more elaborate methods of recovery employed by American rockets may one day look like a similarly overengineered solution.
Game companies might not like physical media much anymore, but gamers sure do. There’s nothing like pawing over your collection to find what to play, and inserting a cartridge with a satisfying click before sitting down to an old-school game like — wait, Cyberpunk 2077? Yeah, that wasn’t released on cartridge, but that didn’t stop [Jibril-sama] over on Reddit. The cartridges are 3D printed — stls on makeworld only, as of this writing — and contain old 2.5″ SSDs that [Jabril] was able to pick up in bulk.

Inside the base unit is a simple USB3-SATA adapter that hooks to [Jabril]’s gaming PC. There are two versions of the base unit: a simple vertical unit, and a horizontal one with some springs to give a satisfying grip.
On each disk is a launch script that is vetted by a program on the PC that autolaunches only the cartridges you’ve told it to trust, which is a level of security we can appreciate. [Jabril-sama] has kindly made that available under the MIT license on GitHub.
We don’t know how much life is left in these cheap drives, but they should last a while if the only write is the odd save file. Hopefully [Jabril-sama] is cycling through his games fairly often, as SSDs are only non-volatile storage if your time horizon is short enough.
Thanks to [iliis] for the tip! Remember, if you use our tips line to share what you find, you’re not doomscrolling, you’re doing a public service.
In the chill of a London spring night, under overcast skies, iconic Trafalgar Square opens around me. Admiral Nelson rises on his pedestal, the National Gallery rests behind, the church of St Martin-in-the-Fields sits nearby. From the 13th century, the site served as the Royal Mews for hawks and then horses. By 1844, it was a public space at the heart of one of the biggest cities in the world.
Despite the square’s presence through that grand sweep of history, it’s not why I’m here. My interest is far more specific: I want to find out what happens to spaces like this when artificial light, specifically from light-emitting diodes (LEDs), intrudes. My companion tonight is Simon Thorp, a local lighting designer, who crouches in the shadows near Nelson’s spire, light meter in hand. “Two lux,” he reports, “and it’s very comfortable here.” Two lux is 10 to 20 times the illuminance of a full moon. We can see each other clearly, and a nearby sign assures us that closed-circuit television (CCTV) is in operation for safety’s sake.
Light designer Simon Thorp uses a luxmeter to measure the intensity of light emitted by a street lamp in St. James’s Park, London.
Luigi Avantaggiato
Trafalgar Square captures the relationship between lighting and darkness that exists in almost every city, suburb, small town, and village around the world. The lighting here is a mishmash of old technologies and new, of shadow and glare, the ornamental gas lamps fronting the National Gallery all but washed out by the LEDs inside modern versions of traditional “brass and glass” fixtures a few meters away—21st-century technology housed in 19th-century designs.
The ugly truth of artificial lighting today is that in parts of London, as in many cities around the world, lighting levels are excessive, with unshielded illumination blasting in all directions. And the irony is that too much light invites danger: It creates shadows, impedes our vision, and gives the illusion, without the reality, of safety. Thorp notes that modern CCTV cameras are “pretty great” even at low-light levels, while harsh light makes it hard for both human eyes and digital sensors to see.
“The more bad light we add, the more bad light we think we need,” says Thorp. “We can’t see because of the light we’ve added. And it makes areas that were perfectly okay seem darker.”
Among the costs of this excess, the most alarming may be its toll on human health (and that of other animals) by disrupting circadian rhythms, impeding the production of melatonin, and contributing to sleep disorders that are tied to every major modern disease. New research shows that increased exposure to blue light from LEDs is having “substantial biological impacts” such as suppression of the sleep hormone melatonin and an increased risk for obesity, certain cancers, and type 2 diabetes.
I have come to London and Paris—which led the way in the expansion of public street lighting in the 19th century—because they embody both the current enormity of the problem as well as a future certain to be lit by trillions of chips: controllable, tunable, and energy-efficient LEDs.
The standard justification for nighttime illumination is public safety. Lighting experts’ term for the phenomenon is “artificial light at night.” While people won’t often admit it, the desire for light at night seems to stem from a primal fear of the dark. Darkness is where the bad guys hide. And if dark is bad and light is good, then more light can only be better.
