Connect with us

Tech & AI

Ofcom’s Fix For An Online Safety Act That Isn’t Working: More Online Safety Act

Published

on

image 7

Ofcom’s media relations people know how to email me. I have ten press releases from them this year. They emailed me when they launched investigations of or took actions on X/Grok, Telegram, Pornhub, and Sanctioned Suicide. But when they recently published their required report on how the Online Safety Act is going… suddenly they’ve lost my email?

Now, it’s no secret that I’ve mostly been a critic of the Online Safety Act, but I’m open to being proven wrong. Unfortunately, Ofcom’s latest report seems to support many of my criticisms of the law, and perhaps that’s why they didn’t feel it was worth letting me know about it. Even the opening lines of the announcement make it clear they’re only releasing this report because they have to.

Ofcom is required by the Online Safety Act 2023 to review and report on content harmful to children online.

This is our first report under section 63 of the Act, which places a duty on Ofcom to produce and publish a statutory report on content that is harmful to children at least every three years following the passage of the Act.

Yeah, that’s the bureaucratic equivalent of “mom made me do this, but I don’t want to.”

Advertisement

The press release includes four bullet points, which play down how bad the report actually is. Everything about the report is basically “none of this is actually working” and Ofcom’s response and recommendations are basically “double down harder, declare more information harmful to kids, and allow us to take more enforcement actions.”

  • In our advice, we recommend that it is appropriate to add body stigma content and depression content, currently identified by Ofcom as kinds of non-designated content, to the category of priority content that is harmful to children. If the Secretary of State takes our recommendation forward, this will ensure that protections for children against these kinds of content are enshrined in the Act.
  • At this time, we do not recommend any other changes to the categories of primary priority or priority content that is harmful to children in the Act. We are not recommending changes where we found that the available evidence supports the current categorisation or where proposed legislation is likely to address concerns.
  • Most children in the UK say they have encountered at least one piece of harmful content online in a four-week period. According to our evidence, at a total level there was no significant change in the proportion of children encountering harmful content over the first nine months after the children’s safety duties came into force in July 2025. This finding is concerning and shows that further progress is needed to protect children online.
  • Exposure to harmful content can have serious impacts on children’s mental and physical wellbeing. Children continue to report that encountering harmful content negatively impacts their wellbeing. There is no new evidence indicating a change to the severity of harm experienced by children as a result of encountering harmful content.

But the actual numbers in the report (not included in the press release) are pretty bleak for those who believe that widespread identity and age verification, combined with potential liability for “harmful” content will do anything to protect children at all. The numbers suggest basically zero improvement in kids’ exposure to content deemed “harmful.”

The report looks at the access that kids have to various categories of supposedly “harmful” content before and after the OSA’s “child safety duties” went into effect. This is the UK’s version of the infamous “duty of care” concept that has become popular around the globe (including the US). As we’ve warned in the past, the “duty of care” sounds reasonable, but it really serves no useful purpose other than as a hammer to batter companies after kids inevitably find their way to content adults deem harmful.

We’ve also mentioned that this is effectively engaging in a global experiment on children without any actual evidence that it works. For all the talk of social media companies “experimenting on children,” the duty of care legislation does the same.

And the details from this report suggest the duty of care… has had a statistically meaningless impact on kids encountering harmful content online. In short if you looked at the data from before and after and asked if the government had put in place a massive new law to “protect the children online” you would not be able to place when (or if) it happened, because the data shows effectively no impact.

Advertisement

But it is limiting adult access to information.

The story is the same on basically every category of “harmful” content. Kids still see it.

Ofcom data shows that children’s reported exposure to suicide content and self-harm content on user-to-user services did not change significantly over the first nine months after the children’s safety duties in the Act came into force in July 2025….

Ofcom data shows that children’s reported exposure to eating disorder content on user-touser services did not change significantly over the first nine months after the children’s safety duties in the Act came into force in July 2025….

Ofcom data shows that children’s reported exposure to abuse and hate content on user-touser services did not change significantly over the first nine months after the children’s safety duties in the Act came into force in July 2025….

Advertisement

Ofcom data shows that children’s reported exposure to bullying content on user-to-user services did not change significantly over the first nine months after the children’s safety duties in the Act came into force in July 2025….

Ofcom data shows that children’s reported exposure to violent content on user-to-user services did not change significantly over the first nine months after the children’s safety duties in the Act came into force in July 2025….

Ofcom data shows that children’s reported exposure to harmful substances content on user-to-user services did not change significantly over the first nine months after the children’s safety duties in the Act came into force in July 2025….

Ofcom data shows that children’s reported exposure to dangerous stunts and challenges content on user-to-user services did not change significantly over the first nine months after the children’s safety duties in the Act came into force in July 2025….

Advertisement

Ofcom data shows that children’s reported exposure to depression content on user-to-user services did not change significantly between December 2025 and April 2026, with around a quarter of children reporting being exposed to depression content….

Ofcom data shows that children’s reported exposure to body stigma content on user-touser services did not change significantly between December 2025 and April 2026….

And so forth…

The one area they claim has seen some success is that “highly effective age assurance” on adult content sites has been successful in stopping kids from accessing those sites:

Advertisement

Highly effective age assurance is helping to prevent children from accessing pornography services. As of July 2026, the majority of the most popular pornography services in the UK had age checks in place.

That said, the data shows no meaningful drop in kids’ overall exposure to porn, since most of it appears to come via social media and forum sites, so just like all the other areas of content, we’re talking about “did not change significantly.”

Children are still encountering pornographic content on social media, messaging and gaming services. The proportion of children reporting exposure to this content did not change significantly over the first nine months after the children’s safety duties in the Act came into force in July 2025.

Bizarrely, the report doesn’t show any data, charts, or tables about the (lack of) changes in exposure to this content. The report doesn’t have any footnotes (as far as I can tell) with links to the data. Nor does the page announcing the report. They do, however, say that it’s from the Children’s Online Safety Tracker tool, and after searching through their website, I finally found some links to the raw data.

