In 1964, science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke predicted that computers would overtake human evolution.“Present-day electronic brains are complete morons, but this will not be true in another generation,” he told the BBC. “They will start to think, and eventually, they will completely out-think their makers.”
Tech
AI is not the end of the world
Daniel Roher opens his new documentary The AI Doc: Or How I Became An Apocaloptimist (2026) with this cheerful prophecy. And in the hundred-some minutes that follow, he tries to make sense of a technology that, by his own admission, he does not understand — and a world that is rapidly being changed by it. Explaining that he conceives of AI as a “magic box floating in space,” he enlists the help of experts to provide him with a crash course in what, exactly, AI is.
Roher’s real concern, however, isn’t so much about the workings of AI — though some of his subjects do attempt to explain them for him — but whether it might displace us, as Clarke’s prediction suggests it will.
While making the film, Roher learns that his wife Caroline is pregnant with their first child. He tracks his wife’s pregnancy and the birth of his son in parallel with the advent of AI. It’s a smart choice that builds on a fear all parents share: What sort of world are we making for our children? And behind that question is another, vibrating in anxious silence: What happens after our offspring replace us? This twinned existential angst drives his efforts to hear from the doomers, the techno-optimists, and the in-between “apocaloptimists” whose ranks he ultimately joins.
The AI Doc, as its sweeping title suggests, wants to shape and lead the narrative around AI. It’s certainly set up to do that — Roher is fresh off an Oscar win for his documentary Navalny, and the film opened in nearly 800 theaters, which counts as wide-release for a nonfiction title. The final product is indicative of the ways that public attitudes around AI are in massive flux. Roher hopes to reach people of my grandmother’s generation who conflate AI with smartphones and spellcheck, as well as people who don’t seem to care whether a video was AI-generated.
But I think that this documentary has come too late to steer the conversation, something the film itself acknowledges. For all its transformative potential, AI isn’t actually unique among emerging technologies yet — it has not been cataclysmic or ushered in a golden age of prosperity — but Roher and many of those he interviews tend to treat it as a radical break with all that has come before. As a result, they tend to fixate on the binary extremes of doom or salvation. It’s an approach that reinforces our own helplessness in the face of AI-driven change, while also muddying our understanding of what we might yet be able to do as we seek to adapt, mitigate harm, and shape the world that AI could otherwise truly start remaking.
Roher, contemplating his child’s future, opts to hear the bad news first. Tristan Harris, the cofounder of the Center for Humane Technology, doesn’t mince words: “I know people who work on AI risk who don’t expect their children to make it to high school.”
Many of the film’s other interviewees are similarly gloomy. Geoffrey Hinton, the “godfather of AI,” for example, argues that as AI becomes smarter, it will become better at manipulating humanity. But no one is more pessimistic than Eliezer Yudkowsky, the well-known AI doomer and co-author of the controversial book If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. As the title suggests, Yudkowsky believes that superintelligent AI would wipe out humanity — a position that he stands by and lays out for Roher.
Turning his back on these storm clouds — and taking the advice of his wife, Caroline, who tells him that he needs to find hope for the future — Roher tunes into the chorus of AI optimists. They tell him, variously, that there are more potential benefits than downsides to AI; that technology has made the world better in every way; that this will be the tool that helps us solve all our greatest problems. Not to mention: AI will bring the best health care on the planet to the poorest people on Earth, extend our healthspan by decades, and enable us to live in a postscarcity utopia free of drudgery. Oh, and: We will become an interplanetary species, all thanks to AI.
These promises initially reassure Roher, perhaps because he seems easily led by whomever he’s spoken to most recently. It is Harris who ultimately convinces him that we can’t separate the promise of AI from the peril it presents. The conclusions that result will be obvious to anyone who’s thought about these issues for more than a moment or two: If AI automates work, for example, how will people make a living?
It doesn’t help that many of the most invested players reflect on these questions superficially, if at all. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman tells Roher that he’s worried about how authoritarian governments will use AI — a claim that is followed in the film by a cut to images of Altman posing with authoritarian leaders. Other tech CEOs fall back on PR pleasantries in response to the filmmaker’s questions, and Roher too often goes easy on them, never diving deeper when they admit that even they aren’t confident that everything will go well. That these are the leaders of AI companies racing against each other to make the technology more and more advanced does little to inspire confidence.
(Some of the techno-pessimistic people interviewed for the documentary have expressed their strong displeasure with the final result.)
