Tai Neilson, a senior lecturer at Macquarie University explores how data has become a ‘hot commodity’ for companies training AI systems.

When the World Wide Web went live in the early 1990s, its founders hoped it would be a space for anyone to share information and collaborate. But today, the free and open web is shrinking.

The Internet Archive has been recording the history of the internet and making it available to the public through its Wayback Machine since 1996. Now, some of the world’s biggest news outlets are blocking the archive’s access to their pages.

Major publishers – including The Guardian, The New York Times, the Financial Times, and USA Today – have confirmed they’re ending the Internet Archive’s access to their content.

While publishers say they support the archive’s preservation mission, they argue unrestricted access creates unintended consequences, exposing journalism to AI crawlers and members of the public trying to skirt their paywalls.

Yet, publishers don’t simply want to lock out AI crawlers. Rather, they want to sell their content to data-hungry tech companies. Their back catalogues of news, books and other media have become a hot commodity as data to train AI systems.

Robot readers

Generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Copilot and Gemini require access to large archives of content (such as media content, books, art and academic research) for training and to answer user prompts.

Publishers claim technology companies have accessed a lot of this content for free and without the consent of copyright owners. Some began taking tech companies to court, claiming they had stolen their intellectual property. High-profile examples include The New York Times’ case against ChatGPT’s parent company OpenAI and News Corp’s lawsuit against Perplexity AI.

Old news, new money

In response, some tech companies have struck deals to pay for access to publishers’ content. NewsCorp’s contract with OpenAI is reportedly worth more than $250m over five years.

Similar deals have been struck between academic publishers and tech companies. Publishing houses such as Taylor & Francis and Elsevier have come under scrutiny in the past for locking publicly funded research behind commercial paywalls.

Now, Taylor & Francis has signed a $10m nonexclusive deal with Microsoft granting the company access to over 3,000 journals.

Publishers are also using technology to stop unwanted AI bots accessing their content, including the crawlers used by the Internet Archive to record internet history. News publishers have referred to the Internet Archive as a “back door” to their catalogues, allowing unscrupulous tech companies to continue scraping their content.

The cost of making news free

The Wayback Machine has also been used by members of the public to avoid newspaper paywalls. Understandably, media outlets want readers to pay for news.

News is a business, and its advertising revenue model has come under increasing pressure from the same tech companies using news content for AI training and retrieval. But this comes at the expense of public access to credible information.

When newspapers first started moving their content online and making it free to the public in the late 1990s, they contributed to the ethos of sharing and collaboration on the early web.

In hindsight, however, one commentator called free access the “original sin” of online news. The public became accustomed to getting their digital editions for free, and as online business models shifted, many mid- and small-sized news companies struggled to fund their operations.

The opposite approach – placing all commercial news behind paywalls – has its own problems. As news publishers move to subscription-only models, people have to juggle multiple expensive subscriptions or limit their news appetite. Otherwise, they’re left with whatever news remains online for free or is served up by social media algorithms. The result is a more closed, commercial internet.

This isn’t the first time that the Internet Archive has been in the crosshairs of publishers, as the organisation was previously sued and found to be in breach of copyright through its Open Library project.

The past and future of the internet

The Wayback Machine has served as a public record of the web for more than three decades, used by researchers, educators, journalists and amateur internet historians.

Blocking its access to international newspapers of note will leave significant holes in the public record of the internet.

Today, you can use the Wayback Machine to see The New York Times’ front page from June 1997: the first time the Internet Archive crawled the newspaper’s website. In another 30 years, internet researchers and curious members of the public won’t have access to today’s front page, even if the Internet Archive is still around.

Today’s websites become tomorrow’s historical records. Without the preservation efforts of not-for-profit organisations like The Internet Archive, we risk losing vital records.

Despite the actions of commercial publishers and emerging challenges of AI, not-for-profit organisations such as the Internet Archive and Wikipedia aim to keep the dream of an open, collaborative and transparent internet alive.