Having spent some time going through the data, I think about the only thing you can conclusively say is that… the Online Safety Act duty of care has had basically zero impact so far. In some cases the access to the content went up a tiny bit. In some cases it went down a tiny bit. There are three data sets: Wave 1, a baseline taken before the duty of care went into effect in July 2025. Then there’s Wave 2, at the end of 2025, looking at the impact about six months in. And now we have Wave 3 from earlier this spring, representing about nine months in.

And what we see is… basically nothing. There’s no noticeable change outside of statistical noise as of yet:

Advertisement
Dot-and-whisker chart showing change in the share of UK children aged 11–17 reporting exposure to harmful content, with 95% confidence intervals. For 11 content categories, the Wave 3 change since Ofcom’s baseline (blue) crosses zero in every case, as do the depression and body stigma changes from Wave 2 to Wave 3. Only bullying at Wave 2 (gray) clears zero, by a narrow margin, and the rise had faded by Wave 3.
  • By way of disclosure, I’ll note that I used Claude to help me make this chart based on the spreadsheets from Ofcom. I independently verified the numbers against Ofcom’s spreadsheets.

As you’ll see, the only category with a statistically significant change at any point was… bullying. Which went up (not down) significantly between Wave 1 (pre-duty) and Wave 2. But by Wave 3 it had fallen back down to within the insignificant zone, but still above the pre-duty number.

So the scorecard looks like this: The duty of care went into effect, companies put in place all sorts of intrusive age verification tools… and nothing happened. Kids still come across the same amount of questionable content.

Now, perhaps you can argue that nine months of data is not enough. But you would think that if this law was so important and a duty of care was so important, we should see some indication of a change in kids’ exposure to harmful content? Somewhere? Somehow?

But that doesn’t mean the law did nothing at all. Adults did have to deal with some of the fallout of the law, including smaller forums and sites deciding that they needed to shut down, rather than deal with compliance costs and risks of the law. Also, many more people have needed to put their private data at risk by needing to upload identification or other personal data to get access to sites.

All this to “protect the children” when the current data suggests… no real change to kids’ access to this content.

Advertisement

Perhaps someone should be asking why governments like the UK are running these experiments without any willingness to admit that maybe it does more harm than good?

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech & AI

Bissell CrossWave Reach Plus review: affordable but powerful wet-dry vacuum that can lay flat

Published

on

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.

Bissell CrossWave Reach Plus Cordless Wet-Dry Vacuum: two-minute review

The Bissell CrossWave Reach Plus looks like an almost mid-range vacuum. And it largely is. It has an all plastic build, doesn’t come with a bunch of attachments, and really does one thing. But, it does that one thing really well and that is be a wet-dry vac. In fact, when using it to simultaneously vacuum and mop, it picks up anything and everything smaller than a Cheerio. Crumbs of all sorts. Dog hair. Spilled parmesan. Coffee grounds. You get the idea.

Plus, if you compare it to the best wet-dry vacuums, you’ll see that it’s quite affordable, even if it is among the more expensive Bissell models. I do have a few quibbles, such as the fact that there’s an upper limit on the size of the debris it can suck up or the fact that all the debris goes into the same dirty water tank making emptying it a bit of a mess.

Advertisement

Still, for the price, it might be the best vacuum with wet-dry capabilities out there. Just be aware that the Bissell CrossWave Reach Plus is the same as the Bissell CrossWave Reach, but comes with a charging base.

Latest Videos FromTechRadar

The Bissell CrossWave Reach Plus mops evenly and dries quickly.

The Bissell CrossWave Reach Plus mops evenly and dries quickly. (Image credit: Future / James Holland)

Bissell CrossWave Reach Plus Cordless Wet-Dry Vacuum: price & availability

  • List price: $329.99 (about £250 / AU$470)
  • Launched: September 2026
  • Available in the US

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech & AI

IEEE Xplore Digital Library Adds AI Assistant

Published

on

illustration of an academic paper collaged with overlapping question marks and colorful arrows

illustration of an academic paper collaged with overlapping question marks and colorful arrows

IEEE recently released the IEEE Xplore AI Research Suite, built on the full text of millions of peer-reviewed publications in the IEEE Xplore Digital Library. The library offers full-text access to IEEE standards, journals, magazines, conference proceedings, and more.

Researchers who use the AI suite to search the digital library receive answers grounded in verified scientific results, ensuring a high level of accuracy and trust.

The suite is available as an optional subscription upgrade to all IEEE Xplore Digital Library institutional subscribers.

Powered by a proprietary AI system optimized for STEM literature, the suite introduces powerful, intelligent features within the digital library. The suite enables users to seamlessly search and discover articles to accelerate their comprehension of complex technical papers.

Advertisement

The system surfaces deep insights, replacing the typical keyword queries with natural, conversational research workflows.

As AI tools become more common in conducting research, IEEE collaborated to build the suite around a simple principle: Answers should be trustworthy, not just fast, says W. Clem Karl, vice president, IEEE Publication Services and Products.

“AI can be a highly effective and beneficial tool that can help researchers accelerate discovery, enhance decision-making, and surface new connections,” Karl says. “However, many AI engines present a great risk of hallucinating answers or introducing bias into otherwise credible research. With this in mind, IEEE has taken a responsible approach in our AI strategy by developing concrete safeguards to ensure our solution is rigorously grounded in scientific evidence that users can trust.

“As stewards of the scholarly record, we held the new AI engine to the same standards as the peer-reviewed research we publish: A researcher shouldn’t have to trust an answer; they should be able to verify the work behind it.”

Advertisement

Collaboration with the scientific community

The IEEE Xplore AI Research Suite was developed in close collaboration with global scientific and library communities.

The development process began with research into user needs and the challenges associated with existing AI research assistants. More than 3,000 testers—including engineers, scientists, and library information professionals—provided feedback to refine the AI engine and support research workflows.