“Why can’t we just stop?” Roher asks these tech CEOs. He’s told that a moratorium is a pipe dream: Many groups around the world are building advanced AI, all with different motivations. Legislation lags far behind the rate of technological progress. Even if we could pass laws in the US and EU that would stop or slow things down, says Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, we’d have to convince the Chinese government to follow suit.
If we don’t create it, the thinking goes, our enemies will. It’s best to get ahead of them.
This is, of course, the logic of nuclear deterrence: If we don’t mitigate the risk of ending the world through mutually assured destruction, there’s nothing stopping someone else from pressing the button first.
An apocalypse in every generation
The atomic comparison is apt, if only because Roher sees the stakes in similarly stark terms. “Will my son live in a utopia, or will we go extinct in 10 years?” he wonders aloud. It’s a question that’s central to the film. But he never really sits with the more likely scenario that AI will neither lead to human extinction nor end all disease and drudgery. Every generation faces the specter of its own annihilation — and yet the ends of days keep accumulating, no matter how close the doomsday clock gets to apocalypse.
The point, then, isn’t that AI won’t be bad for us, but that by framing the question in strictly utopian or dystopian terms, we miss the messy reality that lies between hell on earth and heaven in the stars. Although The AI Doc tries to chart an “apocaloptimist” course between two extremes, it doesn’t grasp the real stakes. AI doesn’t really create new risks as such — it’s a force multiplier for existing ones like the threat of nuclear warfare and the development and use of biological weapons. The chief existential risks of AI are human-made and human-driven. And that means, as Caroline says in the film’s ending narration, “We get to decide how this goes.” She’s right, but her husband never seems to understand how she’s right.
Like too many Big Issue Documentaries, Roher’s film is heavy on problems and light on solutions. It does offer some, calling for international cooperation, transparency, legal liabilities for companies if something goes wrong, testing before release, and adaptive rules to match the speed of progress. But just as this is a strictly introductory course in AI — one that will probably irritate those who’ve already moved on to AI 102 — these recommendations are only a starting point. For Roher, they offer reason to be hopeful. For the rest of us, they’re just the beginning of an opportunity to meaningfully steer the course of our future.
Tech
NYT Strands hints and answers for Tuesday, May 5 (game #793)
Looking for a different day?
A new NYT Strands puzzle appears at midnight each day for your time zone – which means that some people are always playing ‘today’s game’ while others are playing ‘yesterday’s’. If you’re looking for Monday’s puzzle instead then click here: NYT Strands hints and answers for Monday, May 4 (game #792).
Strands is the NYT’s latest word game after the likes of Wordle, Spelling Bee and Connections – and it’s great fun. It can be difficult, though, so read on for my Strands hints.
SPOILER WARNING: Information about NYT Strands today is below, so don’t read on if you don’t want to know the answers.
Article continues below
NYT Strands today (game #793) – hint #1 – today’s theme
What is the theme of today’s NYT Strands?
• Today’s NYT Strands theme is… Get up!
NYT Strands today (game #793) – hint #2 – clue words
Play any of these words to unlock the in-game hints system.
- CLAM
- MEAL
- SPIRE
- TONE
- ZOOT
- SOON
NYT Strands today (game #793) – hint #3 – spangram letters
How many letters are in today’s spangram?
• Spangram has 12 letters
NYT Strands today (game #793) – hint #4 – spangram position
What are two sides of the board that today’s spangram touches?
First side: left, 2nd row
Last side: right, 8th row
Right, the answers are below, so DO NOT SCROLL ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON’T WANT TO SEE THEM.
NYT Strands today (game #793) – the answers
The answers to today’s Strands, game #793, are…
- ALARM
- SNOOZE
- TIME
- RADIO
- DATE
- DISPLAY
- TUNER
- SPANGRAM: DIGITALCLOCK
- My rating: Easy
- My score: Perfect
Does anyone still use a DIGITALCLOCK? I know they do in TV shows and movies — especially when the storyline needs to indicate the drudgery of the daily grind. But in real life?
My memory was instantly jogged by today’s search, back to simpler times and this piece of tech’s most-used feature: the SNOOZE button.
Today, I use my phone as an alarm clock and set three alarms to nag me awake. The first is the ideal waking time if I was a properly functioning adult, the second is the “you need to wake up now” alarm, and the third is the “if you have not cancelled this alarm you are going to be late” alarm.
Yesterday’s NYT Strands answers (Monday, May 4, game #792)
- CEDAR
- ASPEN
- DOGWOOD
- BIRCH
- CYPRESS
- EUCALYPTUS
- SPANGRAM: BRANCHOUT
What is NYT Strands?