By Tai Neilson

Tai Neilson is a senior lecturer in media at Macquarie University. His areas of expertise include the political economy of digital media and critical cultural theory. He is the author of Journalism and Digital Labor and a co-editor of the book Research Methods for the Digital Humanities.Tai has published work on journalism and digital media in Digital Journalism, Journalism, Media International Australia, Journalism and Media, Triple-C, Fast Capitalism, and the Global Media Journal.

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.

Claude appears to be having a major outage right now, with elevated errors reported across all platforms.

The incident was flagged on March 2, 2026, and it’s impacting users broadly rather than being limited to one app or region.

According to the latest status update, the team is still investigating the issue.

The first “Investigating” notice went out at 11:49 UTC, and a follow-up update at 12:06 UTC said the investigation is ongoing.

For now, that likely means you may see failed requests, timeouts, or inconsistent responses when trying to use Claude on web, mobile, or API.

There’s no ETA mentioned yet, but the status suggests it’s actively being worked on

Malware is getting smarter. The Red Report 2026 reveals how new threats use math to detect sandboxes and hide in plain sight.

Download our analysis of 1.1 million malicious samples to uncover the top 10 techniques and see if your security stack is blinded.

Download The Report

Thinking of opening a gym? Don’t expect quick money.

Running a gym in Singapore is not cheap.

When Vulcan Post spoke to Ryan Cheal, Group Chief Operating Officer of Inspire Brands Asia—the exclusive regional master franchisee of Anytime Fitness (AF)—in Jan 2026, he shared that it takes up to US$450,000 to become a franchisee of an AF gym here.

Despite the high startup costs, more gyms have been popping up across the island. As of Oct 15, 2025, Singapore had 505 gyms—a 3.05% increase since 2023. With rising fitness trends like HYROX, it’s no surprise that both individuals and operators are trying to ride the wave.

But hopping on trends doesn’t always guarantee success. The industry has also seen its share of closures, including Ritual, which abruptly shut all four of its Singapore outlets in 2024, and high-profile names like UFC Gym.

These examples show that even well-known brands can struggle to sustain operations in a competitive market. Even with sufficient startup capital, keeping a gym running—attracting members, covering monthly expenses, and managing unexpected costs—requires careful planning and a strong financial runway.

So what does it really cost to open and operate a gym in Singapore?

To find out, we dug into industry data and spoke with two operators: Unstoppable Fitness, a homegrown bodybuilding gym, and Snap Fitness, a US-born fitness chain with 10 outlets in Singapore (and one more at West Mall slated to open in Apr).

Opening doors is just step one

Based on industry estimates online, the startup capital required to open a gym can range between S$150,000 and over S$800,000, depending on size, location, equipment needs, and franchise fees.

Broadly speaking, here’s how it breaks down:

When we spoke to operators at Unstoppable Fitness and Snap Fitness, their startup costs largely lined up with these estimates.

Luke Yeo, 33, founder of Unstoppable Fitness, spent nearly S$400,000 to launch his 3,875 sqft. facility. On the other hand, Snap Fitness master franchisee Noah Oberman shared that it costs around S$600,000 to open a 4,000 sqft gym franchise. “Most gyms we’ve opened are anywhere between S$600,000 and over S$1 million,” he added.

Gym equipment is one of the highest upfront costs for the two businesses, with Unstoppable Fitness spending more than half of its startup capital on machines and weights, while Snap Fitness’ equipment expenses can roughly match the rental deposit.

On top of that, miscellaneous inventory—from water dispensers to towels—can add thousands more, quickly increasing the total initial outlay before a single member walks through the door.

These figures only cover the cost of opening a gym. To sustain and keep it running, owners needs to have additional capital—to market the business, grow membership, and maintain a buffer for unexpected expenses or changing client needs.

For Snap Fitness, monthly operating costs can reach at least S$55,000. Luke, on the other hand, shared that his monthly expenses hit around S$25,300, meaning he would need roughly another S$300,000 in reserves to stay adequately funded for a year.

