A backyard movie night can be a great way to get family and friends together over the weekend. However, the experience can also be an exercise in frustration if the picture is difficult to make out due to ambient light pollution. When picking out the best possible portable projector for your needs, factors like resolution, smart features, and audio quality may top your list. But you shouldn’t neglect brightness, which is measured in lumens.
In terms of projectors specifically, ANSI lumens are used, as they provide a more precise evaluation of brightness. One ANSI lumen is around the strength of 2.4 lumens and measures brightness from nine separate points in order to arrive at an overall figure. Conversely, lumens are measured from a single point, the source of the light.
So, how bright does your projector need to be for a well-defined picture that isn’t washed out? Typically, a unit rated above 2,000 ANSI lumens should be sufficient in all but the most challenging of scenarios. The brighter the projector, the better the experience can be across a wide range of conditions. But unfortunately, more ANSI lumens can mean higher costs as well, so you’ll need to consider the best options within your budget.
Advertisement
Can outdoor projectors work in daylight?
Anchiy/Getty Images
Unfortunately, forcing a projector to compete with the Sun isn’t a recipe for success. According to LBC, the Sun puts out an estimated 6,840,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 6.84 octillion lumens. For context, the number of lumens you should look for in a camping flashlight is between 300 and 1,000. So, as you may imagine, there isn’t a projector on Earth that can overpower the brightness of the Sun, meaning that watching movies outdoors during the day will be difficult or even unfeasible in some situations.
However, if you are determined to set up a projector during the day, there are ways to help improve your chances of achieving a watchable picture. Of course, a projector with a rating north of 3,500 ANSI lumens can help, but contrast is also a vital component. How intensely a projector can produce bright white colors versus dark blacks is measured using contrast ratio. The higher the number on the left, the better, especially in daylight, making a projector with something above a 6,000:1 contrast ratio desirable.
Advertisement
While the projector itself is a factor in terms of improving daylight viewing, it can’t do all the work. Investing in a quality reflective screen can also help keep your projector’s image looking bright and sharp. Other considerations include things like the time of day, as viewing experiences are often better around sunset. Strategically using your yard’s available shade can help, too. Weather, is another variable, with a cloudy day providing a clearer viewing experience than a sunny one.
Flexible printed circuit boards are a fascinating technique for making electronics venture beyond the two-dimensional, but surprisingly they’re not something many of us have worked with. [Jessica Stanley] gave a talk at the recent Electromagnetic Field event in the UK, exploring the different ways to make your electronics bend.
She starts with an overview of flexible electronics, detailing the techniques used with conventional polyimide substrates and etched copper. We’re particularly enamoured of a stretchable PCB made by coiling a flexible circuit round a piece of elastic. Since she’s looking for techniques accessible to everyone that don’t either cost a fortune or require dangerous chemicals we look at conductive paint and electrolysis, before arriving at using a vinyl cutter to create adhesive traces.
We’ve no doubt all noticed that flexible PCBs can be ordered from the usual fabrication houses at a price, but the value in this talk lies in reminding the viewer that this is not the only path. She demonstrates well that simple flexible PCBs can be within the reach of almost anyone, which is perhaps the encouragement needed for people to try this medium. The full talk is below the break.
The Open Security AI Alliance says the Hugging Face/OpenAI mess proves frontier labs can’t be trusted to properly secure sensitive systems
In the wake of OpenAI agents attacking Hugging Face, Nvidia has recruited a new posse of partners to promote open source models as the security solution the industry needs. The AI arms dealer announced the foundation, the Open Secure AI Alliance, in a blog post today, describing the mission of the group being “to ensure defenders everywhere have open, frontier tools they can trust and control.”
Partners in the group are numerous, ranging from established tech giants like Microsoft, Red Hat, HPE, IBM, and Adobe to newer groups like Palantir, SpacexAI, Hugging Face, and The Linux Foundation. What all the founding members have in common, Nvidia said, is that they agree open source AI models are a fundamental part of modern cybersecurity, just like prior open source tech has been for the infosec space.
Advertisement
“The United States and its partners now face a choice in AI security: whether the defenses that protect our infrastructure will sit inside a few opaque systems or be built on open models, harnesses and tools that any defender can study, adapt and deploy,” Nvidia said in the announcement.
The claims in many ways echo the pleadings from tech industry heavyweights made in an open letter to US government regulators last week. That letter, signed by many of the same companies that are part of the founding OSAA cadre, essentially argues that regulators should ensure Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI don’t end up with total control of the US AI market, and that open-weight models should be given a seat at the table, too.
The new alliance is arguing that, not only do open-weight models need to be allowed to proliferate in the US, but they also need to be considered a fundamental part of the security puzzle.
For those unfamiliar with the Hugging Face incident, a group of autonomous OpenAI agents, operating in a sandbox and stripped of guardrails to test their full capability to solve cybersecurity puzzles, exploited a pair of zero-days to escape and gain access to the internet. For some reason, the bots thought the solution to the problems they were posed could be found in Hugging Face systems, so they broke in and accessed a bunch of private information and hijacked some credentials.
Advertisement
When Hugging Face turned to closed-source US frontier AI lab bots to examine the incident and help figure out what happened, those tools declined to help because they thought the data Hugging Face was trying to examine was itself malicious. Hugging Face turned to Chinese-made GLM 5.2, hosted on its own infrastructure, to figure things out.
“That incident showed a practical truth,” said Nvidia. “When defenders cannot inspect, adapt and run advanced AI on their own infrastructure, their ability to respond is constrained at exactly the moment speed matters most.”
Only open-source AI models, which China leads development on, can fill that role, the OSAA argues, and it’s prepared to counter those who say open models are a threat: Just look at what happened last week and it’s readily apparent that closed source models are dangerous too.
The Alliance is pooling its efforts to give security pros access to essential open tools. Nvidia said that it’s participating by releasing its Object-Oriented Agent project on GitHub, HPE is contributing its SPIFFE/SPIRE zero-trust AI identity framework, Hugging Face has handed its Safetensors transparent AI model weight formatting to the PyTorch Foundation, and SpaceXAI has open-sourced Grok Build (though the reason behind that doesn’t appear to be entirely benevolent).