Strands is the NYT’s not-so-new-any-more word game, following Wordle and Connections. It’s now a fully fledged member of the NYT’s games stable that has been running for a year and which can be played on the NYT Games site on desktop or mobile.
I’ve got a full guide to how to play NYT Strands, complete with tips for solving it, so check that out if you’re struggling to beat it each day.
Tech
Sunlight Powered, Sunlight Readable: Solar Case For Nook Simple Touch
When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. What if life gives you a pile of old e-book readers? Well, when [spiritplumber] got box of old Nook Simple Touch devices, he decided to design solar-powered cases to help boost the old batteries. It makes perfect sense to us: sunlight readable screen, sunlight chargeable battery.
It looks like he’s got a pair of panels built into the 3D printed case. He recommends using any TP4056-based charger, and tying into the battery test points, not the 5 V supply. It won’t hurt anything if you do, apparently, but the device will think it’s plugged in an refuse to turn off the WiFi. That’s no big deal when you’ve got a continental power grid on the other end of the cable, but charging from a small panel on the back of the case doesn’t always give you enough juice to waste on unneeded radio activity. Especially indoors — these panels are apparently big enough to trickle-charge the device under artificial light, which is a nice, if doubtless slow feature.
The design is open source, and includes SketchUp design files as well as the exported .STL, so if you’ve got a hankering to edit this to fit a different e-book reader, you can. He also provides a handy-dandy guide to root this model of Nook, and if you’re on Hackaday we probably don’t need to explain why you might want to.
We’ve seen the Nook Simple Touch go some interesting places — like into the clouds as a glider computer — but solar power is a new hack for this device, at least on this site. We don’t know if [spiritplumber] has a green thumb, but he’s evidently got some environmental bones in his body: his last featured project was about improving quadcopter efficiency with a wing and a prayer.
Tech
Inside AMEX’s agentic commerce stack: How intent contracts and single-use tokens enforce AI transactions
American Express (Amex) is building a system that lets AI agents shop and pay on behalf of users — but right now it’s only within its own payment network, and still involves a black box that could hinder trust and auditability.
Amex already participates in agentic commerce protocol projects, especially Google’s Agent Pay Protocol (AP2), which focuses on interoperability. Amex’s Agentic Commerce Experiences (ACE) developer kit, on the other hand, touches on something most protocols currently lack: Full transaction control in the payment layer.
But it still isn’t completely transparent in how it handles validation. ACE uses a closed-loop system — serving as both the card issuer and the payment network — to validate agent-led transactions.
Luke Gebb, Amex’s EVP and global head of innovation, told VentureBeat that the company believes this model is the missing piece in agentic commerce.
“Some of what is missing so far is the perspective of a company like ours: We feel that trust and security are critical to advancing this space,” Gebb said. “This is really the first time that an issuer is coming to the table.”
Amex sits in that interesting space: Unlike other financial institutions or card providers like Chase or Bank of America, Amex can route transactions through its American Express Network. Visa and Mastercard are two of the most well-known payment networks, but these companies don’t issue cards themselves and must work with a bank.
The continued black box of agentic commerce
The ACE kit is just one approach to addressing some of agentic commerce’s biggest problems: trust, control, accountability, validation, and security.
Consumers generally don’t want rogue agents to run away with their bank accounts and start buying things. Merchants don’t want to be stuck with unpaid items. Banks don’t want to deal with an influx of chargebacks and the potential for fraud.
Projects like the ACE kit aim to build trust and accountability by verifying an agent’s identity and goals. This can build the trust agentic commerce desperately needs.
Amex claims it offers validation, too, although the process behind that is unclear. It is abstracting how it performs validation, even though it explains at which layer it does it. More traditional systems feature a mix of deterministic checks and a flexible, semantic evaluation that helps match intent and outcome for validation. Amex said agents built with ACE can submit user shopping carts and check them against the agent’s original intent. However, they did not disclose how this works.
Practitioners building to the agentic commerce ecosystem lament that, despite strides in creating a trust layer, many black boxes remain that could hinder widespread adoption.
Raj Ananthanpillai, founder and CEO of identity and verification system provider Trua, told VentureBeat that payment protocols and software kits like Agentic Commerce Suite from Stripe, Google’s Verifiable Intent proof chain, and the ACE developer kit “excel at handling proofs, verifiable authorizations and the mechanics of fund movement, but leave upstream human validation opaque and underdeveloped.”
Ananthanpillai continued: “Without a clear, high-assurance cryptographic link proving that an agent is acting under the explicit authority of a verified human owner, merchants, issuers, and networks face heightened risks of repudiation, massive chargebacks, sanctioned people conducting financial transactions, and fraud.”
