Last year Dyson introduced the , which it immediately declared the “world’s slimmest vacuum cleaner.” Presumably, then, the title of world’s slimmest wet floor cleaner goes to the newly unveiled PencilWash.

Promising a “lighter, slimmer and smaller solution to wet cleaning without compromising on hygiene,” the PencilWash is designed to let you clean everywhere you need to with minimal hassle. Like the vacuum cleaner with which it shares the first part of its name, the handle measures just 1.5 inches in diameter from top to bottom, and the whole thing weighs little more than 2kg.

The ultra-thin design allows the cleaner to lie almost completely flat, allowing you to get into tight corners or under low furniture, where more traditionally bulky devices might struggle. Its slender proportions also make it easier to store if your home is on the smaller side.

Dyson says the PencilWash only applies fresh water to floors, and after swiftly eliminating spills and stains it should dry up pretty quickly. Its high-density microfiber roller is designed to tackle both wet and dry debris in one pass, and because it doesn’t have a traditional filter, you won’t have to worry about trapped dirt or lingering smells.

Above the power buttons there’s a screen displaying remaining battery level, and the handle can be slotted into a charging dock when not in use.

The Dyson PencilVac will cost $349, with a release date yet to be announced.

from the man-vs.-machine dept

I’ve talked on Techdirt about just a few of my AI-related experiments over the past few years, including how I use it to help me edit pieces, which I still write myself. I still have no intention of letting AI write for me, but as the underlying technology has continued to level up, every so often I’ll run a test to see if it could write a better Techdirt post than I can. I don’t think it’s there (and I’m still not convinced it will ever get there), but I figured I can share the process with you, and let you be the judge.

I wanted to pick a fairly straightforward article, rather than a more complex one, just to see how well it works. In this case, I figured I’d try it with the story I published last week about Judge Boasberg ruling against the Trump administration and calling out how the DOJ barely participated in the case, and effectively told him to “pound sand” (a quote directly from the judge).

I know that just telling it to write a Techdirt article by itself will lead to pretty bland “meh” content. So before I even get to the prompt, there are some steps I need to include. First, over time I continue to adjust the underlying “system prompt” I use for editing my pieces. I won’t post the entire system prompt here as it’s not that interesting, but I do use it to make it clear its job is to help me be a better writer, not to be a sycophant, not to try to change things just for the sake of change, and to suggest things that will most help the reader.

I also have a few notes in it about avoiding recommending certain “AI-style” cliches like “it’s not this, it’s that.” Also, a specific one for me: “don’t suggest changing ‘fucked up’ to ‘messed up.’” It does that a lot for my writing.

But that’s not all. I also feed in Techdirt samples, which are a collection of ten of my favorite articles, so it gets a sense of what a “Techdirt article” looks like. On top of that, I give it a “Masnick Style Guide” that I had created after feeding a bunch of Techdirt articles into three different LLMs, asking for each to produce a style guide, and then having NotebookLLM combine them all into a giant “Masnick style-guide.”

Then, I feed it any links, including earlier stories on Techdirt, that are relevant, before finally writing out a prompt that can be pretty long. In this test case, I fed it the PDF file of the decision. I also gave it Techdirt’s previous stories about Judge Boasberg.

Finally, I gave it a starting prompt with a fair bit of explanation of what angle I was hoping to see a Techdirt post on this topic. So here’s my full prompt:

Can you write a Techdirt style first draft of a post (see the attached Techdirt post samples, as well as the even more important Masnick style guide, which you should follow) about the attached ruling in the JGG v. Trump case by Judge James Boasberg. I have also attached a page of previous articles about Judge Boasberg which you should consider, especially as some reference this same case.

You may also want to highlight that Judge Boasberg just was vindicated after the DOJ filed a vexatious complaint against him because of earlier rulings in this case, but that complaint has been easily dismissed. The crux of this article, though, should be on the very strong language Boasberg uses, including the astoundingly candid statement that he felt the government “apparently was no interested in participating in this process” and how he read their response as telling “the Court to pound sand.” There are other parts of the ruling that are useful as well. It should also call out the specific remedy here, and how weak it feels, given the situation explained in the ruling and the DOJ’s actions. Yes, they lost the case, but this still feels like a slap on the wrist with no real consequences for the DOJ.