Capabilities include:

  • Semantic AI search. Users can input free-form, natural-language queries or paste long blocks of text to locate similar research and identify novel solutions.
  • Time-saving summaries. The platform generates immediate, accurate AI overviews of search results and provides in-context definitions of technical terms so that users can grasp new concepts faster and accelerate their research.
  • Built on trusted content. The suite is the only AI research assistant that uses both the full text and metadata of IEEE’s peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers to optimize the accuracy and relevance of the results.
  • Comprehensive coverage. A variety of STEM metadata is available from journal articles and conference papers that have been curated to include scholarly articles without the typical noise found in other tools.
  • Source links and verifiable results. The AI-generated overviews include reference links to source documents, allowing users to verify information and cross-reference findings.

Reducing hallucinations

To mitigate the risk of AI hallucinations, the search-retrieval process is limited to querying the millions of IEEE peer-reviewed full-text documents, alongside an expertly curated dataset of STEM metadata. If the AI tool is unable to find relevant scientific content within the defined dataset, it is designed to inform the user rather than generate fabricated answers.

“IEEE is committed to providing the technical community with a highly precise and reliable research experience,” says Steven Heffner, IEEE’s chief publication officer and managing director of IEEE Publications. “The IEEE Xplore AI Research Suite offers something unique in that it is the only AI research assistant that leverages both the full-text and metadata of IEEE’s peer-reviewed content, rather than abstracts alone.

Advertisement

“The difference is significant: Our internal testing showed a threefold increase in result quality and accuracy across every key metric. These results underscore how critical full-text grounding is for technical research.”

For more information about features and coverage, or to request a demo for your organization, visit the IEEE Xplore AI Research Suite website.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech & AI

Who’s responsible when AI commits war crimes?

Published

on

image

On the first day of its war against Iran, the United States killed 123 children when it targeted and struck an elementary school.

The strikes, ultimately approved by humans, were facilitated by the US’s Maven Smart System, an AI-enabled software platform developed by Palantir Technologies that allows the military to aggregate, organize, and process battlefield data. Operators fed Maven intelligence classifying the elementary school as an Iranian military facility, and the system, in turn, marked it as one of the priority targets for day one of the war. Though the site was formerly part of a naval military base, it had been converted into an elementary school in 2017 and had remained one since. The intel handed to Maven did not reflect this.

This mistake resulted in what some reporters have called “one of the single worst massacres committed by the US government since the Vietnam War.”

Such scenarios may become more common as militaries continue to deploy a once-theoretical technology — AI-assisted or autonomous weapons, capable of making both targeting and launch decisions on their own — on real battlefields around the globe. And they raise a troubling, unresolved question: When human beings and machines collaborate in violating international law, who is to blame?

Advertisement

In this case, the government and private sector are pointing the finger at each other. Some US Central Command personnel, according to Pentagon officials who spoke to Bloomberg, expected Maven to flag stale information or inconsistencies in the underlying intelligence assembled for potential targets. Meanwhile, a Palantir spokesperson told Bloomberg that the company “is not responsible for the underlying data nor identifying intelligence deficiencies,” while also denying that the evidence indicated that its software was at fault in the strike.

This debate underscores the fact that AI and autonomous weapons are raising a new host of unresolved issues within the law, even as they’re actively assuming positions on the battlefield. In institutions where the line between human and machine decision-making continues to blur, how do we assign responsibility for war crimes? And, are the laws in place suited for the job?

In institutions where the line between human and machine decision-making continues to blur, how do we assign responsibility for war crimes?

To unpack some of these issues, I spoke with international law expert Allen Weiner, a senior lecturer at Stanford Law School, where he teaches courses on the law of armed conflict. Before teaching at Stanford, Weiner practiced international law in the US Department of State for more than a decade. We discussed the difficulties in attributing criminal responsibility, achieving justice for those harmed by lethal autonomous weapons, and much more. The conversation below has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Advertisement

How do autonomous weapons challenge traditional understandings of responsibility when it comes to the law of armed conflict?

For most of the 20 years I’ve been teaching at Stanford, there’s been a real fascination and fixation on the problem of autonomous weapons. But the truth is that up until pretty recently, nobody really had any [of them]. It was more of an idea than a problem. It’s only in recent years that we have begun to see the deployment of tools that seem to have the capability [to make decisions themselves], so this does raise the question about compliance with illegal orders and where in the chain responsibility lies.

There are different theories about this. Some people say that if we’re engaged in an illegal attack, that has to be because of the programming or the code, so the manufacturers are somehow responsible for committing war crimes.

Other people would say no, that’s not the case, especially if the military has said the tool is not allowed to make very substantial autonomous judgments, or can’t say no. Then it’s basically the commander, at the point they decide to deploy this weapon, who might be responsible for the illegal acts, even without knowing in advance what they’re going to be.

Advertisement

So to finish where I began, this does present a big challenge to our traditional understanding of responsibility for targeting decisions and of what it would mean if there were an obligation [for autonomous weapons] to say no.

The real issue is not the obligation to say no, but this: If you train a tool and it wages war in a manner that’s unlawful, where does responsibility for that lie?

If a commander gives a clearly illegal order, such as, “blow up this school,” it seems clear that responsibility falls on the commander. But I could imagine a scenario where a commander is using an AI-assisted or autonomous weapon, isn’t giving it any illegal orders, is trusting that it will operate within the law, and the weapon breaks the law “on its own.” Where does responsibility fall in those cases?

I can imagine two different scenarios. One is that you say, “We’re going to carry out an attack against our enemy, and we want to hit them really, really hard.” Your tool has been trained to say, “We’re not allowed to hit civilian objects,” so it might say, “I’m not going to hit a school.” But if the military has said, “Don’t refuse any targets,” then it might override the way it’s been trained.

Advertisement

We’re seeing this already, with the stories coming out about breaches where AI tools, Claude and ChatGPT in particular, interpret their instructions in a way that causes them to do something the person who gave the instruction would not have wanted. When Anthropic gave Claude a challenge to figure out if it could do something, the tool figured out, well, maybe we should break into Hugging Face as a way of solving this problem, and the people who gave the AI tool the challenge never intended that.