The ACE kit
The ACE developer kit solves several running issues with agentic commerce, Gebb said, and gives developers access to integrated services:
-
Agent registration
-
Account enablement
-
Intent intelligence
-
Payment credentials
-
Cart context
First, it deals with agent registration, establishing identity and trust with both the consumer and company agents. When a transaction begins, the agent acting on behalf of the customer and the merchant’s agent can verify each other’s identities and trust that they are dealing with the correct entity.
Next comes account enablement, which links the user’s Amex account to their agent and grants the agent permission to act, or, in the case of agentic commerce, buy something.
Intent intelligence creates what Amex calls an intent contract, where the user defines what they want the agent to do. Once the intent is defined, the ACE system generates an Intent ID and a Proof of Intent Token that definitively proves authorization in the event of a dispute.
Amex handles the actual transaction part, where the user pays for the product through a single-use token. ACE establishes payment credentials used for the transaction, bound to intent and constraints.
“Once the agent has found the item that the customer has asked for, like red shoes, they’ll make a call for the payment credentials, which is a token that has the boundaries that the card member has provided,” Gebb said. “So, for instance, if they said they only wanted to spend $500, that token won’t allow for a purchase of $600 because it has controls built in.”
The last piece is cart context and validation, which Gebb said helps banks and brands compare a user’s cart that their agent submitted to their intent.
Amex’s approach shows that for agentic commerce to really soar, providers must understand what systems will allow agents to do and who is ultimately accountable if something goes wrong.
Tech
A government used AI to write its AI regulations. It did not go well
![]()
Cape Town authorities had effectively asked for public comment on a draft AI bill that contained hallucinated sources.
Read Entire Article
Source link
Tech
Focal Omada Speakers Are Now Up to 35% Off
Focal’s Omada speaker line just became a lot more interesting for anyone building a serious stereo or home theater system at a more attainable price. Four models in the series are now on sale for up to 35% off, with the promotion running through June 21, 2026, while supplies last. That last part matters. The best speaker deals rarely hang around long enough for endless spreadsheet therapy.
What Are Focal Omada Speakers?
Focal’s Omada series is an exclusive loudspeaker line for ProSource members that has been available since November 2025. The lineup sits between Focal’s Theva and Vestia series, giving buyers a mid tier option for both two channel listening and home theater systems without jumping into the brand’s more expensive models.

What’s on Sale?
- Omada N1 (Bookshelf Speaker) –
$1,399$898/pair at Crutchfield or Amazon (save $500) - Omada N3 (Floorstanding Speaker) –
$3,798$2,598/pair at Crutchfield or Amazon (save $1,200) - Omada N4 (Floorstanding Speaker) –
$4,598$2,998/pair at Crutchfield or Amazon (save $1,600) - Omada Center (Center Channel Speaker) –
$699$499 at Crutchfield or Amazon (save $200)
Focal Omada Core Features:
The Omada series uses Focal’s TAM tweeter and Slatefiber cone technology, both of which first appeared higher up in the company’s lineup. That matters because Omada is not just a pretty cabinet with a familiar badge on the front. The goal is to deliver natural, detailed sound for both two channel listening and home theater systems, using proven Focal driver technology without pushing buyers into the brand’s more expensive loudspeakers.
Design: Omada speakers come in a high gloss black finish with a subtly curved front baffle and a leather like texture on the front panel. It gives the line a cleaner, more refined look without turning the room into a hi-fi showroom crime scene. The finish, cabinet shape, and front panel detail should help the speakers fit into a wide range of rooms, which matters if the system has to share space with actual furniture and people.
TAM Tweeter: Focal’s M-shaped dome TAM tweeter is designed to deliver clean, controlled treble with wide dispersion and low distortion. Originally developed for Focal’s car audio products and later adapted for home loudspeakers, it gives the Omada series a proven high frequency platform that fits neatly into Focal’s broader loudspeaker ecosystem.
Slatefiber Cone: The Omada series also uses Focal’s Slatefiber cone technology, first introduced in the Chora line in 2019. Made from recycled carbon fibers, Slatefiber was developed to deliver a useful mix of rigidity, damping, and tonal balance. Focal has continued to refine the material since its debut, and it has since appeared across other parts of the catalog, including Alpha Evo studio monitors and Slatefiber automotive kits.