Advertisement
In addition, IBM and Red Hat have released Lightwell, an automated open-source vulnerability remediation platform, while Microsoft has come out with MDASH, a multi-model agentic scanning harness to automate bug discovery and remediation. Those efforts, while not open source themselves, are still a sign that Alliance members “are building an open defense stack,” Nvidia said.
The OSAA ended its announcement with another call for policymakers not simply ban open-source AI models, as doing so “would weaken defensive capacity and risk concentrating power, dependence, and vulnerability in a few closed providers,” the group said.
Many providers, as we saw last week, are more concerned with protecting themselves than helping victims of autonomous cyber attacks respond quickly.
Clement Delangue, cofounder and CEO of Hugging Face, said in a post on X that he spoke to OpenAI over the weekend about last week’s incident and asked the company to provide funding to support the development of better open-source AI cyber defenses. It’s not clear if the company plans to fulfill that request; it’s not a founding member of the Nvidia-led OSAA. Neither is Google or Anthropic, for that matter.
Advertisement
We reached out to all three companies for their take on the new initiative, but didn’t hear back from any of them. ®
Like any piece of technology, wind turbines (not to be confused with windmills) aren’t functional forever. With time and use, they break down, often requiring deconstruction after just seven to 10 years of service. Wind turbines can be up to 750 feet tall, and given their immense size, figuring out what to do with the massive turbine blades becomes an important issue, lest they end up taking over landfills. Many have taken on the challenge, ensuring that these blades receive a new lease on life and don’t end up tossed in an ever-expanding landfill somewhere.
With that said, it’s worth mentioning that full-on recycling of wind turbine blades isn’t impossible. For instance, companies like Carbon Rivers have figured out ways to break down the fiberglass and steel of these blades, keeping the glass fibers intact so they can be used in new creations (via Department of Energy). However, this is a highly specialized and therefore expensive process, which is why it’s not adopted on a wider scale. For this reason, many companies have opted for simpler, more creative, and, in several cases, less pricey ways of using retired turbine blades, such as in constructing playgrounds, bridges, and art installations. As these companies and artists have shown, wind turbine blades don’t need to be tossed aside when their perceived usefulness is over. The following are just some of the great and unexpected ways these large constructs have been reused over the years.
Advertisement
Wind turbine blades are turned into lightweight concrete blocks
Though it may seem like wind turbine blades only serve a single purpose, evidently, there are lots of uses for them once their job of converting the kinetic energy of wind into electric power is over. One of the most functional of all is in construction, which can look different from case to case. In some instances, these blades are recycled and turned into concrete to create blocks and barriers. The company Renewablade is one of the foremost names exploring this technology and putting it into scalable, real-world use. Their blocks are lighter and easier to transport than regular concrete blocks. Des Moines, Iowa’s Mercy College of Health Sciences used 28 of Renewablade’s wind turbine blade-concrete composite barriers while construction crews worked on the campus.
Advertisement
Aside from using wind turbine blades to create new forms of concrete, they’ve also seen use as structural elements in buildings. A highly-publicized example comes out of Lund, Sweden, where a 365-car parking garage used dozens of decommissioned blades as curtain walls: Those that aren’t vital to holding the full weight of the building, but cover the outer sides. The decision to use recycled turbine blades came as part of the building’s overall intent to create what they call “visible sustainability” (via Vattenfall). This involved installing solar panels on the roof for clean EV charging — another consideration for cities looking to remedy their EV charging woes — and pollinator-friendly plants to encourage the natural habits of local wildlife.
Advertisement
Wind turbine playgrounds
There’s nothing saying that reusing or recycling materials has to be a drab, corporate affair. If possible, it should be fun, and that’s exactly what wind turbine blade playgrounds seek to achieve. As evidenced by the efforts of Superuse Studios – an architectural collective dedicated to construction using reused and waste materials — these massive pieces are excellent for creating fun and enriching playgrounds for kids. Simultaneously, they instill in the younger generation a sense of duty to make the most of what already exists and creativity regarding what the world around them can look like.
Surprisingly, it seems that wind turbine blades are quite versatile when it comes to playground construction. They can act as tunnels, especially if enhanced with several entry and exit points throughout. Cut and installed upright, they make fine forts for imaginative play and seem more than sturdy enough to support the weight of kids and playground essentials such as slides and climbing ropes. As of 2022, Superuse has managed to recycle 27 turbine blades, creating playgrounds and other installations across the Netherlands. The company claims that these playground projects reduced carbon emissions by roughly 90% compared to the average new construction playground.
Advertisement
Turbine blade-supported footbridges
Given their length, size, and sturdiness, there’s something to be said for the structural uses of wind turbines. Aware of the possibilities, some have even used wind turbines as supporting pieces for footbridges. One example is the Midleton to Youghal Greenway Bridge in Cork, Ireland, which features two LM13 blades that act as supports in lieu of traditional steel girders. The just-over-18-foot steel deck bridge was completed in January 2022 at a cost of around $31,069.83. Far from one of the largest bridges ever built, but still impressive for an experimental piece, it remains in use by the public, albeit with consistent monitoring of its condition.
BladeBridge — the same company responsible for this construction — later got the opportunity to create a second wind turbine blade bridge. This one had the backing of the Science Foundation Ireland, the Northern Ireland Department of the Economy, and the US National Science Foundation, and was assembled in Draperstown, Northern Ireland, in April of the same year. It’s a bigger creation at around 19 feet in length, featuring a timber deck and two turbine blades as girder replacements with steel angles bolted on. This bridge came to £10,808 (roughly $13,450 in 2023) – and while it wasn’t a permanent installation, its low cost and durability indicate there could be a future for more bridges like it.
Advertisement
Public wind turbine planters and benches
As noted in the wind turbine blade playground example, many wind turbine parts are hollow. Thus, with some tweaking, they can theoretically live new lives as forms of item storage or display. This has already shown promise, as chopped-up turbine blades have been turned into large planters in public spaces. DTE’s Warren Service Center in Detroit, Michigan, gave this innovative idea a try with great success. All it takes is cutting up a small piece of the blade, installing a false bottom, cutting out drainage holes, and adding foam to the edges to aid in durability.