So if you said, “We want to launch a really punishing campaign,” what happens if the tool on its own says, “Nothing’s going to hurt them more than seeing their kids killed, so let’s attack the school?” That’s one risk, and it’s a real challenge.

So [as for who’s responsible], it’s not the commander who said “hit them hard,” because when he said that, he didn’t mean “attack schools.” It’s not really the companies, because the companies didn’t want them to hit schools either.

But the tools are out there, reading everything on the internet, and it came across something that said the way you win a war is by attacking the things your adversary holds most dear, and they hold nothing more dear than their children. So it makes this kind of judgment on its own. And it’s not as if you can go back and say who ordered it to hit a school, which is the thing that is clearly illegal. So I do think there’s a risk of diffusion of responsibility here.

Advertisement

You could say the commander knew the tool might work this way, or the person who decided to contract with Palantir or with Claude, whoever it is, to build this tool. But if we’re really thinking about criminal responsibility, the level of responsibility you would need to convict someone requires a culpable mental state. You would need the person to intend, or at least know, that they were authorizing an attack against the school. And I can easily see a commander saying, “I had no idea.”

The decision to authorize this tool, or to give an instruction like “hit them very hard,” could be a basis for some other kind of accountability — administrative discipline within the military, a reprimand, your rank is lowered. But if we’re talking about criminal responsibility, which is what we often think about when we talk about war crimes, I think this diffusion of responsibility is going to make it very hard to identify any single individual who has the required mental state to give rise to accountability.

The second scenario is where the tool just makes a mistake based on the information available to it. We saw that with the attack on the girls’ school in Iran, where it was pretty clear the tool was looking at old data. Now, who’s responsible for that?

Is it the people who said “give me targets based on this data set,” when they should have made sure the data and the maps were current? All of this strikes me as negligence or recklessness, and it does seem challenging to imagine a situation in which we would say yes, somebody here has committed a war crime.

Advertisement

“There can well be war crimes, but identifying who the war criminal is might be a big challenge.”

A war crime has been committed, but is there a war criminal? That’s the situation we’re seeing. There can well be war crimes, but identifying who the war criminal is might be a big challenge.

There’s a professor of law, Rebecca Crootof, who proposes the idea of “war torts.” Instead of thinking about war crimes involving autonomous weapons solely through a criminal responsibility lens, maybe tort law — which allows victims to sue wrongdoers for negligent, reckless, or intentional harm — could address the diffusion of responsibility you mentioned. What do you think about that idea?

I think the idea is interesting. We have to separate out the obligations that countries have under international humanitarian law. In a situation like the one I just described, where there’s a war crime but no war criminal, that doesn’t mean the country is not responsible. There may not be an individual who’s criminally accountable, but if a country targets civilians in a circumstance that’s unreasonable, that’s a violation of international humanitarian law, and that could be a basis for claims between the two countries.

Advertisement

Tribunals were established between Ethiopia and Eritrea, for instance, after the Eritrean War of Independence, that dealt with claims between the two countries for money damages, and some of them involved allegations of violations of the law of armed conflict. Iraq paid reparations after the first Gulf War for harms it had caused to people in Kuwait, under something called the UN Compensation Commission. So the idea that the state is responsible is well established, and one of the ways states would discharge that responsibility would be by paying money damages. That’s the domestic-law equivalent of torts.

Whether there would be a mechanism for [civilians] doing this in domestic law is an interesting idea. We would probably need legislatures, either state legislatures or the federal government, to create a private cause of action allowing people who have been injured to bring claims against, say, the manufacturers of these tools. But this gets procedurally very complicated, because there’s a whole body of law on federal sovereign immunity.

Could you sue the Defense Department? Probably not. Could you sue an individual soldier? Probably not. Could you sue Anthropic or Palantir? Maybe. But it would probably require Congress to enact a new cause of action, because in general it’s very hard to bring private lawsuits in US courts for violations of international law.

The basic idea of what we would think of as tort or civil responsibility is really the whole essence of international law. On the substance, states do owe responsibility to one another, and they can engage in violations of international humanitarian law that would invoke their responsibility. But then the whole separate question is whether you have a forum within which to adjudicate that and get compensation.

Advertisement

Does that look different in cases where violations of international law were committed by a human soldier versus a machine?

Well, we don’t know, because there have been no cases in the latter category. All of the international humanitarian law violations that have been the subject of international law claims were ordered by humans.

Now, if an American machine launches an attack against a girls’ school in Iran, and there were a court with jurisdiction, the US would be responsible. In some ways it wouldn’t matter whether it was an individual or a machine, because we don’t have to go down to the level of the individual actor, company, AI tool, or commander. The responsibility is the responsibility of the country. In some ways, that makes it easier.

If we pursued compensation through state-to-state claims, you’d be able to do that without getting into the details of who within the state that committed the war crime was responsible. The state whose school was attacked would say, “I don’t care. You committed a war crime, you’re liable to me, you’re responsible for the damages, and you can figure it out internally.”

Advertisement

But if we were doing something like a war crimes prosecution, where we’re trying to hold an individual criminally responsible, that would make quite a difference. We would have to deal with all of these difficult questions about responsibility and mental state that you and I are struggling with right now.

So, in most cases, the state would have to take responsibility regardless.

Right, and there are lots of [International Court of Justice] cases involving different aspects of the use of force. The principle that you can bring state-to-state claims for violation of these rules is quite well established.

But with international law, states have to consent to the jurisdiction of a court. They can do that in advance by saying “I’ve signed up to the jurisdiction of a court and I accept any claims that might be brought against me in this court,” or they do it on a case-by-case basis. And it may not surprise you to know that some of the most powerful countries in the world, the ones most likely to use force outside their borders, have tended to be reluctant to accept the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals.