Advertisement

As always with Techdirt posts, instead of doing in-line quotes, we usually do blockquotes, often of one or even multiple paragraphs from the original sources, so please adhere to that style. Take all of this info and draft the best Techdirt post you can regarding the topic.

And… you can see the results embedded below. I’ve also embedded my original article (though you can just go read it on the site directly). I’m amused that it added a “from the such and such dept” line as well as tags, both of which are core parts of Techdirt posts, but not things I asked it for.

I’m extremely biased, as this is a question of who writes better, me or the machine, and I still think I’m better than the machine. But, I also have to admit it’s not bad. It’s decent. If I had that submitted by another writer, there are definitely changes and edits I’d make, especially to the crappy cliche’d ending. But it’s way better than what most people think of as traditional ChatGPT output, in part because of all the context and detailed instructions I fed it.

Just for fun, I then also asked my editing tool to do its own edit on its own writing (usually not a good idea to let it grade its own homework), but here’s what it had to say:

solid draft. the “pound sand” framing works well and the frustration comes through. few things:

the tension setup: you flag “frustratingly toothless” in graf 3 then say “on one level this is a win” much later. that’s the right editorial instinct—there IS genuine tension here—but you’re burying the lede on your own argument. consider setting up that complexity earlier so readers know they’re getting nuance, not whiplash.

missing a key detail from the ruling: Boasberg notes that “even Plaintiffs’ counsel could not represent how many of the 137 are still in Venezuela and how many wish to proceed with habeas.” that’s devastating. the chaos is so complete that the lawyers literally don’t know where everyone is. worth including.

the numbered remedies block: you cut it off mid-list. the 5th point actually matters—there’s a March 13 deadline for the government to file a Status Report explaining how/when they’ll transport people back. that’s your next milestone. either include it or acknowledge you’re excerpting.

the Venezuela carve-out: you mention it but undersell it. the ruling specifically says it’s “mindful” of the “situation in Venezuela remains in flux” given “the United States’s recent law-enforcement action there.” that’s pretty ominous language from a federal judge about whatever the hell the administration is doing in Venezuela right now. might be worth a parenthetical noting this deserves its own article.

Advertisement

the closer: “I wouldn’t hold my breath” is fine but feels like boilerplate. you’ve got stronger material to end on—maybe the March 13 deadline, or something that points forward rather than just shrugging.

one small thing: “a complaint that was summarily dismissed” in graf 2—might want “recently dismissed” or similar since it was just last week. “summarily” suggests procedure when really the story is how embarrassing the dismissal was.

overall structure is good. the piece does what Techdirt does well: walks through the actual document, quotes liberally, and doesn’t pretend the “win” is bigger than it is.

You’ll note that it also calls out its own weak ending, just like I did. It is kind of wild to see the AI call out its own weaknesses, while making you wonder—if that’s the case—why did it not catch those earlier and fix them? And that then makes you wonder if it’s just coming up with a critique for the sake of giving one (though, that ending really is weak).

The other thing I’ll note is, again, this actually was still a fair bit of work. It was less than writing the whole thing myself, but even just writing out the prompt itself took time, and this piece would still need a fair bit of editing anyway for publication which would probably take away any time benefit.

Overall, though, you can see how the technology is certainly getting better. I still don’t think it can write as well as I do, but there are some pretty good bits in there.

Once again, this tech remains quite useful as a tool to assist people with their work. But it’s not really good at replacing your work. Indeed, if I asked the AI to write articles for Techdirt, I’d probably spend just as much time rewriting/fixing it as I would just writing the original in the first place. It still provides me very good feedback (on this article that you’re reading now, for example, the AI editor warned me that my original ending was pretty weak, and suggested I add a paragraph talking more about the conclusions which, uh, is what I’m now doing here).