The aforementioned BladeBridge project has created some intriguing turbine blade planters of its own in Ireland. At the 2025 Wind Energy Ireland Expo, BladeBridge showed off combination bench-planters created out of recycled turbine blades. Pictured above, one of them features small seating sections broken up by various plants, while another utilizes leftover cuts from an LM13 turbine blade in a three-spoke configuration — a design that, as the company explained, intentionally invites people to sit close to one another to spur conversations and create connections.
Advertisement
If you want a turbine blade bench of your own, the company Noblewins sells them in different shapes and seating arrangements. While they’re environmentally-conscious and visually interesting, know that they are surprisingly expensive, with even smaller examples totaling multiple thousands of dollars.
Advertisement
Wind turbine blade art installations
In addition to planters, turbine blades have also been used as unique snow walls, as demonstrated by a Wyoming-based artist, Chris Navarro. He took several cut-up blade portions and turned them into a combination art piece snow wall, which he told Cowboy State Daily is intended to provide onlookers with feelings of hope and renewal. After all, in the most literal sense, this is a way for these huge, difficult-to-recycle wind turbine parts to take on a new identity. Murals on both sides of the wall were planned to coincide with the art piece’s optimistic message.
Meanwhile, others have used complete turbine blades to make dramatic artistic expressions. For example, as part of the Hull UK City of Culture 2017 celebration, multimedia artist Nayan Kulkarni installed a 246-foot-long blade turbine in the middle of Hull in East Yorkshire, England. The appeal of the aptly-titled art project “Blade” was that it appeared overnight, dazzling onlookers with its sheer size and presence within an urban center. In reality, moving the blade and putting it into place was no easy task. Per Informed Infrastructure, the blade required special tripods to hold it up, loads of heavy machinery to get it correctly positioned, and it called for the temporary removal of street lamps, traffic lights, and more to accommodate its size.
European misinformation researchers say TikTok, X, and Meta are obstructing access to platform data required under the EU’s Digital Services Act through rejections, restrictive quotas, costly APIs, and burdensome security demands. Although regulators have fined X and pushed platforms to improve access, researchers remain skeptical that the changes will provide reliable, reproducible data at scale. Ars Technica reports: In recent years, social media companies shut down public access tools like Meta’s CrowdTangle and replaced them with content libraries, or, like X, paywalled their API data, forcing academics to pay “hundreds of dollars a month,” said Duncan Allen, a research officer at Democracy Reporting International (DRI) in Germany. Researchers say that without API access, what Iamnitchi describes as the “black holes” in what society knows about how these platforms recommend content or handle reports regarding sensitive content will only grow. Others, like TikTok, cap how many posts any researcher account can pull each day, which Allen said can make it “impossible to study anything at scale.”
The DSA was meant to solve this by allowing vetted researchers at credible institutions to have access to API data if they could show it would help in studying systemic risks, from illegal content to threats to fundamental rights. But two years after the law took effect, researchers say they struggle to meet its security requirements and face narrow interpretations from platforms of what qualifies as a systemic risk. Application forms differ by platform, but most require data to be stored on infrastructure that cannot be compromised — such as a machine physically disconnected from the Internet — a resource most universities lack, [said Adriana Iamnitchi, chair of computational social sciences at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, who leads research into online disinformation campaigns.]
Even for researchers who secure approval, “there’s no guarantee that the data is good,” said L. K. Seiling, coordinator of the DSA40 Collaboratory, a German initiative that tracks 46 DSA applications. API data is often difficult for a colleague to reproduce, so a researcher’s work cannot be checked for errors, which Iamnitchi said is a “basic requirement of science.” DSA40 data shows that of 46 tracked applications, 20 were approved and 14 rejected. But approval rates vary widely: TikTok approved 11 of 13 applications, while X rejected 11 of 23. The true rejection rate is likely higher because the tracker relies on voluntary reporting, Seiling said. “There’s no structured advantage for researchers to use this pathway,” Seiling said. “Data access as it’s set up right now tries to disincentivize researchers.”
Samsung could be preparing its busiest flagship launch schedule yet.
According to a new report from South Korea, the company is planning a “4+4” strategy for 2027. This would see eight premium Galaxy smartphones launch across the year, including a second-generation tri-fold device.
If accurate, the roadmap would significantly expand Samsung’s flagship lineup as competition in the premium smartphone market continues to intensify.
The report claims Samsung will split its launches into two waves. The first half of 2027 is expected to be led by the Galaxy S27, Galaxy S27+, Galaxy S27 Ultra and, for the first time, a Galaxy S27 Pro. Thus, the Galaxy S family will have four flagship models instead of the usual three.
Advertisement
The second half of the year is reportedly reserved for foldables. Alongside the Galaxy Z Fold 9, Galaxy Z Fold 9 Ultra and Galaxy Z Flip 9, Samsung is said to be preparing the Galaxy Z TriFold 2. This would mark the return of its most ambitious foldable design.
Advertisement
According to the report, Samsung has already shared details of the expanded lineup with supply chain partners. Furthermore, all four foldables are expected to launch together around July 2027.
Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)
Very little is known about the TriFold 2 itself. Although the report suggests Samsung isn’t planning any major changes to its display. The foldable is expected to retain a 9.96-inch main screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio. Meanwhile, earlier rumours have pointed to a noticeably slimmer chassis with all three sections sharing a more consistent thickness.
Production, however, could see a bigger change. Samsung’s first tri-fold device is expected to be produced in relatively limited quantities. Nevertheless, industry sources believe the company will significantly increase manufacturing for its successor if demand proves strong enough.
Advertisement
The move would also continue Samsung’s steady expansion of its foldable portfolio. What was once a two-device lineup has already grown. This year’s range adds a third foldable alongside the Galaxy Z Fold and Galaxy Z Flip series.
Advertisement
The report suggests the expanded flagship strategy could help the company strengthen its position ahead of Apple’s widely anticipated 20th anniversary iPhone lineup. Apple’s lineup is also expected to arrive in 2027.