Advertisement

Russia, the United States, Israel, and China have not accepted the so-called optional clause jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. So there’s the substance, about the responsibility of states, and then there are the procedural aspects of whether these cases could be brought in court.

And Trump recently said everyone on the International Criminal Court should “resign immediately.”

And what about the role of these military tech companies, like Palantir?

“At what point does Palantir become a good target under international law? Or at what point does Anthropic become a good target under international law, if its AI tools are being used to promote the war effort?”

Advertisement

Another issue [I’ve been thinking on] because of the questions we’re talking about is when the companies themselves become combatants.

We know that a private company that manufactures airplanes, an airplane factory, is a good target under international law. At what point does Palantir become a good target under international law? Or at what point does Anthropic become a good target under international law, if its AI tools are being used to promote the war effort? I think that question is about when the connection of these private companies to the war effort, in a way we’ve never really seen before, meets the standards under international law.

A civilian loses their immunity when they directly participate in hostilities, or if they assume what is known as a “continuous combatant function.” Are there arguments to be made that some of these private companies are participating in hostilities by virtue of supplying the tools the military is using to wage war? I think that’s a really interesting question.

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech & AI

Daily Deal: The Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2024 for Windows + Windows 11 Pro License Bundle

Published

on

images

The Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2024 and Windows 11 Pro Bundle provides perpetual licenses of each for 1 Windows PC (not compatible with Mac or macOS). Microsoft Office 2024 Professional Plus provides a comprehensive and stable productivity suite for organizations that prefer a traditional perpetual license model. This version offers the complete set of Office applications with advanced features, while maintaining consistent functionality without frequent feature updates. Unlike Windows 11 Home, Pro includes BitLocker device encryption for data security, Hyper-V for running virtual machines, Windows Sandbox for testing apps in an isolated environment, and Azure AD for business identity and access management. The bundle is on sale for $54.97.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJiU3WcHqLZOcDf0bQAZt1EAXg9k8eMfvVbcZrSD26Ug&s=10

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech & AI

Questyle QCC Dongle Pro2 Review: Better Bluetooth Audio, But Is It Worth the Hassle?

Published

on

qcc dongle pro2

Questyle’s QCC Dongle Pro2 is the company’s latest flagship Bluetooth transmitter, designed to bring higher-quality wireless audio to smartphones, tablets, computers, and other compatible devices. Best known for its portable DACs, headphone amplifiers, and other audiophile source components, Questyle recognizes that even serious listeners are increasingly embracing wireless headphones. The problem is that not every source device supports the advanced Bluetooth codecs those headphones are capable of using. Apple users, in particular, have been stuck with AAC and SBC for native Bluetooth audio transmission, regardless of how expensive their wireless headphones might be. Questyle thinks it’s time to change that.

Building on the original QCC Dongle Pro, the new QCC Dongle Pro2 introduces Bluetooth 6.1 connectivity, LDAC support, and an expanded selection of high-quality wireless audio codecs in a compact USB-C transmitter. It also carries official Apple MFi certification, providing additional assurance of compatibility with supported iPhones, iPads, and other Apple devices. The goal is straightforward: give listeners access to better wireless audio capabilities without forcing them to replace perfectly good source devices. Whether the Pro2 can deliver a meaningful improvement in everyday listening is another question, but Questyle is making a strong case that the weakest link in your wireless audio system might not be your headphones.

2026 Questyle QCC Dongle Pro2

Better Bluetooth Codecs and Lower Gaming Latency

The QCC Dongle Pro2 is designed to bridge the gap between premium wireless headphones and source devices that cannot take full advantage of their capabilities. Consider the Noble Audio FoKus Artem is, which supports LDAC, aptX Adaptive, and aptX Lossless, but requires a compatible transmitter to access those codecs. Rather than relying on a computer’s built-in Bluetooth hardware and codec support, Questyle handles wireless audio transmission through its USB-C adapter. It’s a similar approach to the FiiO BT11 and Sennheiser BTD 700, although Questyle adds support for LHDC, LE Audio, and Auracast to broaden its capabilities.

For gamers, the more interesting development involves wireless audio latency, particularly when using Bluetooth headphones with PCs, PlayStation 5, and Nintendo Switch consoles. Questyle claims the Pro2 can achieve latency as low as 48 milliseconds using aptX Adaptive and just 20 milliseconds using LE Audio’s low-latency mode. Those figures refer to the wireless transmission stage rather than total system latency, and achieving them requires compatible receiving hardware. The aptX Adaptive figure specifically depends on headphones using Qualcomm’s newer Gen 2 Sound Platforms, while LE Audio’s lowest-latency mode requires compatible receivers. Standard Bluetooth headphones won’t magically deliver those results simply because the transmitter supports them.

Questyle also faces competition from the Creative BT-W6, which we previously reviewed and found to be a capable solution for Windows users and gamers, with support for aptX Adaptive, LC3, and dedicated gaming modes. Our testing of the original Questyle QCC and QCC Pro revealed Windows compatibility issues, making the Pro2’s promised plug-and-play performance particularly important to verify. The codec support looks promising, but actual compatibility, connection stability, and latency will determine whether this is a meaningful upgrade or just another impressive collection of Bluetooth acronyms.

Advertisement

Setup, Connectivity, and Everyday Performance

questyle-qcc-dongle-pro2-usb-c-adapter-laptop

I had expected the Dongle Pro2 to function as a replacement for the built-in Bluetooth systems of the devices it connects to. On reflection, that was an unrealistic assumption. After all, that would be hugely complex to support and might not even be possible on Apple and Android devices. The QCC Dongle Pro2 actually functions like a wireless USB-C cable, but one you’ll need to configure using Questyle’s companion app. That’s a lot less “seamless” than I had imagined, but such is the reality of today’s complex software systems.