I honestly think the biggest struggle with AI over the next year or so is going to be between the people who insist it can totally replace humans, leading to shoddy and problematic work, and the smaller group of people who use it as a tool to assist them in doing their own work better. The problems come in when people overestimate its ability to do the former, while underestimating its ability to do the latter.

Filed Under: ai, prompting, writing

Companies: techdirt

from the one-flu-over-the-cuckoo’s-nest dept

Dr. Vinay Prasad is currently the FDA’s top vaccine regulator. He’s also one of many medical goons hand-picked by RFK Jr. to help lead his decidedly anti-vaxxer movement. In fact, the last time we discussed Prasad, it was over his selective censorship attempts at avoiding public criticism for his anti-vaxxer nonsense. If you show clips of Prasad spewing his anti-vaxxer views to critique them, he’ll have your YouTube channel axed. If you show those same clips to praise his nonsense, you get to continue on unmolested.

He’s an asshat, in other words. An anti-science, anti-medicine asshat. And he’s also someone who is unilaterally keeping us from making progress on vaccines, apparently out of pure joy in exercising such power.

Moderna is producing a new influenza vaccine, this one utilizing mRNA technology, a la the COVID vaccine. Moderna sent an application to the FDA for a review of the vaccine it has produced, as well as the data from the trials the company conducted to demonstrate its efficacy. We learned last week that the FDA flatly refused to review any of this data.

In a news release late Tuesday, Moderna said it was blindsided by the FDA’s refusal, which the FDA cited as being due to the design of the company’s Phase 3 trial for its mRNA flu vaccine, dubbed mRNA-1010. Specifically, the FDA’s rejection was over the comparator vaccine Moderna used.

In the trial, which enrolled nearly 41,000 participants and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, Moderna compared the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1010 to licensed standard-dose influenza vaccines, including Fluarix, made by GlaxoSmithKline. The trial found that mRNA-1010 was superior to the comparators.

Advertisement

Moderna said the FDA reviewed and accepted its trial design on at least two occasions (in April 2024 and again in August 2025) before it applied for approval of mRNA-1010. It also noted that Fluarix has been used as a comparator vaccine in previous flu vaccine trials, which tested vaccines that went on to earn approval.

This looks for all the world like Moderna did what it was supposed to do in getting the proper sign-offs from the FDA to conduct its trials. Prasad himself sent the refusal notice to Moderna, however, and cited within it that the trials Moderna conducted, which were signed off on by the FDA, were not appropriate. The letter didn’t bother to indicate why.

But in a letter dated February 3, Vinay Prasad, the FDA’s top vaccine regulator under the Trump administration, informed Moderna that the agency does not consider the trial “adequate and well-controlled” because the comparator vaccine “does not reflect the best-available standard of care.”

In its news release, Moderna noted that neither the FDA’s regulation nor its guidance to industry makes any reference to a requirement of the “best-available standard of care” in comparators.

Everyone at Moderna was understandably confused. The company has already reached out asking to meet with the FDA, ostensibly to sit down in a conference room with them, look them in the eye, and ask “wut?”.

The answer is unlikely to be satisfying. And it should be quite alarming to the rest of us. That’s because the rejection of a review of all of this data reportedly came from Prasad and Prasad alone, over the objections of his own scientists at the FDA.

Vinay Prasad, the Trump administration’s top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, single-handedly decided to refuse to review Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine, overruling agency scientists, according to reports from Stat News and The Wall Street Journal.

Stat was first to report, based on unnamed FDA sources, that a team of career scientists at the agency was ready to review the vaccine and that David Kaslow, a top career official who reviews vaccines, even wrote a memo objecting to Prasad’s rejection. The memo reportedly included a detailed explanation of why the review should proceed.