For now, the roadmap should be taken with a fairly large pinch of salt, as product plans can change a lot before launch. Still, if the report proves accurate, next year could mark the company’s biggest flagship refresh in years.
The comical charm of Meta’s new AI-enhanced, smart glasses is that they’re seemingly made for someone unimpressed, perhaps thoroughly, with the way they’re experiencing life.
Being unhappy with life in its current state is, of course, intrinsically human and a problem that is as old as time. In fairy tales and folklore, the motif ends with a lesson — sometimes with the aid of magic, divine punishment, and maybe a witch or two — to be thankful for the things you have. More contemporary interpretations involve time travel and alternate realities, and perhaps some kind of Christmas theme.
Now, in 2026, we have glasses imbued with technological magic. The $300 Meta glasses are equipped with dual cameras as well as multiple microphones and tiny speakers that connect to an AI-powered app on your phone. This allows you to understand languages you can’t speak, command music to be played, perhaps even identify people you don’t know, and record anything you want and keep it, should you desire, forever. Having the ability to do these things, according to Meta, could make life a little better.
The problem with Meta’s pitch is that the improvements the glasses promise come at a price. These super-powered spectacles run the risk of annoying or offending or creeping out the people around you.
Advertisement
And worst of all, even if you’re just plainly wearing the glasses, they’re killing the vibe for everyone else.
Wear Meta glasses at your own risk
The major takeaway from Meta’s advertisements and overall promotional strategy for its glasses is that you’re supposed to wear them everywhere: Japanese restaurants, nights out at bars and clubs, on escalators (possibly to somewhere cool), backstage at concerts, at Kardashian houses, in Miami Beach, skydiving, and everywhere in between.
What these stylish commercials and dynamic morsels of marketing do not tell you is that at all these places there will likely be people who do not want to see you wearing these glasses at all.
Advertisement
“For a few weeks there was a trainer at the gym I noticed wearing glasses — black Ray-Bans — and he had never worn glasses before. It took me a few days but I realized they were Meta,” Sean, a non-Meta glasses wearer in DC, told me. Vox agreed to let Sean and other people interviewed for this article to go by their first name or pseudonym to let them speak freely about these spectacles.
“I almost said something to a manager, but then he stopped wearing them before I could say anything,” he added.
How not to look like a creep wearing Meta glasses
While Meta glasses enthusiasts and critics are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes purchasing Meta glasses, both camps are actually pretty close when it comes to advice on how not to look like a creep when wearing them.
Advertisement
One of the main things I was told was just not to film around people. If you’re going to buy these glasses and film, you should film solo activities and not in the direction of other people. Think: ziplining, hiking, gardening, boating, and bicycle rides. The ocean, mountains, flowers, and trails do not care about being filmed the way people do.
The other thing that kept coming up was to be understanding and try not to film anyone without their consent. Because the tech’s relatively new, people are still getting used to these devices. They might not know about the recording light or might have in their heads that people wearing these things are recording everything. That might lead to situations where someone comes up to you and asks about them or perhaps even tense situations where someone thinks they’re being recorded. Being transparent about the glasses (e.g., explaining the recording light) and respecting people’s privacy by telling them what you’re recording (e.g., your form at the gym) and if they might be in the shot goes a long way.
Sean explained his unease. All around this country, people film in the gym all the time — to the point where it’s obnoxious and gets in everyone’s way. This trainer could just be following the trend, using the glasses (which are less cumbersome than an entire tripod setup) to film his clients’ form or creating content for a YouTube channel. But not knowing what the glasses are for, what the trainer is recording, or where he’s recording is what bothered Sean.
“I don’t want to be in the background of videos all over the internet or on TikTok,” he said.
Advertisement
There’s a little bit of social absurdity here in that we’ve been encouraged to post and have so many platforms — TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, etc. — to do so. Meta has continually emphasized that not only do these glasses allow people to share their points of view but also that everyone’s point of view is so important that it needs to be shared. At the same time, more people posting more than ever has made people aware of being a background character in someone else’s content. And it turns out that real-life, regular people are not particularly invested in how the stranger next to them in Meta glasses sees the world.
Patrick, a writer living in New York, told me about a wedding he’d recently attended, where he saw an old friend wearing a pair. His group of friends told their pal that they wouldn’t talk to him until he took them off.
As someone who aspires to be the kind of person you want to sit next to at a wedding, this is understandable. A wedding is theoretically two people sharing the most romantic day of their lives, but it is also a well of gossip, judgment, inside jokes, and lore that’s shared by the people who are watching said couple share the most romantic day of their lives. There’s also the possibility that, depending on the wedding, the spirit might move oneself to partake in the erotic violence known as the “chicken dance” and would not want any of that recorded.
“One person screamed, ‘Ew the Kylie glasses, gross.’ It felt so cathartic,” Patrick said, referencing Meta glasses spokesmodel Kylie Jenner who, in her personal life, may or may not wear the glasses she advertises.
Advertisement
In addition to weddings and the gym, people also told me that they don’t want to see the glasses at restaurants, not on dance floors or at parties, and definitely not in an immersive theater setting. I even spoke to someone who started a petition to ban them from bars.
“I’m staunchly anti-photographs at good parties — the best parties in the world ban photography from the dancefloor,” said Vee, a nightlife aficionado who has owned but does not use his pair of Meta glasses anymore. “When people know there’s a camera on them, they behave differently. They start to monitor their own behavior. They become self-conscious and they start to think, Well, what will the people watching this video think I’m doing? Am I being cringe?”
Going out partying is a completely different experience from lifting weights at the gym, and both are obviously very different from attending a wedding with friends. Yet, the critique of wearing Meta glasses at all these places is the same. No matter the vibe, Meta glasses will kill it and flatten the mood. People can’t enjoy the moment because the moment is being intrinsically changed by a person who might be recording.
One of the rather unfortunate terms that Meta glasses have acquired is “pervert glasses.” This is largely due to the trend of pickup artists, pranksters, and yes, perverts, who are using the glasses to film others without their consent. Vee, the dance enthusiast, told me that it’s one more reason why he doesn’t believe that these specs have any place in nightlife.