Bass Reflex: Every Omada model uses a bass reflex design to improve low frequency extension and output. The N1, N3, and N4 feature a front firing port, while the Center speaker uses two smaller rear ports. The port directs air pressure generated inside the cabinet into the room, reinforcing bass response without requiring more amplifier power. The result is fuller, more impactful low end while helping the Omada lineup maintain useful efficiency across the range.
Focal Omada Speaker Line Comparison

| Focal Omada Model | N°1 | N°3 | N°4 | Center Channel |
| Speaker Type | Bookshelf Speaker | Floorstanding Speaker | Floorstanding Speaker | Center Channel Speaker |
| Sale Price (2026-06-21) |
$898/pair (save $500) |
$2,598/pair (save $1,200) |
$2,998/pair (save $1,600) |
$499 (save $200) |
| Speaker Configuration | 2-way bass-reflex | 3-way bass-reflex | 3-way bass-reflex | 2-way bass-reflex |
| Speaker Drivers | 6 1/2″ (16.5cm) Slatefiber Midbass
1″ (25mm) Al/Mg inverted dome TAM tweeter |
3 x 6 1/2″ (16.5cm) Slatefiber Woofer
1 x 6 1/2″ (16.5cm) Slatefiber Midrange 1″ (25mm) Al/Mg inverted dome TAM tweeter |
2 x 8 1/4″ (21cm) Slatefiber woofer
1 x 6 1/2″ (16.5cm) Slatefiber Midrange 1″ (25mm) Al/Mg ‘M’-shaped inverted dome TAM tweeter |
2 x 6 1/2″ (16.5cm) Slatefiber Midbass
1″ (25mm) Al/Mg inverted dome TAM tweeter |
| Sensitivity (2.83V/1m) | 89.5dB | 92dB | 92dB | 91.5dB |
| Frequency response (+/-3dB) | 56Hz – 30kHz | 42Hz – 30kHz | 40Hz – 30kHz | 58Hz – 30kHz |
| Low frequency point (-6dB) | 48Hz | 35Hz | 34Hz | 50Hz |
| Nominal Impedance | 8 Ω | 8 Ω | 8 Ω | 8 Ω |
| Minimum impedance | 4.5 Ω | 2.9 Ω | 2.6 Ω | 3.6 Ω |
| Recommended Amplifier Power | 25 – 120W | 40 – 300W | 40 – 350W | 40 – 200W |
| Crossover frequency | 2,800Hz | 280Hz / 3,100Hz | 280Hz / 2,800Hz | 2,700Hz |
| Dimensions (WxDxH) | 8 5/8 x 10 1/4 x 15 1/4 in
21.9 x 26 x 38.7 cm |
10 1/8 x 14 3/4 x 44 1/8 in . 25.6 x 37.5 x 112.2 cm |
12 x 16 7/8 x 44 3/8 in
30.4 x 43 x 112.6 cm |
21 1/8 x 10 1/4 x 8 1/2 in
53.7 x 25.9 x 21.6 cm |
| Net weight (with grille) | 15.4 lbs (7 kg) | 58.4 lbs (26.5 kg) | 69.45 lbs (31.5 kg | 22 lbs (10 kg) |
The Bottom Line
The Focal Omada series is for listeners who want proven Focal driver technology, clean styling, and a practical speaker lineup for both music and movies without paying for features they may not need. With the TAM tweeter, Slatefiber cones, and a focused range of models, Omada makes the most sense for buyers building a solid two channel or home theater system who want Focal performance at a more accessible price.
Sale Pricing
The Focal Omada Speaker sale runs through June 21, 2026.
- Omada N1 (Bookshelf Speaker) –
$1,399$898/pair at Crutchfield or Amazon (save $500) - Omada N3 (Floorstanding Speaker) –
$3,798$2,598/pair at Crutchfield or Amazon (save $1,200) - Omada N4 (Floorstanding Speaker) –
$4,598$2,998/pair at Crutchfield or Amazon (save $1,600) - Omada Center (Center Channel Speaker) –
$699$499 at Crutchfield or Amazon (save $200)
To round out an Omada system, the speakers can be combined with the SUB 600P subwoofer for deeper and encompassing bass for $1,399 at Amazon. Meanwhile, the speaker stands for the N1, which is available for $269/pair at Crutchfield.
Related Reading:
Tech
iOS 26.5 Will Add End-To-End Encryption For RCS Messages Between Apple And Android
The latest test version of iOS 26.5 includes a changelog about bringing some new protections to texts. The smartphone operating system will be rolling out end-to-end encryption for RCS messages between Apple and Android devices. “End-to-end encrypted RCS messaging (beta) in Messages is available with supported carriers and will roll out over time,” is Apple’s official wording about the addition. The setting will be on by default, but Apple device owners can confirm it in Settings under the RCS Messaging menu of the Messages section once they are running iOS 26.5.