According to those same sources, Prasad’s reason for refusing to review Moderna’s vaccine makes little sense. The story goes like this. As Moderna was seeking guidance for its trials for the vaccine, it chose a currently licensed flu vaccine against which to compare its own vaccine. At one point, the FDA suggested a different comparative vaccine be used. Moderna declined that suggestion and moved forward with the comparative vaccine it originally chose. Despite that difference the FDA reviewed the company’s plans for its trial on several occasions and at no point suggested its choices were a show-stopper.

That’s it. That’s the whole thing. Prasad is claiming that the choice Moderna made for a comparative vaccine, for which the company received only mild feedback from the FDA, is why the FDA is refusing to review this mRNA flu vaccine entirely.

Because that reasoning is almost certainly bullshit. As evidence of that, these same sources from within the FDA offered up this:

This wasn’t enough for Prasad, who, according to the Journal’s sources, told FDA staff that he wants to send more such refusal letters that appear to blindside drug developers. The review staff apparently pushed back, noting that such moves break with the agency’s practices and could open it up to being sued. Prasad reportedly dismissed concern over possible litigation. Trump’s FDA Commissioner Marty Makary seemed similarly unconcerned, suggesting on Fox News that Moderna’s trial may be “unethical.”

The explanation here is remarkably simple. This current government is being run by anti-vaxxers. And these anti-vaxxers are particularly anti-vaxxer-y about mRNA vaccines. And so folks like Prasad are throwing up every roadblock they can dream up to make it as difficult as possible to get new vaccines utilizing new technology approved. Or, as in this case, even reviewed.

Now, if that reads like the opposite of scientific progress to you, give yourself a gold star, because you’re right. Thomas Jefferson once said “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just” when, hypocritically, discussing slavery in America. I think we should tremble for our country as well when I reflect that we are getting sicker as a nation, given that we have morons at the helm of the nation’s health.

Filed Under: fda, flu, flu vaccine, health & human services, mrna, rfk jr., science, vaccines, vinay prasad

Companies: moderna

A lot of hacks get inspired by science fiction. When that inspiration is taken from the boob tube or the silver screen, the visual design is largely taken care of by the prop department. If, on the other hand, one seeks inspiration from the written word– like [Math Campbell] did for his smart pocket watch inspired by The Diamond Age— the visuals are much more up to the individual hacker. Though no nanotechnology was involved in its creation, we think [Math] nailed the Victorian High-Tech vibe of [Neil Stephenson]’s cult classic.

The build itself is fairly simple: [Math] started with a Waveshare dev board that got him the 1.75″ round touch display, along with an ESP32-S3 and niceties such as a six-axis IMU, an RTC, microphone, speaker, and micro SD card reader. That’s quite the pocket watch! The current firmware, which is available on GitHub, focuses on the obvious use case of a very stylish watch, as well as weather and tidal display. Aside from the dev board, [Math] needed only to supply a battery and a case.

[Math] designed the case for the watch himself in Fusion360 before sending it off to be 3D printed in stainless steel. That might not be molecular-scale manufacturing like in the book, but it’s still amazing you can just do that. Ironically, [Math] is a silversmith and will be recreating the final version of the watch case in sterling silver by hand. We’d be tempted to include a door–making it a “hunter’s case” in pocket watch lingo–to protect that amoled display, but far be it for us to tell an artist how to do his work. If you’re not a silversmith, [Math] has stated his intent to add STLs to the GitHub repo, though they aren’t yet present at time of writing.

We’ve featured smart pocket watches before, some with more modern aesthetics. Of course a watch doesn’t have to be smart to grace these pages.

Thanks to [Math Campbell] for the tip! If you’ve got time on your hands after ticking done on a project, send us a tip and watch for it to appear here.

If you’ve ever dreamed of talking with your car, Apple may have good news for you. Within the latest CarPlay developer guide is support for “voice-based conversational apps,” a sign that Apple could be about to open the doors to AI chatbot apps like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude right on your dashboard.

The guidelines indicate that AI companies like Google or OpenAI will need to create an interface that shows the conversational AI is listening in CarPlay, and then “appropriately respond to questions or requests and perform actions.”