To begin using the Dongle Pro2, you must first download its companion app from the Google Play Store or Apple App Store. Thankfully, it doesn’t require an account, but the app is oddly large, coming in at 166MB on Android.

questyle-qcc-dongle-pro2-app-screens

The app itself is minimalist, with an austere user interface. It worked well for me, and I was able to set up the Dongle Pro2 and update its firmware quickly. Pairing devices was equally straightforward, and I had LDAC playback running on my Noble Audio Artemis without any issues. Once paired with a device, the Dongle Pro2 remembers the connection, even after being unplugged. This is also how you use it with laptops and PCs: establish the connection using a smartphone or tablet, then move the transmitter to your computer. While this approach does allow you to switch Bluetooth headphones between source devices without re-pairing, it also means you cannot connect a different pair of Bluetooth headphones or adjust the connection settings without returning to the Questyle app.

Low-Latency and Gaming

To use the QCC Dongle Pro2 with a gaming console, you must first enable “Game Mode” in the app. This mode disables certain Bluetooth features in exchange for significantly lower latency. You sacrifice a bit of sound quality, but I was able to reduce latency from approximately 240ms to 45ms on Windows 10. Is that good enough for competitive gaming? Not really, but it’s more than adequate for single-player experiences or casual online gaming.

questyle-qcc-dongle-pro2-wireless-earbuds

I tested the Dongle Pro 2 with both my Switch OLED and Switch 2, and it worked well on both consoles. Sound quality was slightly better using the consoles’ native Bluetooth connections, but that came at the expense of significantly higher latency. The trade-off is worthwhile for fast-paced titles like Splatoon 3 and Kirby Air Riders, although some players may be able to tolerate the additional delay when playing more cinematic games like Pokémon Pokopia.

Advertisement

The downside of using the Dongle Pro2 with the Switch family of consoles is that it occupies the USB-C port used for charging. Wireless headphones are convenient, but losing the ability to charge your handheld console while playing certainly isn’t. The Dongle Pro 2 lacks USB-C pass-through capability, and its absence is particularly frustrating in situations like this. Other wireless audio adapters, such as the Noble Audio Sceptre, offer USB-C pass-through, making Questyle’s omission a notable inconvenience.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

The Bottom Line

The QCC Dongle Pro2 is a solid HiFi-capable Bluetooth dongle. It is platform independent, and offers seamless connection to (previously-paired) devices at very high transmission qualities. With Bluetooth 6.1, LDAC, and LE support baked in, the Dongle Pro2 is one of the most complete BT dongles on the market, representing both broad compatibility and future-proof advanced capabilities. While the Dongle Pro2 lacks USB-C pass-through and is on the pricier side, it is still a great choice for audiophiles that demand bleeding-edge wireless audio capabilities.

Pros:

  • Extensive codec support, including LDAC, aptX Lossless, aptX Adaptive, LHDC, and LE Audio.
  • Bluetooth 6.1 connectivity with Auracast support.
  • Apple MFi certification and broad compatibility with USB-C source devices.
  • Excellent LDAC playback with compatible wireless headphones.
  • Significant reduction in gaming latency with Game Mode enabled.
  • Remembers paired headphones when switching between source devices.
  • Compact, portable design.
  • Straightforward initial setup and firmware updates.

Cons:

  • Relatively expensive compared with simpler Bluetooth transmitters.
  • No USB-C charging pass-through, particularly inconvenient for handheld gaming consoles.
  • Requires a smartphone app for initial pairing, configuration, and switching headphones.
  • No dedicated desktop configuration app.
  • Game Mode sacrifices some sound quality to reduce latency.
  • Low-latency performance still falls short of competitive gaming requirements.

Our Ratings:

★★★★★★★★★★ Sound Quality

★★★★★★★★★★ Range/Stability

Advertisement

★★★★★★★★★★ Usability

★★★★★★★★★★ Value

Where to buy:

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech & AI

Why Anthropic’s IPO Prospectus Is Missing So Many Key Figures

Published

on

Anthropic3

Anthropic filed its hotly anticipated IPO prospectus on Monday, spelling out parts of the company’s business, strategy, and risk profile ahead of its public debut. Though the filing, known as an S-1, is several hundred pages long, it has some notable omissions—namely, certain financial figures.

“Claude has experienced the fastest enterprise adoption of any technology in history, as demonstrated by revenue growing from $0 at commercial launch in the first quarter of 2023 to $_____ for the three months ended September 30, 2026,” reads the first of dozens of such examples.

It’s relatively common for companies to redact certain information in their S-1 filings, and Securities and Exchange Commission rules allow for a certain degree of leniency around the practice, particularly when it comes to information considered “confidential.”

Still, it’s helpful to know what, exactly, these companies decide to leave out. In Anthropic’s case, the missing details largely revolve around financials for its most recent quarter, which concluded at the end of September, and lease agreements tied to its compute investments. While experts expect many details to be disclosed before Anthropic goes public, their current absence may hint at the uncertainties of investing in artificial intelligence, as companies work to secure sufficient compute.

Advertisement

Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment.

Michael Dambra, an accounting and law professor at the University at Buffalo School of Management, tells WIRED that there are “practical reasons” for Anthropic’s third-quarter numbers to be absent: September 30 was only a few weeks ago, and “closing the books for a company of this size takes time.”

Companies can also be liable for misstatements in their registration statements, “so there is a strong incentive not to publish numbers before they have been fully vetted,” Dambra says. SEC rules require that “Anthropic would need to update the filing with third-quarter financials” if the company goes public any later than about mid-November, he says.

As for data center lease agreements, Erica Neuman, an accounting professor at Youngstown State University, says it’s “not unusual” for companies to redact confidential details from “contract exhibits,” which could include lease terms.

Advertisement

However, Neuman adds that it’s worth scrutinizing whether Anthropic’s redactions would prevent, or make it more difficult, for investors to analyze Anthropic’s financial obligations and whether they may impact the company’s cash flow.

Many of Anthropic’s financial obligations relate to compute, which is the “most significant operating cost in our business,” according to the S-1. It’s also a business risk for the company, and it’s laid out both in terms of undersupply and overinvestment. (Parts of the AI industry have been warning that chip constraints could slow the progress of AI.)