According to 9to5Google, a lock icon will appear in an iPhone user’s Messages app when chats to an Android device are taking advantage of the encryption. On the Android side, the Google Messages chats to iOS devices will look the same way they do when messaging another user (or users) with encrypted RCS.
Apple added the option for RCS messaging as part of iOS 18. The GSM Association, which operates the RCS protocol, added support for E2EE between the operating systems last year. At the time, Apple said it would bring the added security layer “in future software updates” that seem to have finally arrived. The tech company began testing this tech back in February as part of iOS 26.4, although Apple specified that it did not plan to officially roll out the encryption feature with that launch. More protections to keep communications private is pretty much always a good thing to see, so that’s a welcome addition to what might otherwise be a more incremental iOS 26.5 update.
Tech
Geothermal startup Fervo Energy to raise up to $1.3B in IPO
Geothermal startup Fervo Energy said Monday it hopes to raise up to $1.3 billion in its initial public offering.
The company would be valued at up to $6.5 billion if shares sell at the top of its $21 to $24 price target. That’s more than twice what Fervo had reportedly been seeking earlier this year when it confidentially filed paperwork with the SEC to start the IPO process.
The stock will trade on Nasdaq under the ticker FRVO.
Fervo’s price target comes on the heels of X-energy’s successful IPO. The nuclear power startup raised $1 billion in an upsized IPO. When the company set its price target for the IPO, it sought a valuation of around $7 billion. Today, X-energy’s market capitalization i over $8 billion.
Both Fervo and X-energy have been boosted by surging electricity demand from tech companies, which have been racing to secure supplies to feed their AI data centers. The scramble has driven prices for new natural gas power plants up 66% in the last two years.
Fervo says it’s Cape Station power plant — its first large-scale project — will generate electricity at $7,000 per kilowatt of installed capacity. The company’s goal is to reduce that to $3,000 per kilowatt of capacity, at which point it will start being cost competitive with natural gas.
Tech
This beautiful hand-made floor-standing speaker ain’t cheap, but I can’t take my eyes off it and I haven’t even heard it yet
- Audiovector unveils R 5 Arreté loudspeaker
- Beautiful fin-shaped, hand-crafted wooden design
- Barrage of speakers includes twin bass drivers
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a floor-standing speaker that wasn’t beautiful or exotic in some way, and Audiovector has just proven my point by unveiling the new R 5 Arreté.
You’ve already seen this speaker in the above image, so you already know how good it looks. Each unit is hand-made in Denmark, and you can pick it up in a range of finishes. Above, you’re looking at African Mahogany, but there’s also Italian Walnut, White Silk, and Black Piano.
Audiovector is a family business, as we discovered at the launch of the Trapeze Ri, and so it makes sense that care goes into the speakers. The cabinets are designed ot be narrow, to “minimise edge diffraction for a more precise and transparent soundstage” according to the brand.
Article continues below
This attention extends to the plinth, with that staggered design achieving “a perfectly controlled coupling to the surface beneath”. As you can see from the quotes from the brand, we haven’t actually tested the R 5 Arreté yet.
You can, if you’d like, because it’s on sale now. But you’ll have to pay £17,500 (about $23,600, AU$32,860) for the pleasure of doing so.
Have you forgotten about the sound?
Okay, okay, the R 5 Arreté isn’t just a lovely piece of furniture, but a loudspeaker. So what’s it packing under the hood?
The three drivers are all 6.5-inch carbon speakers that use the brand’s Accelerated Force Concept to reduce driver inertia. One’s a mid driver, one’s a lower-mid driver, and another’s a bass driver aimed at the lowest frequencies. There’s also a tweeter to handle the higher frequencies.
According to Audiovector, the frequency response is 23Hz-53Hz, with an average impedance of 8 ohms and a sensitivity of 90 decibels.
Another selling point of the Arreté is that it’s designed to work well with amplifiers, due to its “unique three-position damping adjustment”. So you can use your extra accessories to really eke the most out of the speaker.
If you’re worried about whether you can fit these things, they’re 11cm tall, 22cm wide, and 41cm deep with a weight of 32kg.
To many people, super-speakers like that might be outside the budget. But I was recently at a hi-fi show where I found some affordable hi-fi kit that might fill the Arreté hole in your soul.

The best stereo speakers all budgets
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!
And of course, you can also follow TechRadar on YouTube and TikTok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form, and get regular updates from us on WhatsApp too.