However, startup costs are higher for gyms, and the figures we found are based on established franchises such as Anytime Fitness, which benefit from brand recognition and pre-existing systems. Some even claim that AF gyms can break even within six months or even before they open. 

That said, these are outliers. Here’s a closer look at what it takes for different gym models to reach break-even:

Based on its S$24,828 monthly costs and its lowest-tier annual plan (S$119/month), Unstoppable Fitness would need at least 277 members to break even each month.

Snap Fitness will need over 561 members to cover their monthly operating costs. It’s worth noting that more funds are needed to run a franchise gym than an independent gym, hence the difference in the number of members needed to break even. 

No one “owes you a chance”

As newer and smaller players, both Unstoppable Fitness and Snap Fitness have to find a way to stand out in a crowded market against established brands, as they face a higher risk of failure. 

“The real problem? Opening your doors and having no customers at all,” Luke candidly shared. “No one owes you a chance. If you’re new, unknown, and lack social proof, people simply won’t walk in.” 

As such, both operators not only have to spend more on marketing, but also focus their efforts on building strong communities within the brand that can tide them through the high and low seasons, through activities such as supporting members at competitions or celebrating physical transformations. 

Independent gyms like Unstoppable Fitness often reinvest earnings into upgrades in their equipment and amenities. These might sound simple, but they help customers feel more comfortable in the space as they work out. 

“People can leave for cheaper gyms, but they rarely leave a place that feels like home,” added Luke. 

Hard-selling packages no longer work, and long-term, no-refund memberships can leave customers burnt when gyms shut down. Noah also emphasised that gyms need to maintain transparency with their customers, as they are also effective in increasing referrals. 

He added that many health and fitness businesses make the mistake of building around a single trend, so when the hype dies down, the brand goes with it. Building evergreen offerings beyond trends is key to long-term survival, and adjusting them to meet demand adds to their versatility. 

“There’s a fine balance between hopping on trends and diluting the brand by changing too much, versus staying to the core of what the brand is supposed to do and service. But generally, we try to keep an open mind and see what the market really wants and try our best to accommodate that.” 

Only those with strong foundations are likely to survive

Overall, opening a gym remains viable in Singapore, given the strong demand for health and fitness in the country. However, as the market becomes more saturated and competition for the lifestyle dollar intensifies, gyms can’t be seen as a way to get a quick buck. 

Aspiring owners must carefully assess whether they have the financial runway to sustain at least two years, offer competitive prices, and ensure that their services provide enough value for their members to increase loyalty. 

As Singapore’s fitness scene matures, newer players can’t win in scale: they have to differentiate themselves through other means to attract members and at least break even. Nevertheless, Noah and Luke remain optimistic.  

“I would agree that the first mover advantage is definitely real, and some of the longstanding gyms will be very hard to displace. But I do think there’s still plenty of opportunity in the market,” Noah encouraged. 

“We can’t compete with big box gyms on size. We win on service, elite equipment, and culture,” added Luke. 

• Read more about the gyms featured below:
• Read more stories we’ve written on Singaporean businesses here.

Featured Image Credit: Unstoppable Fitness/ Snap Fitness

One of my biggest gripes when navigating a new area is that I’m too busy following directions on my phone to really take in my surroundings. But after trying on Google’s Android XR glasses, I’ve seen a promising solution. 

At Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, I got a demo of Google’s wearable prototype frames and was more impressed than I expected to be. I’m not big on wearables; I’m good with plain-old glasses and jewelry that can’t ping me with notifications throughout the day. But I decided to give the Android XR glasses a try as I explored a strip of the MWC conference hall dubbed Android Avenue. 

With a thick black frame and clear lenses, the Android XR prototype glasses look rather unassuming — especially because the display in the right lens is barely perceptible. Once I put them on, I long-pressed the right side temple to trigger Gemini and ask questions about objects around me. Then my skepticism slowly began to dissolve.