Advertisement
“There’s a very significant community of people who trade videos that they’ve taken: candid videos of women who are in various states of undress. It’s just this kind of seedy underground,” Vee said, pointing out that Reddit had to ban entire forums dedicated to sharing nonconsensual videos and pictures of women at festivals and clubs.
As Vee explained, people at festivals and nightlife events are often partaking in drugs and alcohol. He has no problem with that. What he does take issue with is that no one doing these things should have to think about being someone else’s content. Intoxicated people aren’t in the state of mind where they can consent to being in someone’s video or are even aware that someone’s Meta glasses have their recording light on.
“There’s this whole kind of creeper contingent of folks who are trying to learn how to disable the recording light,” Vee said. “It’s not everybody who owns these glasses obviously, but there is a significant number of creepers who are giving the hardware a very bad name.”
Are we being too mean to pervert glasses?
Advertisement
The indicator light has since become a major flashpoint. The light is part of the glasses’ vibe-kill persona as it makes clear to everyone that can see that recording is taking place, and it’s especially vibrant in dimly lit places. The effect, I imagine, is like when the toys in Toy Story collapse when they see a human. That’s led to a contingent of glasses-wearers who want to disable the feature.
While it’s understandable that someone might not want to draw even more attention to these glasses, hacking the light source is something a creeper would also do. Hence the “pervert glasses” moniker. These privacy concerns are why Meta is now rolling out an update that will disable the spectacles’ recording feature if said light is tampered with.
“I think if you tamper with that, they should just break,” Jason, a 28-year-old Meta glasses owner, told me. “It’s the thin veil that makes it like, ‘Okay, at least you’re telling me you’re filming me.’ So the idea that if you tamper with it? No, your product should be bricked.”
Jason bought a pair of Meta glasses in November with the idea that he would use them to film food content and post reviews. He had even picked out a name, “Sandwich Digest,” and dreamt of its success. But on his first wear, he took them to a Japanese sandwich shop and quickly realized that his future as a Meta glasses-wearing food critic was not a fun one.
Advertisement
“I felt so uncomfortable,” Jason said, noting that the obviousness of his Meta glasses and their recording light spiked his self-consciousness. “But I also felt like the people I was interacting with were also uncomfortable. And I felt like they were feeling like, Okay, we both know this is weird, but I can’t say that because you’re actively filming me.”
The strange interaction Jason described is a version of the panopticon effect, the idea that being recorded makes people alter their baseline behavior, perhaps to the point where people self-regulate even when they’re not being recorded. For Jason, there was no “real” restaurant experience to be filmed because everyone was so uncomfortable with being recorded.
Therein is the conundrum: Even if you’re not using these glasses to be a creep, people still think you’re a creep, and you know that they think you’re a creep.
Therein is the conundrum: Even if you’re not using these glasses to be a creep, people still think you’re a creep, and you know that they think you’re a creep.
Advertisement
Since that initial encounter, Jason tells me that he’s only ever used the filming feature to capture a zipline experience he had in Mexico at the beginning of the year. He thinks he might also use them to capture hikes or excursions on an upcoming vacation, but he won’t use them in the vicinity of or to film other people — especially since they’ve been dubbed pervert glasses.
“People’s perception of these glasses now is not what it was when I bought them in November,” he told me. “And had it been then, and if I knew what I know now, I probably wouldn’t have bought them.”
Max, a Meta glasses wearer based in Australia, is a bit more keen on them but still shares some of Jason’s sentiment about their not-so-great reputation. Max explained to me that he has two pairs and wears them around 40 hours per week, mainly when he’s working, or walking and driving from place to place. Though he says he’s never had a negative interaction when wearing his glasses, he understands the backlash.
“While we’re constantly being recorded when in public anyway, there’s a big difference between mass surveillance and one random weirdo recording you for their own purposes,” Max said, making the point that the indicator light, as awkward and obnoxious as it is, could be the accessory’s most important feature.
Advertisement
“It’s really the only defense wearers have against the ‘pervert glasses’ remarks,” he added. “If the firmware update is successful, and the marketing around the update is widespread, I think we can slowly turn the public in their favor again.”
To be clear, many Meta glasses owners like Max pointed out that the glasses do have extremely useful features, like hands-free calling or the ability to translate foreign languages in real time. Meta also touts the glasses’ accessibility features, including those for people with reduced vision or hearing. They also offer sun protection.
These are all ostensibly helpful gizmos, and their existence seems to indicate that Meta and its tech cohort are trying to figure out how to make these glasses as essential to our everyday lives as smartphones. Perhaps, when these features become more innovative or exciting or if the glasses become so popular, the narrative around why people buy them may change.
But for now, the singularly intriguing thing about these specs is simultaneously their most publicly maligned feature: the filming.
Advertisement
“There are probably a million things to film with them that are probably not weird,” Jason, the one-time Meta glasses food critic, told me. “But like if you’re wearing them at the beach, I would probably be side-eyeing you because you’re wearing ‘pervert glasses’ at the beach — fork found in kitchen.”
Apple will report its third-quarter financial results on July 30. Here’s what happened in the quarter, and what analysts believe will be the highlights of Tim Cook’s last earnings report as CEO.
Apple’s Q3 2026 financial results will be issued by Apple in a press release on July 30. As is tradition, it will be followed by the analyst and investor conference call at 5 p.m. EDT.
The call will see current CEO Tim Cook and CFO Kevan Parekh talking about the quarter and providing guidance for future quarters. Analysts will also ask questions about Q3 and what to expect from upcoming trade periods.
The discussions will almost certainly also cover Cook’s last financials call as CEO.
Advertisement
As usual, AppleInsider will be reviewing the data and reporting on the subjects raised in the conference call.
Last Quarter: Q2 2026
Released on April 30, the Q2 earnings were a second-quarter record, with $111.2 billion in revenue reported. There were also gains across almost all areas, exceeding the expectations of Wall Street analysts.
The revenue included $56.99 billion from iPhone, with Mac revenue also up at $8.4 billion, iPad rose to $6.9 billion, and Wearables, Home, and Accessories shifted to $7.9 billion.