Tech
White House Considers Vetting AI Models Before They Are Released
The Trump administration is reportedly considering an executive order to create a working group that could review advanced AI models before public release. The shift follows concerns over Anthropic’s powerful Mythos model and its cyber capabilities, with officials weighing whether the government should get early access to frontier models without necessarily blocking their release. The New York Times reports: In meetings last week, White House officials told executives from Anthropic, Google and OpenAI about some of those plans, people briefed on the conversations said. The working group is likely to consider a number of oversight approaches, officials said. But a review process could be similar to one being developed in Britain, which has assigned several government bodies to ensure that A.I. models meet certain safety standards, people in the tech industry and the administration said.
The discussions signal a stark reversal in the Trump administration’s approach to A.I. Since returning to office last year, Mr. Trump has been a major booster of the technology, which he has said is vital to winning the geopolitical contest against China. Among other moves, he swiftly rolled back a Biden administration regulatory process that asked A.I. developers to perform safety evaluations and report on A.I. models with potential military applications. “We’re going to make this industry absolutely the top, because right now it’s a beautiful baby that’s born,” Mr. Trump said of A.I. at an event in July. “We have to grow that baby and let that baby thrive. We can’t stop it. We can’t stop it with politics. We can’t stop it with foolish rules and even stupid rules.” Mr. Trump left room for some rules, but he added that “they have to be more brilliant than even the technology itself.”
The White House wants to avoid any political repercussions if a devastating A.I.-enabled cyberattack were to occur, people in the tech industry and the administration said. The administration is also evaluating whether new A.I. models could yield cyber-capabilities that could be useful to the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies, they said. To get ahead of models like Mythos, some officials are pushing for a review system that would give the government first access to A.I. models, but that would not block their release, people briefed on the talks said.
Tech
The Open Social Web Needs Section 230 To Survive
from the if-you-believe-in-an-open-web… dept
If you want to overthrow Big Tech, you’ll need Section 230. The paradigm shift being built with the Open Social Web can put communities back in control of social media infrastructure, and finally end our dependency on enshittified corporate giants. But while these incumbents can overcome multimillion-dollar lawsuits, the small host revolution could be picked off one by one without the protections offered by 230.
The internet as we know it is built on Section 230, a law from the 90s that generally says internet users are legally responsible for their own speech — not the services hosting their speech. The purpose of 230 was to enable diverse forums for speech online, which defined the early internet. These scattered online communities have since been largely captured by a handful of multi-billion dollar companies that found profit in controlling your voice online. While critics are rightly concerned about this new corporate influence and surveillance, some look to diminishing Section 230 as the nuclear option to regain control.
The thing is, that would be a huge gift to Big Tech, and detrimental to our best shot at actually undermining corporate and state control of speech online.
Dethroning Big Tech
We’re fed up with legacy social media trapping us in walled gardens, where the world’s biggest companies like Google and Meta call the shots. Our communities, and our voices, are being held hostage as billionaires’ platforms surveil, betray, and censor us. We’re not alone in this frustration, and fortunately, people are collaborating globally to build another way forward: the Open Social Web.
This new infrastructure puts the public’s interest first by reclaiming the principles of interoperability and decentralization from the early internet. In short, it puts protocols over platforms and lets people own their connections with others. Whether you choose a Fediverse app like Mastodon or an ATmosphere app like Bluesky, your audience and community stay within reach. It’s a vision of social media akin to our lives offline: you decide who to be in touch with and how, and no central authority can threaten to snuff out those connections. It’s social media for humans, not advertisers and authoritarians.
Behind that vision is a beautiful mess of protocols bringing the open social media web to life. Each protocol is a unique language for applications, determining how and where messages are sent. While this means there is great variety to these projects, it also means everyone who spins up a server, develops an app, or otherwise hosts others’ speech has skin in the game when it comes to defending Section 230.
What exactly is Section 230?
Section 230 protects freedom of expression online by protecting US intermediaries that make the internet work. Passed in 1996 to preserve the new bubbling communities online, 230 enshrined important protections for free expression and the ability to block or filter speech you don’t want on your site. One portion is credited as the “26 words that created the internet”:
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
In other words, this bipartisan law recognizes that speech online relies on intermediaries — services that deliver messages between users — and holding them potentially liable for any message they deliver would only stifle that speech. Intuitively, when harmful speech occurs, the speaker should be the one held accountable. The effect is that most civil suits against users and services based on others’ speech can quickly be dismissed, avoiding the most expensive parts of civil litigation.