The feature that sold me was the Google Maps demo. I looked at a photo of Barcelona stadium Camp Nou and asked Gemini to “navigate here.” White text appeared in the center of the lens, showing me how far I’d need to go before turning right. And when I looked down, I could see a visualization of the route, like you’ll find in the Maps app on a mobile device, so I could just follow the highlighted path. That would solve my dilemma of wanting to know where I’m going while also trying to take in the view. 

I also looked at a vinyl cover for Barcelona, the album by Freddie Mercury and Montserrat Caballé, and asked Gemini to play a song from it. The audio quality was impressively comparable to what I’d hear with headphones — but without the feeling of something in or on my ears, which I appreciated. 

And lastly, I got a demo of live translation through the glasses. The Google employee showing me the prototype spoke in Spanish and then Farsi, and an overlay of text appeared as I looked through the glasses at him and my surroundings. Perhaps the coolest part is I also heard the English translation spoken aloud in his (AI-generated) voice. 

Google has also tapped this AI tech for its Pixel 10 phones, so if you’re on a phone call with someone speaking a different language, you’ll get real-time translation with a simulation of their voice. Google Translate also got an AI update last year that surfaces audio and text translations in the app as two people chat. Glasses feel like a good fit for this use case, too, since you don’t have to pull out your phone and look down at a screen when talking to someone. If the other person doesn’t have Android XR glasses, though, they’ll need to glance at their phone to see a translation of what you’re saying. 

I walked away from the demo finding I’d softened to the idea of potentially owning smart glasses of my own someday. I’m not completely sold, as I’m not sure I need more tech in my life, but there are certainly instances in which it could come in handy to see a subtle overlay of answers from an AI assistant like Gemini. And because Android XR glasses look more like standard specs than the doomed Google Glass, I could probably pull them off without looking too pretentious. CNET’s Patrick Holland had a similar conversion moment when he tried the Android XR glasses at Google I/O last year.

As CNET’s Scott Stein has noted, smart glasses “aim to be what you want to wear, ideally every day and all day long. They could well become constant companions like your earbuds, smartwatch, fitness band and wellness ring, and as indispensable as your phone.”

I’ll probably have to wait a bit longer before making that call for myself. Google hasn’t shared any specifics on a launch date for glasses with Android XR, though it has said that Warby Parker and Gentle Monster will be the first eyeglass brands to carry the AI-powered glasses. 

The first time I got my hands on a Vitamix blender, I was in culinary school. While I sincerely believed I had been making some nice soups and purees with my immersion blender or conventional smoothie model, the Vitamix made that all seem like child’s play after one go.

Gone was the minuscule, vegetal particulate matter that otherwise defined my early attempts at a velvety butternut squash soup. A truly emulsified, homogeneous mixture was apparently only available with a professional device, a truth I would acknowledge time and time again, no matter which Vitamix model I encountered in various restaurant kitchens.

Professional devices come with professional price tags, however, and I never enjoyed the exceptional outcome available from a Vitamix in the privacy of my own home. But small kitchen appliances have come a long way in the last decade, and with high-functioning brands like Ninja in the mix, it begs the question: Is a Vitamix worth it?

What makes a Vitamix blender better?

One of the primary attributes that sets Vitamix apart from many other blenders is its high-speed motor. If you’ve also had the privilege of ever using one, you will know well that the speed of its highest setting puts most other blenders squarely in the rearview mirror. Its power feels like something that could reasonably be put to use for supersonic travel.

Unlike a food processor and some standard blenders, which contain sharp blades that vivisect their contents into smaller and smaller bits, a Vitamix also relies on stainless steel, dull-edged blades that basically pulverize your food when combined with its ultra-rapid rotation and the gravitational pull of the vortex it creates. This is what creates its unparalleled smoothness, since nothing inside the jug is actually getting chopped to bits.

