PayPal may not be pursuing an acquisition, Semafor reported, citing people familiar with the matter. 

Earlier this week, Bloomberg reported that Stripe expressed interest in buying some or all of PayPal Holdings, which includes the flagship product PayPal and its services, as well as other companies like Venmo. Stripe declined to comment on the news. 

But unnamed sources tell Semafor that the company has been working with bankers in preparation for a possible activist investor campaign or a hostile takeover. The bankers were working with Alex Chriss, PayPal’s now-ousted CEO, the outlet reported. The company’s new CEO starts next week, PayPal has said. 

PayPal did not respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment.

Most VPN providers offer a VPN app for Mac computers, but it can be difficult to choose the right provider with so many options available. Based on our extensive research and hands-on testing of VPNs over the years, these are the most important factors to consider when choosing a VPN: 

Privacy

The primary consideration for any VPN — including a Mac VPN — should be privacy. If your Mac VPN is unable to sufficiently protect your online privacy, then your VPN is useless. At a minimum, your VPN should employ industry-standard AES 256-bit encryption (with the OpenVPN or IKEv2 VPN protocols) or ChaCha20 (with the WireGuard or IKEv2 VPN protocol), along with offering basic privacy protections like a kill switch, DNS leak protection and a no-logs policy. If you need to use a VPN in situations where they’re frowned upon — like on school Wi-Fi — you may want a provider that offers obfuscated servers or obfuscation-focused VPN protocols, such as Proton VPN’s Stealth or NordVPN’s NordWhisper. Obfuscation tries to hide the fact that you’re using a VPN, making your connection look like standard web traffic instead.

For critical privacy needs, you’ll also want a VPN provider that’s based in a privacy-friendly jurisdiction, offers obfuscation and has a RAM-only server architecture. Additional privacy features to look out for include Tor over VPN capabilities, ad and tracker blockers and multihop connections. Also, look for a VPN that undergoes regular third-party security audits, as audits can help bolster trust in the VPN’s ability to protect its users’ privacy. 

Speed

Mac computers are generally known to be pretty fast, so you’ll probably want a fast VPN that can deliver excellent speeds. The speed of your VPN can have a major effect on activities like streaming, downloading, video conferencing, gaming and general web browsing. All VPNs lower your connection speed somewhat, so to keep things running as smoothly as possible, you’ll want to look for a VPN that will have as minimal an impact on your regular internet speeds as possible. Generally, the best VPNs only drop your download speed by an average of 25% or less, with the best performers — NordVPN, Proton VPN and ExpressVPN — staying under 20% speed loss.  

Usability

MacOS is designed to be clean and intuitive, so if you’re used to the feel of the operating system, you’d probably want a similar experience with the VPN software you use. A good Mac VPN should run smoothly and have a decluttered user interface that’s easy to use regardless of your technical expertise. It should have a large network of servers around the world so you can connect easily and reliably from wherever you are, and it should be able to help you access geo-restricted content from various regions. You should also consider advanced features, like specialty servers (such as Tor over VPN and obfuscated servers), double hop/multi-hop, a dedicated IP address and split tunneling (which lets you use a VPN connection for some VPN apps but not others).

Cost

VPN pricing varies greatly from provider to provider, so if you’re on a budget, you may want to consider the cost and overall value of your MacOS VPN. Typically, you can expect to spend about $5 to $15 a month for a monthly VPN subscription plan. If you want to save money, you can opt for an annual subscription, where prices can range from roughly $50 to $150 a year. Be careful with free VPNs, though, because you may end up putting your privacy at risk instead of protecting it if you go with a free option. Proton VPN is currently the only free VPN that CNET recommends. However, most VPNs offer a money-back guarantee that can be anywhere from a week to 45 days. You can also get a seven-day free trial with many VPNs if you sign up through Apple’s App Store. So you’ll most likely have options to try various Mac VPNs risk-free before you decide whether to fully invest in one. 

Device support

You’ll want a VPN that works well on your Mac devices, like your MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, Mac Mini, Mac Studio or Mac Pro. Additionally, if you’re heavily ingrained in the Apple ecosystem, you may want to consider a VPN that works well on your iPhone, iPad and even Apple TV. Thankfully, most VPNs support MacOS and iOS/iPadOS, and Apple TV compatibility is increasingly common. With the majority of VPN providers, you can install a VPN on all of your Mac devices, from MacBooks and Mac desktops to iPhones, iPads and Apple TV streaming boxes.