Section 230 was never a license to host anything online, however. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.
What Section 230 has enabled, however, is the freedom and flexibility for online communities to self-organize. Without the specter of one bad actor exposing the host(s) to serious legal threats, intermediaries can moderate how they see fit or even defer to volunteers within these communities.
Why the Open Social Web Needs Section 230
The superpower of decentralized systems like the Fediverse is the ability for thousands of small hosts to each shoulder some of the burdens of hosting. No single site can assert itself as a necessary intermediary for everyone; instead, all must collaborate to ensure messages reach the intended audience. The result is something superior to any one design or mandate. It is an ecosystem that is greater than the sum of its parts, resilient to disruptions, and free to experiment with different approaches to community governance.
The open social web’s kryptonite though, is the liability participants can face as intermediaries. The greater the potential liability, the more interference from powerful interests in the form of legal threats, more monetary costs, and less space for nuance in moderation. And in practice, participants may simply stop hosting to avoid those risks. The end result is only the biggest and most resourced options can survive.
This isn’t just about the hosts in the Open Social Web, like Mastodon instances or Bluesky PDSes. In the U.S., Section 230’s protections extend to internet users when they distribute another person’s speech. For example, Section 230 protects a user who forwards an email with a defamatory statement. On the open social web, that means when you pass along a message to others through sharing, boosting, and quoting, you’re not liable for the other user’s speech. The alternative would be a web where one misclick could open you up to a defamation lawsuit.
Section 230 also applies to the infrastructure stack, too, like Internet service providers, content delivery networks, domain, and hosting providers. Protections even extend to the new experimental infrastructures of decentralized mesh networks.
Beyond the existential risks to the feasibility of indie decentralized projects in the United States, weakening 230 protections would also make services worse. Being able to customize your social media experience from highly curated to totally laissez-faire in the open social web is only possible when the law allows space for private experiments in moderation approaches. The algorithmically driven firehose forced on users by antiquated social media giants is driven by the financial interests of advertisers, and would only be more tightly controlled in a post-230 world.
Defending 230
Laws aimed at changing 230 protections put decentralized projects like the open social web in a uniquely precarious position. That is why we urge lawmakers to take careful consideration of these impacts. It is also why the proponents and builders of a better web must be vigilant defenders of the legal tools that make their work possible.
The open social web embodies what we are protecting with Section 230. It’s our best chance at building a truly democratic public interest internet, where communities are in control.
Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.
Filed Under: activitypub, atprotocol, open social web, section 230
-
Business6 days agoMost Commercial Energy Audits Miss the Real Losses
-
Fashion6 days agoKylie Jenner’s KHY Enters a New Era with ‘Born in LA’
-
NewsBeat1 day agoChannel 5 – All Creatures Great and Small series 7 new post
-
Tech3 days agoTrump’s 25% EU auto tariff breaches Turnberry Agreement that also covers semiconductors and digital trade
-
Sports3 days agoPaul Scholes issues Marcus Rashford reality check as agreement emerges over Man United star
-
Crypto World7 days agoCFTC’s AI will review U.S. crypto registration applications, chairman tells CoinDesk
-
Business6 days agoBarclay Brothers Avoid Bankruptcy: HSBC Drops High Court Petitions After IVA Deal
-
Business5 days agoTesla Officially Registers Elon Musk’s Stock: What Investors Need to Know
-
Crypto World7 days agoRobinhood Phishing Scam Exploits Gmail Dot Feature to Bypass Security
-
Tech7 days agoGet Ready for More Brain-Scanning Consumer Gadgets
-
Crypto World7 days agoGmail Dot Trick Underpins Robinhood Phishing, Sending Real-Looking Emails
-
Business4 days agoTwo Powerball Tickets Split $143 Million Jackpot in Indiana and Kansas
-
Tech5 days agoTexas Instruments made a new flagship graphing calculator: the TI-84 Evo
-
Crypto World4 days ago
CoreWeave (CRWV) Stock Climbs 8% Despite $45M Insider Share Dump
-
Business7 days agoTop 10 AI Companies Leading New Zealand’s Tech Boom in 2026
-
Business2 days agoWinning Numbers Drawn as Jackpot Resets to $20 Million
-
Tech7 days agoBambu Lab H2C review: the Cadillac of 3D printers
-
Tech7 days agoRobinhood account creation flaw abused to send phishing emails
-
Business7 days agoGeneral Motors (GM) earnings Q1 2026
-
Crypto World7 days agoSolana Clients Introduce Post-Quantum Solution Falcon

You must be logged in to post a comment Login