Vitamix vs. Ninja Twisti

In our most recent lineup of the best blenders, the Ninja Twisti model was neck-and-neck with the entry-level Vitamix Explorian for top honors. Here’s a side-by-side look at how they compare in terms of features, power and price.

One thing that stands out here is that, while the Ninja model has more available power, its lighter base may make blending less stable at top speed, especially with harder items such as nuts. The jug is smaller, which is fine for smoothies, but may make blending soups more cumbersome, assinceyou’ll likely need to do it in several batches. The warranty also pales in comparison to Vitamix. Does that warranty justify the Vitamix price, though, at nearly 2.5 times what you can pay to take home the Ninja?

Is a Vitamix worth it? Experts weigh in

Advertisement

I asked several chefs and kitchen experts to share their thoughts on whether a Vitamix is worth it. Similar to the results of the same experience with Le Creuset — the (expensive) standard-bearer for Dutch ovens — brand loyalty is real, though everyone I queried brought up valid considerations about functionality, longevity, warranty, origin and whether or not you’re going to actually use the thing often enough to justify it.

First, “ask yourself, ‘how often do I use a blender?’” suggests Joanne Gallagher, co-founder and recipe developer at Inspired Taste. “Consider what you actually cook in a week. If a blender lives on your counter and gets consistent use, the investment is worth it,” she says. “If you make a smoothie every day, love to make your own nut butter, or blend hot soups straight from the pot, a Vitamix could be your best friend.”

Perhaps you believe you would do all of this more regularly if only you had a world-class appliance that inspired you to do so. “I end up cooking and trying new things the more confident I feel in the kitchen,” Gallagher says, and the right appliance can help. “When you know you’ll get the perfect tomato soup, for example, you’re likely to branch out and try new recipes and cooking methods,” she says. There is merit in that thinking, of course, but it’s a potentially expensive gamble if you don’t those sorts of things on a regular basis already.

As for the quality of output, “in the past, I struggled with cheap blenders that left smoothies chunky and couldn’t handle hard spices like cinnamon when making homemade mole sauce,” says Jessica Randhawa, founder and head chef at The Forked Spoon. “I now own two Vitamix blenders, one in each of my test kitchens,” she says. “One is an entry-level model, which is an amazing blender and does everything a blender should do perfectly every time.

The other is one of Vitamix’s newer, top-of-the-line models with food processor attachments, which allowed me to get rid of my old food processor in that kitchen.” The latter point here is a worthwhile consideration. If a Vitamix can do the work of two appliances, the price tag starts to feel a little less like a reach.

Not every chef believes that it is worth it if you’re not really using it all the time. “For most home cooks, I don’t think a Vitamix is truly worth the price,” says Rena Awada, head chef and owner of Healthy Fitness Meals. “Unless you’re making soups, nut butters, etc., daily, or running a small food business, the speed and smoothness it offers rarely justify the cost.”

Chef Molly Pisula of Vanilla Bean Cuisine offers up a workaround. “The price point is high, but refurbished blenders are available, and even sold directly on the Vitamix website,” she says. (“Reconditioned” in Vitamix-speak.) “And Amazon often runs a great Black Friday sale on Vitamix blenders.”

If you do take the gamble on the cost of a new model, though, Randhawa points out some serious upside: “I love that Vitamix is made in the USA,” she says, “and comes with a warranty better than most cars.”

My own Vitamix alternative experiment: Chefman Obliterator

I recently came into possession of a Chefman Obliterator, which has specs very similar to the Vitamix Explorian model, including a self-cleaning mode and speed dial that goes up to 5. (Each speed setting is subdivided by 5 hashmarks, making for effectively 25 speed settings.) Its price is listed at $75 on Amazon, putting it squarely in the budget blender camp. Despite not wanting to give up the moral of the story too soon, without taking you through my process: Run, don’t walk to pick up this blender at that price.

I freely admit that I was initially drawn to the Obliterator on hyperbole alone. “Obliterate” is a serious claim that feels like the blender should also come with a wand and a book of spells. Turns out, those props aren’t even necessary.