This assumption has guided our use of nighttime light for hundreds of years. And yet, high-lumen output doesn’t necessarily correlate to a reduction in crime, research has found. In other words, if we relied on the data as much as we do our primal anxieties and paused those anxieties long enough to learn how light and darkness interact, our nights would almost certainly be lighted differently—especially now that we have the extraordinary technology that is the light-emitting diode.
The first visible red light-emitting diode was invented by Nick Holonyak in 1962, but LED lighting technology took several decades to develop, before exploding in recent years. Just a decade ago, LED streetlamps were rare. By 2019, more than half of U.S. streetlights were LEDs, and that number is predicted to top 90 percent by 2030. Similar uptake has occurred around the world, even in developing countries, where inexpensive Chinese-made LED fixtures are increasingly common.
This rapid global migration to LEDs represents a shift in the fundamental physics of how we illuminate our world. From oil lamps and candles to gas lamps, early examples of artificial light at night relied on a burning wick, an incredibly inefficient way to create light. An incandescent bulb is effectively a heater that happens to produce light as a by-product, so it squanders nearly all of its energy as heat.
By contrast, LEDs use semiconductors to convert electricity into light. Through this process of electroluminescence, LEDs use up to 90 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs do, which has enabled municipalities to realize an immediate energy savings of 50 percent or more. This fact alone has fueled the technology’s worldwide adoption.
But LEDs aren’t just more efficient and less expensive. The use of solid-state technology gives the lights an extraordinary life-span, often measured in decades rather than years. This significantly lowers the maintenance costs, as city workers spend far fewer hours replacing broken or burned-out lights. Even more striking, by manipulating the properties of the semiconductor material, engineers can dictate the precise color and intensity of the output, something that gives LEDs incredible versatility. For a lighting designer like Thorp, LEDs offer countless possibilities.
Wandering from Trafalgar Square along the edge of St. James’s Park, Thorp and I find ourselves near Westminster Bridge, one of nine city bridges that in 2021 were part of the Illuminated River project, meant to make the Thames more beautiful at night. Each bridge now features a new LED lighting scheme that moves and changes color and intensity to create a coordinated work of art. But Thorp is frustrated that the project did nothing to correct the often glary lighting on the riverbanks. “Why don’t you pay the money to correct all of this bad lighting instead of adding new lighting?” he says. LED technology, he points out, has the potential to fix that problem.
In fact, this may be the most meaningful potential of LEDs: the ability for a community to control when, where, at what levels, and in which colors its lights shine. A public space like Trafalgar Square could be lit more brightly during rush hour, then dimmed as the night progresses, the lights not only connected to one another but to the surrounding streetlights and commercial lights. Anywhere in the world, LED streetlights could be programmed to rise and fall in brightness depending on the time of night or time of year. They could even be turned off during bird migrations, to reduce the number of birds that are disoriented by the lights and ultimately killed in collisions with reflective and illuminated windows.
Up to now, LED public lighting has largely not been part of any comprehensive plan to curtail and control nighttime illumination. Most LED installations have simply replaced older, inefficient “dumb” electric lighting with newer “dumb” LEDs and thus made light pollution worse. The main reason? Because LED lighting is cheaper, we tend to use more of it—a literally shining example of the Jevons paradox. Even as awareness of light pollution grows, we aren’t yet taking advantage of LED technology’s full potential.
The good news is that we could start tonight. At DarkSky International, the world’s foremost organization fighting light pollution, CEO and executive director Ruskin Hartley tells me the organization has five principles for responsible outdoor lighting: It should be useful, targeted, low level, controlled, and warm-colored. “They’re enabled because of the capabilities of LEDs,” Hartley says.
The technology to control LEDs will be part of the solution. In the olden days of the analog era, a streetlight was either on or off. To change a lighting schedule, you had to physically rewire a circuit. Today, the Digital Addressable Lighting Interface (DALI) protocol turns each luminaire into part of a network, with its own digital address and a driver that reports to a central server. With DALI, the lighting is managed through software rather than physical switches.
Unfortunately, most LED streetlights have been deployed without this technology because it costs more. But Paul Drosihn, general manager of the DALI Alliance, says that using such controls makes the LEDs much easier to maintain. Before the new digital protocol, it took an average of nearly three visits to identify, diagnose, and repair a defective luminaire. “Now it’s one,” Drosihn says. “Saving the cost of sending two guys on a cherry picker to replace those [lights] is immeasurable. What I just described to you is pretty much all the utilities need to know.”