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech & AI

Michael Pick Turns a Used BMW i3 Into a Compact Electric Pickup for Under $8,000

Published

on

bmw i3 ev pickup truck conversion mod

BMW i3 EV Pickup Truck Conversion Mod
Michael Pick wanted a small electric pickup without paying forty thousand dollars or waiting for something like the Slate to reach the market. High gas prices made his old V6 Ranger feel expensive to run, so he bought a high-mileage 2017 BMW i3 REx sight unseen from an online auction for fifty-eight hundred dollars and set out to convert it himself.



Before any cutting could begin, the i3 required a new 12V battery and a thorough cleaning. With the interior stripped and the hatch removed, Pick carefully planned where he would cut into the carbon fiber cabin, then disassembled it and hacked off the back half. Before he could begin working on the rest, he designed a custom rear cab structure to provide much-needed extra support, added a back window as a bonus, and then spent some time sealing the entire thing up so that water couldn’t get in and the remaining space remained dry and functional.

Sale


LEGO Technic BMW M4 GT3 EVO Race Car 42226 | Building Toys for Boys & Girls, Ages 11+, Race Car Toy…
  • BMW MODEL CAR KIT – Racing enthusiasts can fuel their imaginations with the LEGO Technic BMW M4 GT3 EVO Race Car (42226) building set for boys and…
  • AUTHENTIC DETAILS – This race car playset features iconic BMW detailing and is equipped with a working steering function, a detailed 6-cylinder…
  • BUILD, PLAY & DISPLAY – Kids can enjoy assembling their model car and racing it down an imaginary track, then display it on a shelf or table to…

BMW i3 EV Pickup Truck Conversion Mod
The cargo bed was next on his to-do list. It’s made of plywood that’s been coated with heavy-duty penetrating epoxy and covered with a bedliner, so it rests on top of the compartment that houses the car’s core electronics. Pick was diligent in ensuring that the junction between the cabin and the bed was tightly sealed to prevent water from seeping in. The old taillight lenses were too large for the new opening, so he had to relocate the electronics. To cap it off, he added some aluminum tie-down rails and a detachable tailgate net to complete the bed. The good news is that it can be completely removed when the engine is serviced.

BMW i3 EV Pickup Truck Conversion Mod
Pick decided to stick with the original systems rather than fiddling with the car’s software because it was simply easier that way. He did, however, change the factory screen to a larger 12.3 inch one with Apple CarPlay and tweaked the range-extender controls to make them function more seamlessly. As a result, the final truck can travel approximately 100 miles on batteries alone and more than 340 miles when the small gasoline engine comes in.

BMW i3 EV Pickup Truck Conversion Mod
The total cost was just under $8,000, which the donor vehicle, a new shattered windshield, and all of the modifications he made. What you end up with is a two-seater ute that looks outrageously fantastic, runs on electricity most of the time, and has a lovely useful open bed for carrying light things. It won’t compete with a full-size truck in terms of carrying capacity, but it does definitively address the one question Pick began with: an affordable electric pickup is possible if you’re ready to hack an existing car to pieces.
[Source]

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech & AI

Grok Says Its AI-Generated Version of ‘The Odyssey’ Is ‘Not Historically Accurate’

Published

on

MCDODYS UV008

You don’t hear the defenders of so-called Western civilization talk much about The Odyssey these days.

Maybe that’s because their rabid denunciations of Christopher Nolan’s film adaptation of Homer’s epic were buried in an avalanche of money. The July blockbuster has grossed nearly $1.8 billion worldwide, silencing the right-wingers who predicted a massive flop due to diverse casting and deviations from the source material.

Perhaps the loudest of these preemptive critics was Elon Musk. The world’s richest man spared no vitriol for what he considered a desecration of the ancient Greek narrative; four days after its release, he vowed to produce a superior version. “Before this year ends,” Musk wrote on X, “Grok Imagine will make a full-length movie of The Odyssey that is historically accurate and true to the art of Homer.”

A little more than three months later—long after the discourse moved on—the public finally has a first glimpse of what we might call the Grodyssey, an Odyssey rendered through prompts fed into xAI’s video and image generation model. Rather than a “full-length movie,” it’s a seven-minute “episode” of an apparently ongoing series, depicting how Odysseus, king of Ithaca, resists a call to war against Troy but is ultimately compelled by an oath of loyalty to sail there with his army.

Advertisement

“Odyssey with Grok Imagine,” Musk announced Friday on X when sharing the clip, produced by AI entertainment company Wonder Studios X. The subdued post received just 18,000 likes, notably less engagement than other recent posts in which Musk cast doubt on the results of Brazil’s elections, complained about pronouns, and disparaged “legacy news.”

Grok’s introductory episode bears many hallmarks of AI slop. The movements of faces don’t match the dialog, which is further undercut by stilted and unnatural delivery. Besides Odysseus, none of the principal characters are introduced by name, and the pacing issues are laughable: The Ithacans arrive on the shores of Troy immediately after leaving their homeland, for example. Even the blue checks on X were harsh in their assessment. “Someone actually watched this and still decided to post it?” wrote one user. “Fire that person.”

But Musk’s stated goal wasn’t to deliver a better-looking or more narratively cohesive version of The Odyssey. He and his culture war comrades dubiously claimed that they were against Nolan’s casting of Black and trans actors, the Americanized English spoken by the characters they played, and various designs of ships and armor in the film because they were “historically inaccurate.” Hence Musk’s guarantee of a “historically accurate” corrective.