Streaming

VPNs can elevate your streaming experience thanks to their ability to hide your IP address, thereby making apps and websites think you’re in a different geographical location. For instance, you can use a VPN to unblock region-restricted content, like watching HBO Max while traveling outside the US, or watching BBC iPlayer while vacationing outside the UK. Alternatively, you can access foreign Netflix, Disney Plus and Amazon Prime Video libraries. Think about the streaming services you want to use with a VPN, and make sure those apps work with your desired VPN service. If you want to install a VPN on your smart TV, Android TV device, Amazon Fire TV or Apple TV, make sure your VPN provider has a compatible app for that device. Using a VPN for streaming may even help you save money on streaming service subscriptions.

from the snot-nosed-punks dept

I’ll take my joy where I can. And this iteration of the Trump DOJ continues to provide bright bursts of schadenfreude-tinted sunshine.

Any competent DOJ can close cases. Any barely competent prosecutor can push a case past a grand jury. Any sufficiently slippery solicitor (mixing in some British for the sheer alliteration of it all) can convince a judge that the lies told by officers were merely good faith blunders not worthy of anything more than a judicial “no one’s perfect” shrug.

This DOJ fails at every single level. It can’t secure indictments. It can’t convince grand juries that vindictive prosecutions are legitimate prosecutions. And its prosecutors are constantly undermined by (1) prejudicial, fact-free social media posts and public statements by administration officials, (2) the illegal actions of federal officers, (3) their own ineptitude, (4) the lies told by federal officers, and (5) any or all of the above.

High-level prosecutors keep getting sidelined because they’ve been illegally appointed. Other prosecutors have refused to engage with the administration’s vindictive plans, resulting in most of them retiring or being fired. Consequently, there’s a shortage of qualified, experienced prosecutors. The void is being constantly refilled by some of the emptiest people ever to leverage MAGA loyalty into federal employment.

It took less than a year for the Trump DOJ to almost completely destroy the “presumption of regularity” — the legal concept that the government is acting in good faith, even if its legal arguments aren’t the best. It took less than a year for the Trump DOJ to turn grand juries into coin flips.

I mean, this is how it went for years prior to Trump 2.0:

In 2016, the most recent year for which the Justice Department has published data, federal prosecutors concluded more than 155,000 prosecutions and declined over 25,000 cases presented by investigators. In only six instances was a grand jury’s refusal to indict listed as the reason for dropping the matter.

Six times in a one year over 25,000 declined cases. Trump’s loyalist US Attorney pick, Lindsey Halligan, put her insurance law background to work and… managed to do this twice during a single (attempted) prosecution.

When prosecutors aren’t shooting themselves in the foot (or being shot in the foot by their employer), they’re losing cases because the people they expect to back up their cases — the federal officers claiming to have been assaulted, etc. — can’t even back up their own narratives when testifying in court.

This was already a problem by late summer of last year. The Guardian reports that things appear to have gotten even worse.

The most recent significant fumble came from Minneapolis prosecutors, who last week dismissed felony assault charges they had filed against two Venezuelan men accused of “violently beating” an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer “with weapons” on 14 January.

According to the early government narrative, federal officers were assaulted by “violent criminal illegal aliens” during a stop of an undocumented Venezuelan. The officers claimed two other men came out of a nearby apartment and attacked an officer with a “snow shovel and broom handle.” That case is now dead because… well, the testifying officers lied.

[O]n 12 February, prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss both men’s cases, saying: “Newly discovered evidence in this matter is materially inconsistent with the allegations in the complaint affidavit.”

[…]

ICE director Todd Lyons said ICE and the DoJ had opened an investigation into the case after videos revealed “sworn testimony provided by two separate officers appears to have made untruthful statements”, marking a rare acknowledgement of possible wrongdoing by DHS officials.

Advertisement

It’s extremely rare for the government to dismiss its own prosecution with prejudice, meaning it can’t ever seek to refile these criminal charges against the alleged perpetrators. And I don’t know if Todd Lyons just misspoke or if he actually tried to use the exonerative tense while simultaneously stating these officers lied. “Sworn testimony… appears to have made untruthful statements” sounds like the courtroom version of a government official discussing a shooting by an officer with the phrase “the officer’s weapon discharged,” suggesting no one actually pulled the trigger.