What’s more, DALI allows the tuning of the lights’ spectrum so that they become warmer and less disruptive as the night progresses. Digitally connected, full-spectrum luminaires allow cities to transform the nocturnal experience—saving money, increasing health and safety, and creating a warmer and more appealing atmosphere at night.
This digital intelligence is equally transformative for the “bleed lighting” that spills from building interiors, Drosihn says. “You don’t think of night lighting as coming from inside buildings, but it does,” he says. “Particularly in the States, you drive through any major city and all the lights are on, on every floor of every high-rise, even if no one is home.”
Already, the use of digital controls for interior lighting has become commonplace in some European cities, Drosihn says. By integrating DALI with occupancy sensors and building-management systems that monitor HVAC, electrical systems, and security networks, a skyscraper can become a dynamic participant in the urban environment—dropping a floor’s interior lights to zero the moment the last person leaves. As a result, electronic controls combined with LEDs can act like a dimmer switch for a city’s entire skyline.
With all the possibilities from LED technology, why are our nights too often lit with harsh and clinical light, casting glare and creating shadows, disrupting human and ecological health, erasing the stars from our skies? The answer starts with the color of LEDs. At first glance, an LED streetlight looks like a collection of small white bulbs, but it’s not. To produce a light we perceive as white, most manufacturers coat a blue semiconductor core with a yellow phosphor material that absorbs a portion of that high-energy blue light. The problem is that this “white” light is still heavily blue, which is exactly the color no species has evolved to expect at night.
A historic three-lantern cast-iron street lamp along the pedestrian walkway of Westminster Bridge casts a glow against the night sky.
Luigi Avantaggiato
And because blue light is the second most energetic part of the visible spectrum (violet is the most), it doesn’t just illuminate our streets and invade our homes. Blue light also scatters in the atmosphere more easily than any other color, which helps to create the hazy, illuminated fog known as sky glow over every city of any size.
“Cooler” colored LEDs in the 4,000- to 6,500-kelvin range offer the most lumens at the lowest cost, so most early adopters installed these blue-rich white lights. The good news is that LED technology has continued to advance, and a growing number of communities are choosing warmer-colored streetlights that have less blue. (Phoenix, for example, converted 100,000 streetlamps to 2,700 K LEDs in 2020.) And, of course, light pollution isn’t just a result of LEDs. Older lighting technology also adds to the glare—bright white metal-halide lights, especially—and cities are loath to replace something that isn’t yet broken.
But our main failure isn’t a technical one. It’s that we have yet to revise our thinking about lighting at night. We use LED technology just as we did the old sources of light. As a result, we have largely offset the gains that were promised in terms of reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions by making light pollution worse, and have so far let an incredible opportunity go unrealized.
Across the Channel in Paris, the failure to realize the potential of LEDs feels even more palpable. Unlike London, which suffered heavily from German bombs, the lovely 19th-century Paris that Baron Haussmann created largely escaped destruction in World War II. To nearly 50 million annual tourists, the beautiful uniformity of the architecture is instantly recognizable. But the City of Light’s nocturnal atmosphere is also part of the draw, and extensive attention has been given to relighting its buildings and monuments. When I wander into the Cour Carrée in the Louvre, for example, I’m stunned by rows of amber LEDs that together create a warm glow along the palace facades. When I see the Eiffel Tower, first from a distance walking along the Seine and then up close, I find myself staring as I would at a campfire, the structure’s metalwork amber-lit with more than 336 high-pressure sodium bulbs.
The Eiffel Tower’s signature golden illumination was inaugurated in 1985. The 336 high-pressure sodium projectors are installed directly inside the monument’s structure.
Luigi Avantaggiato; Lighting designer for the golden lights of the Eiffel Tower: Pierre Bideau
Still, the city’s night lighting is far from perfect. With millions of residents, thousands of stores and restaurants, and 300,000 streetlights, the city overall is among the world’s brightest. Even at the base of the Tower, bright white LED lamps illuminate the African émigrés selling cheap berets and Tour de France trinkets. And the city has been replacing its old sodium streetlights with new LEDs, swapping the warm yellow tones for which the city has long been known for bright white lamps no one wants to look at.