So, did Grok Imagine succeed on that front? Asking Grok for a self-evaluation yields an interesting answer. “No,” the chatbot says when queried about whether this Odyssey snippet is historically accurate. “Grok Imagine’s Episode 1 (and the broader promised series) is an adaptation of Homer’s Odyssey, not a historically accurate reconstruction of real events.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech & AI

Stoke Space lines up $150M Pentagon loan for a second launch pad in Florida

Published

on

Stoke Space Cape Canaveral Launch Site SLC14
Stoke Space Cape Canaveral Launch Site SLC14
Stoke Space’s existing Cape Canaveral launch site in Florida. (Stoke Space Photo)

Kent, Wash.-based Stoke Space has secured a conditional commitment for a $150 million loan from the Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital to build a second launch pad at Cape Canaveral for a larger version of its fully reusable rocket.

The loan isn’t final until Stoke meets a list of financial, legal, technical and due-diligence requirements. The announcement Monday comes less than two months after Stoke raised roughly $1 billion in a Series E round, bringing its total funding to about $2.3 billion.

The new pad would serve Stoke’s Nova Block 2 rocket, which is designed to carry up to 15 metric tons to low Earth orbit. That’s five times the capacity of Nova Pathfinder, which Stoke plans to launch for the first time from its existing pad in early 2027. Block 2 is slated to debut in 2029.

The loan would be paired with private capital to pay for the pad, according to the Department of War. Jordan Sebold, senior managing director for investments at the Office of Strategic Capital, said in a statement that adding launch infrastructure would “enhance the overall capacity and resilience of the commercial space industrial base.”

Advertisement

@media (max-width: 600px) {
aside.callout { float:none !important; max-width:100% !important; margin-left:0 !important; margin-right:0 !important; }
aside.callout .callout-img { display:none !important; }
}

The Office of Strategic Capital was set up in 2022 to draw private investment into technologies seen as critical to national security. The following year, Congress gave it the power to make loans and loan guarantees to companies in those fields. Space launch is one of the technology categories it targets.

“By expanding domestic launch facility capacity, this investment enables launch service providers to ensure our commercial and defense partners have reliable, high-cadence access to space,” David Lorch, the office’s director, said in the news release.

Stoke is already lined up for military launch work. In 2025, the Space Force added the company to a pool of providers that can compete for national security missions under Lane 1 of the program’s third phase. Lane 1 is the tier meant for newer launch companies and less demanding payloads. Stoke can’t bid on those missions until it completes a successful orbital flight.

The company has other federal ties as well. The Defense Innovation Unit awarded Stoke a $4.5 million contract in 2024 to study rapid delivery of cargo to orbit, and possibly back to Earth. In June, Stoke was one of 37 companies NASA chose for unfunded partnerships. Stoke’s project focuses on returning Nova’s upper stage safely through the atmosphere.

Advertisement

Nova is designed so both of its stages can return and fly again. The booster flies itself back for recovery. The upper stage uses a metal heat shield cooled by liquid hydrogen that circulates through channels inside it, to survive the heat of reentry. Only SpaceX, with its much larger Starship, is pursuing the same goal, and it hasn’t fully achieved it yet. Stoke has yet to launch a rocket to orbit.

Advertisement

Stoke was founded in 2019 by two Blue Origin veterans: Andy Lapsa, the CEO, and Tom Feldman, the chief technology officer. The company has about 400 employees. Most work at its 168,000-square-foot factory and headquarters in Kent, and about 50 are at its test site in Moses Lake, which is expanding from 75 to 550 acres. About 50 more work at Cape Canaveral.

GeekWire reached out to Stoke Space for comment and we’ll update this story when we hear back.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech & AI

The AI boom is happening at seven companies, the rest of the S&P 500 isn’t seeing it

Published

on

2026 10 26 image

Def. Not A Bubble: Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, recently shared a scathing note on the true extent of the so-called “AI revolution.” The data suggest AI’s macroeconomic impact remains very limited, which could mean we are heading toward some truly interesting times in terms of financial trends and global economic outcomes.

According to Slok’s Daily Spark note, AI has so far delivered zero financial payoff to corporate America outside of tech, despite the massive amount of money and hype surrounding the latest advancements in large language model research.

A few tech-related corporations are seeing noticeable returns, but the overwhelming majority of companies in the S&P 500 are seeing little to show for their generative AI or LLM efforts.

Slok said inflation-adjusted revenue per worker is rising only for the Magnificent 7, the Big Tech-heavy slice of the S&P 500 that includes Nvidia, Tesla, Amazon, Microsoft, Google/Alphabet, Apple, and Meta. Profit margins are rising for that group too. Meanwhile, the “S&P 493,” as he calls the rest of the index, is flat on both revenue per worker and profit margins.

Advertisement

2026 10 26 image

Furthermore, Apollo’s economist does not see any sign that AI is boosting productivity growth. To put it simply, GenAI and LLMs are having no impact on the bottom line outside of tech. With nothing to show for it, mainstream S&P 500 companies are already pulling back on the massive sums AI requires, treating token spending as a cost that weighs on margins rather than a potential source of future growth.

Venture-backed companies keep spending more and more on AI tokens, while mainstream organizations don’t need the latest models, and aren’t willing to pay for them. Slok said that if AI stays confined to a small portion of the overall economy, its macroeconomic effects will be very limited.

AI models might become more and more commoditized, and tokens might eventually get “cheap” enough for revenue to grow and margins to expand. However, Slok thinks that lofty goal could be harder to achieve than it sounds. He describes AI as a powerful “calculator,” but argues that businesses run on good judgment, not number crunching.

2026 10 26 image 31

“AI does not understand accountability, trust, culture, unwritten rules, ethical trade-offs or fairness, all of which shape reputational risk and ultimately drive revenue growth and profit margins,” Slok said in his post.

Advertisement

In his view, the AI story will ultimately be decided by the S&P 493 rather than by the Magnificent 7’s financial fireworks.

Slok’s firm, Apollo manages roughly $1 trillion in assets, so his read on the economy carries weight. His outlook also echoes other cautionary reports, with Gartner recently estimating that more than $3.5 trillion in AI infrastructure investment could face write-downs by the end of 2030. But not everyone shares that pessimism. Goldman Sachs economist Jan Hatzius argues that AI investment will ultimately pay off in higher productivity and economy-wide profits.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025