Whatever the case, there’s definitely a trend here.

In Chicago, of 92 people arrested for assaulting or impeding officers last fall, 74 cases have resulted in no charges; in 13 cases, charges were filed and dismissed; and five charged cases were still pending, a recent investigation by Fox 9, a Minneapolis-based station, showed. As of the end of January, there have been no convictions.

In LA, the federal public defenders have won all six cases filed against ICE protesters that have gone to trial since June, the LA Times recently reported. Fewer than 1% of federal criminal defendants were acquitted across the US in fiscal year 2024, with US prosecutors traditionally having a roughly 90% conviction rate, the paper noted.

Juries have also issued not guilty verdicts for people accused of assaulting ICE or similar charges in Louisville, Kentucky, Seattle and Washington DC.

Advertisement

I assume the DOJ bloodshed will continue. Trump hates losing and he hates people who lose in his name even more. But replacing talent with loyalists isn’t going to end this losing streak. If nothing else, this iteration of the DOJ has the chance to go down in history as one of the worst ever assembled, even if we consider nothing else but its win-loss record.

It doesn’t mean the DOJ is harmless, however. It’s still more than willing to engage in vindictive prosecutions, ignore court orders, and take bite after bite of the apple (so to speak) until it finally manages to at least pierce the skin. And that means a lot of people are going to have their lives upended, even if only temporarily, just to please a tyrant who thinks anything or anyone presenting even the most minimal of opposition should be subjected to punishment.

Filed Under: cbp, dhs, doj, failure, grand juries, ice, mass deportation, trump administration

When doctors in the United States refer patients to specialty or post-acute medical care such as physical therapy or long-term nursing care, nearly half never complete the process of finding help. Referrals stall in part because provider directories are outdated, insurance coverage is unclear, and much coordination still relies on phone calls and faxes.

Carenector, a Denver-based startup launched in 2024, is working to improve the process with software that quickly connects patients with appropriate care providers while protecting their personal data. Instead of presenting a long list of providers, many of whom would not be a good match, the company’s referral platform uses AI to eliminate facilities that don’t meet the patient’s rehabilitation needs, don’t accept the patient’s insurance, or are not conveniently located.

The startup’s platform serves individuals seeking care as well as health care organizations and care coordination teams that manage patient referrals. The company aims to help patients while reducing the administrative burden on clinicians and discharge planners, says cofounder Naheem Noah. As of now, Carenector works with patients and facilities only in Colorado, but it plans to expand coverage nationwide.

Noah, a Ph.D. candidate who joined IEEE in 2022 as a student member, encountered the referral problem firsthand after tearing an anterior cruciate ligament in a knee while playing soccer. Finding a physical therapist who accepted his insurance, specialized in ACL rehabilitation, had appointments available, and was near his home required hours of phone calls and searches through inaccurate provider lists, he says.

That experience helped shape the company’s direction, but Carenector is aimed at a broader, persistent failure in U.S. health care coordination.

A broken referral system

The company took shape when Noah connected with his cofounder, licensed social worker Aminata Diarra, a social director at a nursing facility. Her role included discharge planning: placing patients in post-acute-care facilities that bridge the gap between hospital discharge and the patient’s ability to independently manage life’s daily activities.

For a single patient, Diarra says, that often meant she made 10 to 15 phone calls over the course of a week to find a facility with a bed available, that accepted the patient’s insurance, and that could meet the care requirements.

She and Noah soon realized they were dealing with the same broken system from opposite sides. Existing research on referral lapses supported their experience. Primary care physicians often send referral notes—analogous to prescriptions—that list the patient’s medical history and describe the needed treatment.

Noah discovered that only about one-third of the notes are transmitted in a way that allows providers at nursing homes and rehab facilities to access the information.

Physicians often post their suggestions for ongoing treatment in sections of a patient’s electronic health records, but providers at post-acute facilities don’t have access to those because of medical privacy laws. What gets shared is a pared-down document that omits progress notes and discharge summaries.

Engineering a research-driven startup

Noah is currently a researcher in the University of Denver computer science department, where his academic work focuses on privacy and security in digital systems.

He is Carenector’s chief executive and technical lead, overseeing the system’s design, making technical decisions, and meeting with investors.

Although the startup is separate from his dissertation research, the company reflects his broader interest in building secure systems that work in real-world conditions.