Nonetheless, the potential is here. In 2019, France introduced a nationwide law to reduce levels of light pollution, setting rules about both public lighting (preventing light from being projected above the horizontal) and private lighting such as stores, which are required to turn off their exterior and shop window lights after 1 a.m. In addition, an increasing number of French communities dim or turn off municipal lights after midnight to save energy and reduce carbon emissions. Although light pollution worldwide continues to increase by nearly 10 percent per year, France has managed to reduce its overall level. Chloé Beaudet, a researcher at Université Paris-Saclay, documented local light-reduction measures and found people generally agreed with the notion of dimming or turning off the lights, mainly for energy savings and ecological concerns.
Researcher Chloé Beaudet looks toward the Notre-Dame cathedral from the nearby Pont de l’Archevêché (Archbishop’s Bridge).
Luigi Avantaggiato
“What I find is that people living in urban areas, they accept this kind of policy,” she tells me. “They’re like, okay, I don’t really use public space at night as a pedestrian, so what’s the point of having lights on?” For her, a key takeaway is that one lighting level does not fit all areas. “I think there is really a need for policy that is differentiated according to the neighborhood.”
The west facade of the Notre-Dame cathedral glows at night following its restoration, with architectural LED lighting illuminating the three monumental portals, rose window, and twin towers in a warm white light that preserves the medieval limestone details.
Luigi Avantaggiato
In another positive development, the country has been minimizing artificial light to create ecological corridors designed to protect nocturnal species such as birds, bats, and insects. These corridors are connected and dark, mitigating the disruption to the 30 percent of vertebrates and more than 60 percent of invertebrates that are nocturnal. Even for city dwellers, this trame noire (“dark infrastructure”) helps to raise awareness of why controlling light pollution is important for life on Earth. Nationwide laws to control light pollution, the ability to light different parts of a city differently, dark corridors to protect biodiversity—these are exactly the kind of changes made possible with LEDs.
That’s not all. Almost until 1920, astronomers at the Paris Observatory were still gazing at the Milky Way. That’s impossible nowadays, but it could happen again. Despite the bright white LED streetlights now lining so many Paris streets, networks of LEDs using controls could lower lighting levels enough each night, so that the Milky Way could once again be visible over the French capital. And in the process, Paris could become the City of Light in ways that would set an example for other parts of the world.
“I think we should aspire to have cities that see the stars,” Simon Thorp says when I mention this view of Paris. “You just need everything to be coordinated.”
Nearing the end of our London walk, having turned from the river and back up toward the Strand, Thorp brings me down narrow Carting Lane behind the Savoy Hotel, to where a gas fixture tops a thick lamppost, an original from 1870. A small plaque reads, “The last remaining sewer gas destructor lamp in the city of Westminster.” Thorp explains that the thick pole hides a tube that allowed methane from the sewers to get burned off at the mantle. “An early example of renewable energy,” he jokes.
The fire-orange flame is pleasing to the eye. But even here, on a narrow lane with no vehicle traffic, in a touristy area of the city, the flame is overwhelmed by a nearby, unshielded LED security light. Thorp shakes his head. “It’s stunning that someone could put in a light like that and think, ‘Great, nice job.’”
Tourists gaze at the Webb Patent Sewer Gas Lamp, London’s last remaining Victorian sewer-ventilating street light, which illuminates the rain-slicked pavement of Carting Lane just off the Strand. Invented in the late 19th century by Joseph Webb to burn off methane from the subterranean network, the lamp operates 24 hours a day.
Luigi Avantaggiato
Here is the crux of contemporary artificial lighting at night. We know how to light well, and LEDs give us the ability to do so. But while our technology is 21st century, too often our thinking about light and darkness, safety and security, is stuck in the past. We could be doing so much more with this technology than we are. We could relight our nights in ways that would not only reduce energy and maintenance costs but also bring a slew of benefits, including healthier nights for humans, safer skies for nocturnal creatures, and a restoration of the stars.
In 2026, the tale of these two cities and their artificial light at night is that of a brilliant technology that we’ve engineered but haven’t yet learned to master. In short, we have yet to change the way we think about artificial light at night and to use it more thoughtfully and carefully—as we might, as one hopes we will.