Apple quarterly revenue and net profit as of Q2 2026
Advertisement
The ever-reliable Services category reached $30.9 billion, up from $26.6 billion in Q2 2025.
The Q3 2025 figures were an improvement to $94.04 billion in revenue, again soundly beating Wall Street expectations.
The iPhone revenue was up to $44.58 billion, with Mac also growing to $8.05 billion, and Services marching upward to $27.4 billion.
Advertisement
Apple quarterly revenue by unit as of Q2 2026
However, iPad revenue dipped from $7.16 billion in Q3 2024 to $6.58 billion in Q3 2025. Similarly, Wearables, Home, and Accessories went from $8.09 billion to $7.4 billion.
The quarter had a backdrop of a global trade war, with Apple getting a minimal hit from grossly increased tariffs. Apple also managed to get a new all-time high for its install base across all product categories and geographic segments.
What happened in Apple’s third fiscal quarter of 2026.
The quarter is the first to fully benefit from the Q2 releases, since they were available for the entire period instead of part of it. Aside from the launch of the AirPod Max 2, there aren’t really any major in-quarter launches to be concerned about.
Advertisement
However, the ongoing memory crisis has made an impact. Warned in June by Cook, he admitted that price rises were “unavoidable,” and the situation unsustainable.
A few days later, Apple raised the prices of its products across the range significantly.
This included the MacBook Air starting from $1,299 instead of $1,099 and the MacBook Neo jumping from $599 to $699. The Mac Studio was badly hit, with the M4 Max starting from $2,499 instead of $1,999, and the M3 Ultra going up from $3,999 to $5,299.
While products like the HomePod and Apple Vision Pro also saw hikes, Apple didn’t adjust the prices of the iPhone 17 generation. It may simply be waiting for the iPhone 18 to do that.
Advertisement
During the Q2 results, Parekh provided some forward-looking statements. This included expectations of revenue growth at between 14% and 17% year-over-year, and a gross margin between 47.5% and 48.5%.
Operational Expenditure should reach between $18.8 billion and $19.1 billion.
What is Wall Street expecting to see in Apples’ Q3 2026 financial report?
The Wall Street consensus refers to a survey of analysts. The results are averaged out to give a general opinion of where investors and analysts are leaning in their quarterly forecasts.
Yahoo Finance
Advertisement
Yahoo Finance’s revenue estimate for Apple in Q3 stems from 27 analysts. As of July 22, the average estimate is $108.9 billion, with a low of $107.5 billion and a high of $112.17 billion.
For the earnings per share estimate, 31 analysts put it at an average of $1.89. The low is $1.83 and the high is $1.99.
TipRanks
TipRanks also does its own analyst polling on Apple’s quarter. In its forecast as of July 22, its consensus is for revenue at $108.85 billion, with a high of $112.20 billion and a low of $105.20 billion.
Advertisement
On the earnings per share, the consensus is $1.89, with a low of $1.80 and a high of $1.99.
Analyst Expectations
Ahead of the results and call, analysts offer their own forecasts of what they think Apple will be declaring in its financials. Depending on the firm and the analyst, these hot takes include both positive and negative opinions about Apple.
AppleInsider will add to the analyst speculation here as the predictions roll in.
Bank of America
Advertisement
In a forecast that rolled in on July 20, Bank of America is a little positive about Apple’s potential results. In its July 20 forecast, it believes Apple will get $109 billion in revenue with an earnings per share of $1.89.
iPhone build plans for a Pro-centric production are robust, but the analysts are being more conservative due to the new hardware cycle staggering. For Services, BoA thinks there will be 14% year-over-year growth.
As expected, BoA believes that investor focus will be on things like component cost rises, as well as the Cook-Ternus changeover.
BoA has a Buy rating for Apple, with a price target of $380.
Advertisement
Morgan Stanley
On July 24, Morgan Stanley provided its own guidance on the quarterly results, with expectations it will slightly beat market expectations.
Working on guidance of potential increases in revenue and EPS, Morgan Stanley thinks that Apple’s gross margin may go slightly below the market’s forecast. It blames potential changes to iPhone shipment volumes, price hikes, and cost inflation.
Under this forecast, Morgan Stanley reiterated its “Overweight” rating for Apple, but raised the price target from $360 to $364.
Advertisement
UBS
On July 16, UBS issued a report giving Apple a “Neutral” rating and maintained a price target of $296.
For the quarter, UBS expects revenue to reach $107.8 billion, just below a $108.1 billion consensus. The diluted earnings per share is anticipated to be $1.84, slightly down from the $1.87 of the consensus.
On a per-unit basis, iPhone market share increased in the quarter, with Mac revenue up thanks to new models, albeit with a small shift to a lower average selling price. Services is projected to get a 13% year-over-year growth, though with headwinds in App Store growth and Google search-related revenue.
Over the weekend, Reddit user -void1 posted an alarming discovery on the r/ClaudeAI subreddit: some conversations that users of Anthropic’s Claude AI chatbot had made “shareable” via a link were being indexed by Google Search, and could be clicked on and accessed by seemingly anyone.
The conversation took off on the social networks X and Reddit, the latter with thousands of upvotes and comments, many expressing concern about user privacy and information security, and the additional finding by users that shared Claude Artifacts — including interactive applications, dashboards, documents and other AI-generated work products — were also appearing in Google Search results.
VentureBeat independently verified that some Claude Artifacts not shared directly with us were indeed searchable and accessible via Google. We could not access any shared conversations.
By Sunday morning, many of the original Google search results for shared Claude conversations appeared to have disappeared or become significantly harder to find, suggesting either Google, Anthropic or both had begun taking action.
Advertisement
The exposure could carry broader implications for enterprise users. Anthropic has increasingly positioned the feature as a collaborative workspace for building and sharing software, dashboards, documents and other business assets rather than simply chatbot responses.
I have reached out to Anthropic for comment and will update this article when the company responds.
A simple Google search yields a trove of Claude conversations
Reddit user -void1 posted to r/ClaudeAI on July 25, 2026, demonstrating that the Google query site:claude.ai/share surfaced numerous publicly accessible Claude conversations.