Since butternut squash soup is apparently my personal benchmark for evaluating the success of a given blender, butternut squash soup was made. Into the Obliterator’s generous chamber went the chunky, “country style” pre-puree concoction, and then out came something that could reasonably be called obliterated, but in a good way. It was as smooth and ungranular as that which could have been served at any high-end restaurant, and pretty much obliterated the fantasy that I might someday actually spring for a Vitamix.

A new video from Pratt & Whitney has reignited controversy over the Boeing F-47, which is slated to be the 6th Generation fighter that would eventually replace the F-22 Raptor. Halfway through a short animation focusing on engine progress, an animated fighter jet arrives in flight, its two engines burning brightly as it slashes through a picture-perfect blue skies. Observers quickly identified the image as a possible portrayal of the F-47 itself, powered by Pratt & Whitney’s XA-103 engine, which is now under development.

The F-47 was developed as part of the US Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance program, which aimed to create a long-range air supremacy fighter. Boeing received the contract to manufacture the F-47 in 2025, a beast capable of commanding swarms of autonomous drones while also delivering missiles over long distances. The Air Force planned only for a minimum of 185 of these aircraft. Right now, development has moved on to the engineering and manufacturing phases, with the first prototype scheduled to fly in 2028. The first tech demonstrators have been flying in secret since roughly 2020.

DJI Neo 2 (Drone Only), Lightweight & Foldable 4K Drone With Camera, Palm Takeoff & Landing, Gesture…

• Lightweight & Portable Design – Weighing just 151g [9] and C0 certified, this compact drone features full-coverage propeller guards for safer…
• Palm Takeoff & Landing [1], Gesture Control [2] – Enjoy easy palm takeoff and landing, plus intuitive gesture controls for hands-free operation and…
• Smooth & Reliable Tracking – ActiveTrack [3] keeps your subject in focus, while Apple Watch lets you view live feed, check flight status, or use voice…

Pratt & Whitney’s Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion program was responsible for developing the XA-103 engine. This XA-103 engine is one of those ingenious adaptive-cycle engines that can alter modes to balance thrust and fuel burn dependent on mission needs. The results are amazing; it produces around 10% more thrust than the F-35 while increasing range by roughly 25%. This increased power will assist sustain all of the new sensors, and who knows, perhaps even directed energy weaponry. Meanwhile, the innovative thermal management system keeps the internal systems cool while also reducing the heat signature, which is an important feature in the aircraft’s stealth capabilities, particularly when operating in the Pacific theatre.

The video demonstrates an all-digital approach to engine design. Now, digital twins allow engineers to mimic engine performance, optimize components, and get a head start on testing without having to manufacture every part in person. Pratt & Whitney recently completed both preliminary and comprehensive design assessments. They are currently planning prototype ground tests for the late 2020s, as General Electric competes in the same propulsion contest with its own XA102 concept.

Notably, the F-47 rendering has characteristics such as a tailless shape to limit radar visibility, blended wing surfaces with less sharp edges, forward canards for control, and a high-placed cockpit for improved pilot awareness. The thrust-vectoring nozzles resemble those used on the F-22, which aid in fast maneuvers at high speeds. Last but not least, a dorsal refueling point indicates that long operations away from bases are a high priority.

Top speed remains about Mach 2, with a combat radius of more than 1,000 nautical miles. Stealth is also impressive, outperforming the F-22 and F-35 combined. The aircraft is plainly meant to first penetrate defensive airspace and coordinate unmanned wingmen before engaging in close-range combat.
[Source]

As artificial intelligence becomes integral to global business operations, we must retire the tired ‘AI vs. human jobs’ debate.

The real opportunity lies in augmented intelligence, a human-centric approach at the core of the emerging ‘Agentic Future.’ Rather than ceding control to machines, augmented intelligence positions AI as a force multiplier for human capability.