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
The market for AI in the SOC has moved faster than the methods for evaluating it.
Just last year, Gartner placed AI SOC Agents at the Innovation Trigger stage with single-digit adoption.
As of a few weeks ago, Gartner’s “Hype Cycle for Security Operations, 2026” put them at the Peak of Inflated Expectations.
Most AI SOC vendors have a demo that feels like science fiction. Clean alerts go in, and accurate verdicts come out in seconds. It is a compelling pitch.
Accuracy often degrades, though, once these tools leave the curated demo and meet real production conditions. The technology shows promise, and some teams report meaningful gains, but for many organizations the gap between proof of concept and operational reality is still wide.
The guide behind this article puts a number on it: between 80% and 95% of enterprise AI projects fail in production.
To help security leaders close that gap, Prophet Security, a leading agentic AI SOC platform recognized in Rising in Cyber 2026, worked with former Gartner analysts Oliver Rochford and Prateek Bhajanka on a practical, vendor-agnostic guide for evaluating AI in the SOC.
You can download a copy here.
A useful question to ask early: Are you acquiring a tool, a capability, or a new way of organizing security work? Be clear on what you expect a proof of concept to prove before you start one.
From Bayesian spam filters to SOAR, automation is nothing new to SecOps. GenAI and large language models are different in scope and reach, applied to everything from detection engineering to evidence gathering and autonomous alert triage, investigation, and response.
That breadth is why alignment between a product’s operating model and your team matters more than it used to, and why it belongs at the center of your evaluation.
This Gartner report provides cybersecurity leaders with key questions and a pragmatic way to evaluate AI SOC solutions, ensuring they actually improve Threat Detection, Investigation, and Response (TDIR) program efficiency and operational outcomes.
Start with the most important question: can the AI produce accurate verdicts across the scenarios and attack surfaces your SOC actually faces?
The key insight is counterintuitive. Verdict quality does not improve gradually as you feed the model more data. Below a threshold, no amount of fine-tuning or prompt engineering compensates; above it, the model produces reliable verdicts without additional tuning.
The data that pushes quality over that line is usually identity, asset, and organizational context, the information that lets the AI tell an attacker apart from a legitimate administrator.
That has a direct consequence for how you test. A phishing alert can be triaged from email metadata and a reputation lookup. Investigating privilege escalation or lateral movement requires identity data, asset inventories, behavioral baselines, and organizational structure.
If your proof of concept only covers cases where basic detection and telemetry suffice, you are testing the easy scenario and learning nothing about the hard one.
Misalignment between a product’s operating model and the team using it is one of the most common reasons AI SOC deployments underperform.
A one-person operation leans on AI to do work no one else can, so breadth and cost displacement dominate. A larger team needs AI to amplify human effectiveness, which calls for parallel testing, override telemetry, and deliberate role redesign. The right evaluation is the one built for the team you actually have.
The most revealing test here is human-AI parity: run the system in parallel with your analysts for a couple of weeks, capture baselines before the AI is introduced, and treat analyst overrides as first-class data rather than noise.
A warning sign is an evaluation where analysts end up ratifying the AI’s conclusions instead of independently reaching their own.
That points to the subtler risk in this category: every AI SOC platform makes a chain of decisions upstream of the analyst: what to ingest, what to suppress, how to prioritize, what context to assemble, and how to frame the investigation.
The further upstream a decision sits, the less visible it is and the harder it is to reverse. If the AI silently frames every investigation, your human in the loop becomes a rubber stamp.
This is why explainability and investigation depth matter. Analysts can only trust and audit verdicts when they can see the reasoning behind them.
A product that works on day one can quietly degrade. This part of the framework tests for durability, and it is the part a two-week proof of concept tends to skip, because it cannot be observed in that window.
The guide flags several areas worth pressure-testing: adversarial robustness, model drift and degradation, adaptability as your environment changes, and lock-in.
There is always a balance between what a vendor can deliver today, what they envision for the future, and their track record of executing on both. This is where customer references earn their keep, so you can distinguish puffery from reality.
The final part of the guide draws on practitioners who have run AI in the SOC in production.
The workforce shift is real, and it arrives faster than expected.