Screenshots shared across Reddit and X showed Google returning pages from Claude’s /share URLs, while other users reported finding conversations containing cryptocurrency wallet creation, legal questions, résumés and internal business discussions.
Advertisement
While many users expressed concern that conversations they believed were effectively “unlisted” could become discoverable through public search engines, others argued the behavior reflected the expected consequences of creating publicly accessible share links rather than a software vulnerability.
Indeed, Anthropic requires the user themselves to go into Claude’s options and select to make a conversation or Artifact shareable to others with the link, warning them it will be accessible to anyone with it, over multiple dialog boxes. It is similar to sharing a Google Doc link, where the user must also select the option — it is not enabled by default.
Example of Claude share conversations dialog box. Credit: Screenshot by VentureBeat
Example of Claude Design share options dropdown. Credit: VentureBeat screenshot
Advertisement
Why the exposure of Claude Artifacts may be even more concerning
On July 26, X user Om Patel, founder of research firm BigIdeasDB, posted allegingthat searches such as site:claude.ai/public/artifacts surfaced publicly shared applications, dashboards, reports and documents.
Screenshots circulating online appeared to show search results referencing internal-looking proposal documents and other business materials. Another widely circulated post warned that users often interpret “Anyone with the link” as equivalent to an unlisted YouTube video—accessible only if someone possesses the URL—not necessarily as content eligible for indexing by public search engines.
VentureBeat independently verified that multiple third-party Claude Artifacts appeared in Google Search results for the query site:claude.ai/public/artifactslaunch and were accessible without authentication, despite the URLs not being previously known to the reporter.
However, VentureBeat has not independently verified the full volume or representativeness of the examples circulating on social media.
Advertisement
The reports are particularly significant because Artifacts has become one of Anthropic’s flagship product initiatives.
First introduced alongside Claude 3.5 Sonnet in June 2024, Artifacts transformed Claude from a conventional chatbot into a collaborative workspace capable of generating interactive web applications, dashboards, visualizations, documents, games and other live software alongside a conversation.
VentureBeat previously described the launch as potentially marking the beginning of an “interface war” among AI companies, shifting competition from raw model performance toward collaborative AI workspaces.
That update allows engineering teams to publish live HTML dashboards and interactive project workspaces directly from coding sessions, making Artifacts an increasingly important part of Anthropic’s enterprise strategy.
That broader functionality raises the potential stakes if publicly shared Artifacts were also being indexed. Unlike ordinary chat transcripts, Artifacts can contain interactive software prototypes, engineering dashboards, planning documents, product mockups, data visualizations and other work products organizations increasingly rely on to collaborate across technical and business teams. If those pages become searchable through public search engines, the exposure could extend well beyond conversational text.
A reality check on privacy, information security and the open web
Importantly, nothing so far suggests attackers gained access to private Claude accounts or conversations.
Rather, the controversy centers on conversations and Artifacts that users explicitly chose to share publicly via Claude’s sharing tools.
Advertisement
The dispute instead is whether users reasonably understood those shared pages could become discoverable through public search engines rather than only by recipients possessing the link.
Technically, pages that are publicly accessible without authentication can generally be indexed by search engines unless publishers explicitly prevent crawling through mechanisms such as noindex directives or other indexing controls.
Several Reddit commenters noted that Claude’s long, randomly generated share URLs are effectively impossible to guess. Instead, search engines typically discover them only after links appear somewhere they are permitted to crawl, such as public websites, forums or social media posts. Others questioned exactly how Google initially discovered so many Claude share URLs.
The issue also illustrates a growing challenge for AI companies as chatbots evolve into collaborative workspaces for creating software, documents, dashboards and business applications.
Advertisement
Features originally designed to make sharing AI-generated work easier now increasingly expose assets that may carry significantly more business value than a simple conversation.
As enterprises adopt AI as a platform for building internal tools and workflows, the distinction between “shared by link” and “publicly discoverable through search” becomes far more consequential.
A recurring challenge for AI companies
Anthropic is far from the first AI company to confront the distinction between “shared” and “searchable.”
Reddit users quickly pointed out that OpenAI previously faced criticism after publicly shared ChatGPT conversations became discoverable through Google, prompting similar debates over whether “share by link” should imply a publicly indexed webpage or something closer to an unlisted document.
Advertisement
Anthropic’s situation also echoes an incident involving Google’s pre-Gemini AI assistant, Bard, in September 2023. SEO consultant Gagan Ghotra discovered that Google Search had begun indexing shared Bard conversation links, warning that users could mistakenly assume they were sharing conversations only with intended recipients rather than making them discoverable through search.
Google later responded publicly that it did not intend for shared Bard chats to be indexed and said it was working to block them from Google Search while emphasizing that only conversations users explicitly chose to share were affected.
Together, the Bard, ChatGPT and now Claude episodes suggest AI companies continue to wrestle with the boundary between content that is technically public on the web and users’ expectations that “share with a link” behaves more like an unlisted Google Doc or YouTube video than a webpage eligible for indexing by search engines.
What enterprises should do now
For organizations deploying generative AI broadly across employees, the distinction between “shared with a link” and “publicly discoverable through search” is not merely semantic. It can determine whether an internal engineering dashboard, financial model, product roadmap, customer-facing prototype or AI-generated application remains effectively private—or becomes visible to anyone using a search engine.
Advertisement
Whether this ultimately proves to be a technical indexing oversight, a mismatch between product design and user expectations, or some combination of both, the episode serves as another reminder that AI products are increasingly functioning less like chatbots and more like collaborative operating systems for knowledge work.
As those platforms begin hosting internal dashboards, software prototypes, financial analyses, business planning documents and increasingly sophisticated enterprise applications, seemingly small decisions about how shared links behave can have outsized consequences for enterprise security, product design and user trust.
Enterprise leaders should consider taking several practical steps:
Audit existing shared AI content: Review shared conversations, Artifacts and other publicly accessible AI-generated assets to determine whether they should remain available or be unpublished.
Clarify what “Share” actually means to your ENTIRE organization: Don’t assume employees understand the difference between “accessible by link” and “discoverable through search.” Update internal guidance to explain how each AI platform handles shared content.