Advertisement

Support is expected to arrive in March with the release of iOS 26.4, which is currently in beta. Companies that want to participate will have to jump through all the usual Apple hoops to qualify for CarPlay.

An Apple representative didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

How will talking to AI while driving work?

Apple has limited what apps work with CarPlay, partially to help keep drivers focused and undistracted. Siri commands were enabled under certain circumstances, but that was all.

With iOS 26.4 and the new conversational AI support, drivers could potentially have more in-depth conversations, but with a few significant limitations. First, Apple won’t be enabling wake words, meaning drivers will have to use their dashboard controls to open the AI app before they start talking.

CarPlay apps must also be designed for “voice interaction in the driving environment,” and can’t show text or images in response to your questions, unlike your usual use of AI chatbots.

Also, Apple makes it clear that these apps won’t be able to control your vehicle, your iPhone or related devices. So you’re limited to the basic chatbot conversation, which could let you brainstorm ideas for dinner, vent about your work day or ponder the great questions of the universe. Just don’t ask for home security advice and never use them for therapy, medical diagnoses, financial advice, tax planning and more. 

And always double-check that and AI chatbot hasn’t hallucinated while giving you information it says is true.

[James]’ Mechanical Organ of Dutch origin has been around longer than he has, but thanks to being rebuilt over the years and lovingly cared for, it delivers its unique performances just as well as it did back in the day. Even better, we’re treated to a good look at how it works.

The organ produces music by playing notes on embedded instruments, which are themselves operated by air pressure, with note arrangements read off what amounts to a very long punch card. [James] gives a great tour of this fantastic machine, so check it out in the video embedded below along with a couple of its performances.

The machine is mobile and entirely self-contained. It would be wheeled out to a venue, where it would play music as long as one could keep cranking the main wheel and the perforated cardboard book containing the chosen musical arrangement hasn’t reached its end. As perforations in the card scroll by inside the machine, each hole triggers valves that operate pipes, percussion hits, and even operate animatronic figures.

The air pressure needed to do all this comes from a reservoir fed by two bellows operated by continuous rotation of a large wheel, a job that requires a fair bit of effort. Turning that crank would likely have been the responsibility of the lowest-ranking person within reach. Today, the preferred method is a belt drive and electric motor.

The perforated cardboard arrangements mean that the machine is just as programmable today as it ever was, and happily plays classics as easily as Lady Gaga, Daft Punk, and Queen. [James] has an enormous library of music, so take a moment to listen to it play “Night Fever” by the Bee Gees and Daft Punk’s “Get Lucky”.

One interesting tidbit [James] shares is that there is a bit of artistry and skill involved in arranging music for the machine. Some instruments play immediately when triggered (such as the pipes) while others trigger after a delay (like percussion), so one needs to take all this into account when punching the cardboard. There’s a bit more info on [James]’ website about his machine and its history.

In addition to being a fascinating piece of musical and mechanical history, it is another example of just how effective of a technology punched card was. Many of us might think of early computing or even music when we think of punched cards, but the original use was in running looms and knitting machines.

Thanks [Keith Olson] for the tip!

TERG scientists also developed a different 3D-implant innovation to heal spinal injuries last year.

Researchers from the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences have developed a new 3D implant solution that helps heal spinal cord injuries.

Their study, published in the journal Bioactive Materials, shows how a 3D implant designed to copy the structure and stiffness of the spinal cord – combined with tiny, growth-promoting particles engineered to carry RNA – can help regrow nerve cells.

The study was led by researchers at RCSI’s Tissue Engineering Research Group (TERG) and Amber, the Research Ireland Centre based in Trinity College Dublin.

It was supported by the Irish Rugby Football Union Charitable Trust and Research Ireland, with additional funding from the UK’s Anatomical Society and the Irish Health Research Board.

Spinal cord injuries can often result in permanent paralysis caused by damaged neurons in the central nervous system that have a very limited capacity to regrow. According to RCSI, while implants can provide physical support at the site of the injury, nerve cells generally face molecular barriers that prevent regrowth.