One enterprise CISO found that roles built around phishing triage and DMARC verification were automated within weeks, before the team had planned what those analysts would do next. The fix is to design the new roles (e.g. detection engineering, threat hunting, red teaming, and AI oversight) before deployment rather than in reaction to it.
The biggest gains came from expanded scope rather than raw speed.
They did not come from triaging existing alerts faster; they came from investigating things analysts would never have looked at.
One team resurrected detection rules it had shelved as impractical, correlating HR data, authentication logs, and asset records across locations to catch credential sharing, the kind of work no human would pursue at scale for a low-severity finding. AI makes it feasible.
It also changes detection engineering economics: experimental detections become viable when AI absorbs the false-positive overhead that used to cost full-time analysts.
“Inconclusive” is a valid answer in its own right. A system that always returns a binary verdict and never says “I don’t know” is masking uncertainty rather than resolving it. Look for tri-state classification (i.e. benign, suspicious, and malicious) with deterministic escalation rules for high-impact decisions.
A technology at the Peak of Inflated Expectations is nothing to fear. Practitioners just need to manage expectations about what is vendor puffery and what the technology can realistically do in production.
Validate, ask for references, check case studies, and run your own evaluation. Both the former Gartner analysts and Prophet Security acknowledge that every organization’s needs differ. Some need a service, some need a product, some need a bit of both. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.
The guide’s throughline is a human-AI hybrid model, one in which probabilistic AI handles triage and investigation while deterministic safeguards and humans in and on the loop govern containment, escalation, and irreversible actions.
Prophet Security is an agentic AI SOC platform that autonomously investigates every alert with transparent, evidence-backed reasoning and escalates the decisions that need a human.
It built its AI SOC analyst around the same principles the guide describes: every verdict shows the queries the AI ran and the evidence it weighed, so analysts can review a complete investigation rather than accept a score on faith, while humans stay in control of high-impact actions.
For the complete four-part framework in this piece, including the scenario-by-scenario context maps, the red-flag checklists, and the full evaluation checklist you can take into a proof of concept, The Hype-Free CISO’s Guide to Testing an AI SOC Solution is available to download.
Get the guide here to access the complete framework, checklists, and questions to ask vendors at each stage.
Sponsored and written by Prophet Security.
Mushroom hunting is cool and fun, but you know what’s not cool and fun? Having slugs or other mushroom hunters discover your secret spot. Or, worst of all, accidentally collecting the wrong kind of mushroom that could make you quite sick—or worse.
Ideally, you’d be able to grow your favorite kind of mushrooms safely in your own home or yard, whether that’s shiitakes, morels, or lion’s manes, just like you would vegetables. But like many gardening-adjacent pursuits, it’s not that simple. Mushrooms, like all fungi, need just three things to grow: spores, a food source, and a humid environment.
However, because mushrooms are incredibly sensitive to light, heat, and contamination, it doesn’t take much to create a prohibitive growing environment. And then there’s the question of whether it’s possible to simulate the critical symbiotic relationships that many mushrooms, especially more coveted ones like porcinis and chanterelles, must maintain with tree roots to thrive.
I am far from a mycology expert, but during the past year, I, a busy full-time-working parent, have engaged in five different attempts to grow mushrooms in my house and backyard: shiitakes on an inoculated log, oysters on a cardboard-enclosed fruiting block, wine caps in spawn buried in bark chips in my garden, oysters from grain spawn in a bucket, and oysters and lion’s manes in a monotub setup.
I laughed, I cried, I made an epic mess of chopped straw in my bathroom, and only two of the five methods succeeded. If you, too, are mushroom-curious and looking to grow your own, here’s what I did—and, in some cases, wish I had done differently.
Also, be sure to check out our guides to mushroom supplements (the functional kind), mushroom gummies, indoor gardening systems, and mushroom gifts.
There’s nothing more natural, simple, and affordable than a mushroom log. Many mushroom logs available for purchase are meant exclusively for outdoor use, as they’re just plain old logs with sealed holes full of colonized mushroom spawn. But this 12-inch-tall option from Williams Sonoma is meant for indoor display (though you can also place it outside if you’d prefer), with smooth waxed ends and a rustic metal tag printed with its creation date.