Treat AI platforms like collaboration software: Apply the same governance you use for Google Docs, Microsoft 365, Slack, GitHub, Notion or SharePoint—including policies around sharing sensitive intellectual property, customer information and regulated data.
Prefer authenticated enterprise workspaces for sensitive information: When possible, keep confidential projects, code, financial models and customer data inside enterprise accounts with identity-based access controls instead of publicly accessible links.
Review vendor defaults and sharing controls: As AI platforms evolve rapidly, administrators should periodically revisit default sharing settings, retention policies and indexing behavior rather than assuming they remain unchanged after new feature releases.
For now, it appears Anthropic has begun limiting the visibility of at least some shared pages in Google Search, though reports suggest cached copies, archived pages and indexing by other search engines may persist for some content. Enterprises that have relied on Claude’s sharing features may wish to review existing shared conversations and Artifacts while Anthropic’s investigation continues.
Your phone is essentially a miniature computer. They help us stay connected with friends online, organize our schedules and even stream our favorite shows. And you probably have a strong opinion on how your phone performs, its battery life and which features are actually useful — and which aren’t.
This month, we’re asking which phone you rely on. You can take our two-minute survey to share your experience with your device’s camera quality, battery life, durability and value. The top picks will make it to our roundup, so be sure to check back in a few weeks to see if yours made the list.
Why we want to hear from you
Spec tables on retailer sites don’t capture the full story about a phone. How your phone performs every day, your experience with the camera in dim lighting and whether the hardware holds up over time are invaluable insights for others.
“I’ve been reviewing phones at CNET for a decade and my absolute favorite part of my job is meeting readers and hearing about what they love about their handsets and what annoys them. I’m incredibly excited to hear from you and encourage you to share your experiences with us,” says Patrick Holland, director of content at CNET.
Whether you go for budget phones or prefer devices with all the bells and whistles, you can help other CNET readers find a phone that’s actually worth their money by sharing your thoughts.
Advertisement
How to make your voice heard
This survey is open through mid-August and takes only a few minutes to complete. After we gather enough information, we’ll tally up the numbers and publish the winners.
Need a refresher? Check out our list of the best phones to see which ones CNET editors recommend.
Nasha Addarich Martínez
Managing Editor
Nasha is a Managing Editor for CNET, overseeing our sleep and wellness verticals. She is a nutrition, mental health, fitness and sleep science enthusiast. Her passion for mindful and holistic practices transcends her personal life and profoundly influences her editorial approach, as she weaves evidence-based insights with practical advice to inspire readers to lead healthier, more balanced lives. Throughout her career, she’s covered various topics including financial services, technology, travel and wellness.
See full bio
This messaging is cause for concern, according to ADHD specialists who spoke with WIRED.
“Stimulant medications have been in existence for nearly 100 years, and approved for use in children since the 1960s,” says Kristen Leinung, a mental health nurse practitioner and director of psychiatric services at the Northwest ADHD Treatment Center in Portland, Oregon. The drugs are well-studied for efficacy and have predictable side effects, she adds, but because they can be misused, they’re often stigmatized online. “This style of advertising does further that stigma.”
Leinung believes that with their pessimistic framing of Adderall and similar pharmaceuticals, these supplement ads could lead people to go off their medication, which can be dangerous. “We know untreated or under-treated ADHD carries a high mortality and morbidity risk,” Leinung says, decreasing life expectancy and doubling the risk of premature death; it’s associated with factors that range from less exercise and worse sleep to riskier driving and a higher likelihood of smoking.
US pharmacies have seen shortages of the stimulants Adderall, Vyvanse, Ritalin, and Concerta since 2022. Though the Drug Enforcement Administration increased production quotas last fall, various production bottlenecks have continued to create supply problems, according to the nonprofit Understood, which supports Americans with learning and thinking differences including dyslexia and ADHD.
Advertisement
The difficulty of accessing these medications may factor into someone’s decision to try unproven alternative treatments instead, says Cindy Goldrich, a mental health counselor, educator, and ADHD coach in Boulder, Colorado. That’s what makes the supplement ads feel “exploitative” to her.
“When someone can’t get their prescription filled and doesn’t know when they will, a product promising to fill that gap—or claiming you didn’t need the ‘harsh’ medication anyway—becomes very appealing, very fast,” she says. “It’s not just selling to people who are curious about alternatives. It’s selling to people in crisis, who are scared and out of options through a system failure that has nothing to do with whether their medication works.”
Andrew Kahn, a psychologist and associate director of expertise and behavioral health at Understood, says these supplements also lack robust regulation while suggesting, without evidence, “benefits equal to or similar to medication.” But unlike prescription and over-the-counter drugs, he explains, “supplements don’t have to prove they’re safe or effective to the FDA before they’re sold.”
That very fact can become a selling point. “People are wary of big pharma, wary of side effects, and a ‘natural’ option feels safer even when it isn’t better tested,” Goldrich says. Some of the more common ingredients in the supplements, like omega-3s, L-theanine with caffeine, and certain adaptogens “have modest supporting research as general cognitive or mood support, and there’s nothing wrong with someone using them alongside medication if their doctor is aware.” But an underlying problem, she adds, is that whether a person takes medication or supplements or both, they still need to learn skills like planning and emotional regulation.
Advertisement
In the MAHA era, of course, medically suspect claims often circulate unchallenged. Kennedy, who swears by dubious supplements like the synthetic dye methylene blue, has in many ways normalized these fringe products as the top authority of the vast US health care apparatus. In a statement to WIRED, HHS press secretary Emily G. Hilliard reiterated the department’s position that the nation is facing a challenge of “overmedicalization in behavioral health care,” with patients and parents not always informed about the potential hazards of psychiatric drugs. “Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS is embedding informed consent, transparency, and evidence-based alternatives into federal policy and practice,” Hilliard said.
Leinung, however, feels people should think twice before making that decision based on a video they saw on social media. “I do worry that encouraging people to stop or avoid starting prescribed medication to treat their ADHD can negatively impact their quality of life,” she says. “I would caution any person considering stopping their prescribed stimulants to have a thorough discussion with their health care provider.”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login