Beginning a company while a student, he has access to university resources that many early-stage startups lack. He has participated in the university’s BaseCamp accelerator and received mentorship and business planning support.

The Carenector team was assembled with the plan to scale up in the future with health care compliance in mind. The group includes professionals from regulatory, legal, and data engineering fields.

Replacing phone calls with digital matching

By using standardized digital information shared among medical facilities, Carenector eliminates the need for staff to make phone calls or send faxes. At the core of the platform is a structured database that links care providers—including post-acute, specialty, and rehabilitation facilities—with insurance plan criteria and facility attributes such as accessibility and service capabilities.

One of the biggest challenges for Noah is getting accurate data on which services facilities offer, which insurance they accept, and whether a patient’s insurance plan covers the treatment proposed by the referring physician.

“Health care information in the United States is not centralized,” he says, “and insurance provider directories are often wrong or out of date.”

To address that, Carenector incorporates publicly available datasets from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including plan attributes, service areas, quality ratings, and issuer-level transparency data. These public-use files provide plan-level and provider-level information that help standardize coverage criteria, geographic availability, and performance indicators. Carenector integrates this structured public data with facility-supplied information and referral outcome analytics to improve matching accuracy.

“By replacing manual coordination with clear rules, accurate data, and built-in privacy protections, we hope to make accessing care a routine step in recovery—not another obstacle.”

This structured data helps Carenector evaluate plan criteria, provider capabilities, geographic availability, and quality indicators to support referral decision-making. The company standardizes and organizes the information within its own system architecture and uses mapping and geolocation APIs to integrate location-based filtering and workflow functionality for patients, providers, and care coordinators.

Because CMS data is updated periodically, Carenector supplements it with additional structured data sources and referral outcome analytics to better understand plan acceptance patterns. Room availability information comes directly from participating facilities, which are responsible for updating their status within Carenector’s system.

Whether referrals succeed or fail provides critical feedback, Noah says. When referrals to specific facilities repeatedly go uncompleted—meaning the patient does not receive the recommended care from the provider—Carenector’s AI-driven matching algorithm adjusts to that pattern and reduces the likelihood of that facility being considered for similar cases. Facilities that consistently accept and complete referrals are ranked preferentially.

Apps for patients and facilities

The company has poured its data management wizardry and AI smarts into apps for patients and clinicians.

The patient app helps users locate appropriate health care services at no cost. Users can search for care by service type, ZIP code, or insurance company without creating an account. They receive a list of matching facilities that can be shared via clipboard or sent by email to themselves or family members..

In the facility app, clinicians enter the diagnosis, rehabilitation needs, equipment requirements, insurance type, and location without sharing personally identifiable patient information. Organizations can communicate using secure messages that disappear after a set period. Files and images are shown only once and deleted after viewing.

Facilities that use the app pay Carenector a flat fee for each successful referral. The patient app is free.

The startup does not sell or share data with third parties, Noah says.

“Privacy is a central design requirement for Carenector’s system, not a last-minute add-on to the finished product,” he says.

The company minimizes the collection of personal data to avoid becoming a data repository. Although its role is limited to coordinating referrals, Carenector is working with independent security auditors to validate that its operational and data-handling practices align with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements. The HIPAA law sets standards meant to protect sensitive patient information from unauthorized disclosure.

Noah says he is confident that Carenector will achieve that rating because the app is designed to reduce the collection and exposure of sensitive information wherever possible.

Business model and measured expansion

Carenector’s growth plan, Noah says, is strategic. Rather than scaling rapidly, he says, he is looking to enter one region at a time, incorporating feedback from each local deployment before expanding the company further.

He envisions that in five years, Carenector will serve as a core piece of health care referral infrastructure—embedded in the workflows of hospitals, post-acute facilities, insurers, employers, and major electronic health record systems such as Epic and Cerner—while also increasing visibility for care facilities in underserved and remote areas. The plan, he says, is to support thousands of facility recommendations per day, compared with the approximately 200 daily facility recommendations it currently generates. Noah also looks forward to the broader adoption of APIs that allow care coordination and facility discovery to occur directly within clinical workflows.

He says he sees his startup as a way to reduce unnecessary stress from moments when patients are vulnerable.

“By replacing manual coordination with clear rules, accurate data, and built-in privacy protections,” he says, “we hope to make accessing care a routine step in recovery—not another obstacle.”