Soak it for 24 hours and—theoretically—you’ll have mushrooms pinning in about 30 days. Even though oyster mushrooms are the easiest variety to grow, for reasons known only to me at the time, I chose a shiitake log, which came with a piece of paper identifying it as a “younger log.” This means the spawn was still in the process of colonizing and should fruit seven to nine months from the date stamped on its tag, which was December 2025. I soaked the log in mid-May and again in early July, but I’m still waiting to see any pins. Williams Sonoma says the log is guaranteed to fruit, so it continues to sit on my dining room table, in a saucer full of water, tented with a plastic produce bag. Some green mold has started to appear on the top, but I remain optimistic, even though this is not my first shiitake mushroom log failure (I tried to grow one from a different brand some years ago, outside under a bush).
U.K.-based healthcare billing software maker Craneware is responding to a cyberattack in which hackers stole a “significant volume” of customer data from its systems, the company said on Monday.
The company said the hackers appear to have been expelled from its systems, but its investigation into the breach is ongoing, according to a statement filed with the London Stock Exchange.
Craneware’s flagship accounting and billing software is used by thousands of clinics, hospitals, and pharmacies across the United States. The company did not say exactly what kinds of data were taken in the breach, only noting that a “percentage” of employee data, customer data, and partner records had been exfiltrated.
The company, whose software helps healthcare providers bill patients for services, handles large amounts of medical records and patient data on behalf of its customers. When it bought Florida-based pharmacy software maker Sentry in 2021, Craneware said it gained access to the company’s 147 million patient records that had been collected over two decades.
Craneware CEO Keith Neilson did not immediately respond to TechCrunch’s questions about the incident, or if the hackers have contacted the company with any demands, such as a ransom.
It’s not yet clear if the company’s systems can receive email amid the ongoing cyberattack.
While details of the hack are still under investigation, this is the latest data breach in recent months where hackers have targeted tech companies that supply tech and services to the U.S. healthcare sector. By compromising software that many healthcare providers use to analyze and understand their billing processes, hackers can access vast amounts of patient medical and health-related data, and extort the companies with threats of publicly releasing the information.
Craneware is the latest health tech giant to be breached in the past year.
In March, healthcare revenue tech firm TriZetto confirmed hackers stole more than 3.4 million people’s personal and health data from its systems during an earlier cyberattack. That very month, medical data storage giant CareCloud reported a breach of one of its stores of patients’ electronic health records, but has not yet said how much data was taken.
Last July, medical billing company Episource began notifying at least 5.4 million people that their information had been stolen by hackers.
The largest ever breach of U.S. medical and healthcare data occurred in 2024, when a Russian-speaking ransomware gang hacked UnitedHealth-owned Change Healthcare. The hackers stole the medical and patient records of at least 192 million people, which the company conceded affected a “substantial proportion of people in America.”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan handed a peerage by Keir Starmer alongside 15 other Labour figures… just days before the PM leaves No10
Weekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
The House | The City of London can help the new chancellor deliver growth in every postcode
Young campaigners urge incoming PM to act on outdoor junk food ads
CFTC blocks Kalshi from unwinding Michigan trades after court order
Two July Windows Left: The CLARITY Act’s Senate Fight and What Failure Means
Nvidia Stock Slips After Big Tuesday Rally as Huang Confirms Vera Rubin Chip Is Now in Production Today
Ripple Payments Joins MiCA With 14 Firms, Does It Mean Anything For XRP?
Democrats look to World Cup watch parties to register thousands of voters
Disney’s Most Ambitious Failed Star Wars Attraction Is Coming to SDCC
Ripple wins EU-wide access as ESMA adds it to MiCA register
Palantir Shares Rise After Expanded Nvidia Partnership and Fresh Analyst Upgrades Ahead of Earnings Day
Injective Submits SEC Transfer-Agent Registration to Onchain Ownership Records
Get Your ESP32 Sunny Side Up With This Solar Dev Board
Registration is now open for March for Men with Kev 2026
XRP BOMBSHELL… XRP OMBOARDED FOR TRANSACTIONS!!!
Dark Secrets Emerge When Jailbreaking LLMs
Unregistered fitter used Gas Safe logo on business flyers
New Cornerback Enters Vikings Trade Rumor Mill
Money | Class 12 Economics | CBSE Board Exam 2026-27

You must be logged in to post a comment Login