RCSI scientists are trying to overcome this with a multifunctional implant that supports regenerating tissue while also delivering RNA-based signals that encourage neurons to switch their growth mechanisms back on. These signals target and silence a gene called PTEN that suppresses neuron regrowth after injury.

“We’ve created an environment that both physically and biologically re-enhances the regenerative capacity of injured neurons, which is a key requirement for restoring function after spinal cord injury,” said Prof Fergal O’Brien, the deputy vice-chancellor for research and innovation at RCSI.

“In laboratory models of spinal cord injury, neurons exposed to the RNA-activated implant showed significantly enhanced growth,” he added. O’Brien is a professor of bioengineering and regenerative medicine, and the head of TERG.

Dr Tara McGuire, who carried out the research as a PhD student in TERG, added: “While this study focused on laboratory models, the next steps will to be to test the approach in vivo and explore how RNA-activated biomaterials could help bridge damaged spinal cord tissue and restore lost connections.”

TERG scientists came up with a different innovation to heal spinal injuries last year, integrating nanomaterials into a soft, gel-like structure to stimulate neuron and stem cell growth.

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Ford is overhauling how it designs electric vehicles, shrinking battery packs and dramatically reducing wiring in an effort to bring EV prices closer to those of traditional gasoline-powered cars. The strategy marks a major shift in how the automaker approaches electrification, focusing less on maximizing battery size and more on improving overall efficiency and cost structure.

A New EV Platform Focused on Efficiency

For years, automakers have chased longer driving range by installing larger batteries. But battery packs can account for up to 40% of an EV’s cost and a significant portion of its weight. Ford believes simply adding more battery capacity is not the answer to making electric vehicles affordable for mainstream buyers.

Instead, the company is developing a new Universal Electric Vehicle (UEV) platform that prioritizes efficiency at every level. Engineers are cutting thousands of feet of wiring, reducing parts count, and simplifying electrical architecture. In some cases, Ford has reduced wiring length by roughly 4,000 feet, trimming weight and material costs in the process.

The company is also moving toward zonal electrical systems and 48-volt architectures, consolidating components and improving energy management. By improving aerodynamics and reducing overall vehicle weight, Ford says it can maintain competitive range even with smaller battery packs.

Ford’s move comes at a critical time

While EV adoption is growing, high upfront costs remain one of the biggest barriers to mass-market acceptance. Many consumers are hesitant to pay a premium over gasoline vehicles, especially when interest rates and economic uncertainty weigh on purchasing decisions.

By shrinking batteries and reducing manufacturing complexity, Ford aims to lower sticker prices without sacrificing performance or usability. The company has publicly discussed targeting a mid-size electric pickup starting around $30,000 – a price point that would put it in direct competition with traditional gas-powered trucks.

This strategy could help close the cost gap between EVs and internal combustion vehicles, accelerating adoption without relying heavily on government incentives. Smaller batteries also mean lighter vehicles, which can improve efficiency and handling while reducing strain on supply chains for critical battery materials.

For consumers, Ford’s approach could translate into more affordable electric vehicles that still deliver practical range and everyday usability. Instead of chasing 400-mile battery capacities that many drivers rarely need, Ford is focusing on optimizing efficiency so that smaller packs go further.

That means drivers could see EVs priced closer to comparable gas vehicles while still benefiting from lower fuel and maintenance costs over time. Reduced complexity may also improve long-term reliability and simplify repairs.

In short, the shift is about delivering value – not just range numbers

Ford plans to introduce its first vehicles built on the new UEV platform in 2027, beginning with a mid-size electric pickup. Additional models across different segments are expected to follow.

If successful, this engineering rethink could reshape how the industry approaches EV design. Rather than competing on ever-larger batteries, automakers may pivot toward smarter architecture, weight reduction, and system simplification as the path to affordability.

For Ford, the message is clear: the future of electric vehicles may not be bigger – it may be leaner, lighter, and significantly less expensive.