Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Tech

Court Says Pentagon Can’t Pick And Choose Which News Outlets Have Access

Published

on

from the five-stars-don’t-beat-one-amendment dept

This was extremely wild shit to be happening anywhere, much less in the land of the First Amendment. No sooner had Donald Trump decided it was time to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War than the head of DoD operations decided it would be sorting news agencies by level of subservience.

Pretending this was all about national security, the Defense Department basically kicked everyone out of the Pentagon’s press office and stated that only those that chose to play by the new rules would be allowed back inside.

Booted: NBC News, the New York Times, NPR. Welcomed back into the fold: OAN, Newsmax, Breitbart. The Pentagon wanted a state-run press, but without having to do all the heavy lifting that comes with instituting a state-run press in the Land of the Free.

Somewhat surprisingly, some of those explicitly invited to partake of the new Defense Department media wing refused to participate. Fox and Newsmax decided to stay out, rather than promise they’d never publish leaked documents. Those choosing to bend the knee were those who never needed this sort of coercion in the first place: One America News (OAN), The Federalist, and far-right weirdos, the Epoch Times. In other words, MAGA-heavy breathers that have never been known for their independence, much less their journalism.

Advertisement

That didn’t stop Hegseth and the department he’s mismanaging from attempting to take a victory lap. And it certainly didn’t stop news agencies like the New York Times from suing over this blatant violation of the First Amendment.

It’s so obvious it only took the NYT four months to secure a win in a federal court (DC) that is positively swamped with litigation generated by Trump’s swamp. (h/t Adam Klasfield)

The decision [PDF] makes it clear in the opening paragraph how this is going to go for the administration and its extremely selective “respect” of enshrined rights and freedoms.

A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription. Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.

Amen.

Advertisement

The court notes that in the past, there has been some friction between national security concerns and reporting by journalists. In some cases, the friction has been little more than the government chafing a bit when something has been published that it would rather have kept a secret. In other cases, leaks involving sensitive information have provoked reform efforts on both sides of the equation, seeking to balance these concerns with serving the public interest.

Up until now, any efforts to expel reporters have been limited to backroom bitching. What’s happening now, however, is unprecedented.

Historically, though, even when Department leaders disliked a journalist’s reporting, they did not consider suspending, revoking, or not renewing the journalist’s press credentials in response to that reporting. Julian Barnes, Pete Williams, and Robert Burns—reporters who have spent decades covering the Pentagon—as well as former Pentagon officials, are not aware of the Department ever suspending, revoking, or not renewing a journalist’s credentials due to concern over the safety or security of Department personnel or property or based on the content of their reporting.

This may be new, but the court isn’t willing to make it the “new normal.” It’s the decades of precedent that truly matter, not the vindictive whims of the overgrown toddlers currently holding office.

The Pentagon claims that demanding journalists agree not to “solicit,” much less print data or information not explicitly approved for release by the Defense Department doesn’t reach any further than existing laws governing the handling of classified documents. The court disagrees, noting that the new policy allows the government to conflate the illegal solicitation of classified material with the sort of soliciting — i.e., requests for information, etc. — journalists do every day in hopes of securing something newsworthy.

Advertisement

On top of allowing the government to punish people for things that weren’t previously considered unlawful, the demand for obeisance wasn’t created in a vacuum. Instead, it flowed directly from this entire administration’s constant attacks on the press by the president and pretty much every one in his Cabinet.

The plaintiffs are correct: “The record is replete with undisputed evidence that the Policy is viewpoint discriminatory.” That evidence tells the story of a Department whose leadership has been and continues to be openly hostile to the “mainstream media” whose reporting it views as unfavorable, but receptive to outlets that have expressed “support for the Trump administration in the past.”

The story begins prior to the adoption of the Policy, when—following extensive reporting on Secretary Hegseth’s background and qualifications during his confirmation process—Secretary Hegseth and Department officials “openly complained about reporting they perceive[d] as unfavorable to them and the Department.” Then, in the weeks and months leading up to the issuance of the Policy, Department officials repeatedly condemned certain news organizations—including The Times—for their coverage of the Department. For example, in response to reporting by The Times on Secretary Hegseth’s alleged misuse of the messaging platform Signal, Mr. Parnell posted on X to call out The Times “and all other Fake News that repeat their garbage.” Mr. Parnell decried these news organizations as “Trump-hating media” who “continue[] to be obsessed with destroying anyone committed to President Trump’s agenda.” In other social media posts leading up to the issuance of the Policy, Department officials referred to journalists from The Washington Post as “scum” and called for their “severe punishment” in response to reporting on Secretary Hegseth’s security detail.

It was never about keeping loose lips from sinking ships. It was always about cutting off access to news agencies the administration didn’t like. And once you’ve gotten rid of the critics, you’re left with the functional equivalent of a state-run media, but without the nastiness of having to disappear people into concentration camps or usher them out of their cubicles at gunpoint.

The court won’t let this stand. The new policy violates both the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment (due to the vagueness of its ban on “soliciting” sensitive information). That’s never been acceptable before in this nation. Just because there’s an aspiring tyrant leaning heavily on the Resolute Desk these days doesn’t make it any more permissible.

Advertisement

The Court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected. But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election. As Justice Brandeis correctly observed, “sunlight is the most powerful of all disinfectants.”

The administration will definitely appeal this decision. And it almost definitely will try to bypass the DC Appeals Court and go straight to the Supreme Court by claiming not being able to expel reporters it doesn’t like is some sort of national emergency. It will probably even claim that the fight it picked in Iran justifies the actions it took months before it decided to involve us in the nation’s latest Afghanistan/Vietnam.

But it definitely shouldn’t win. This isn’t some obscure permutation of First Amendment law. This is the government crafting a policy that allows it to decide what gets to be printed and who gets to print it. That’s never been acceptable here. And it never should be.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, defense department, dod, free speech, leaks, pete hegseth, trump administration

Companies: ny times

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech

U.S. ITC won't allow Masimo to bring back the Apple Watch ban

Published

on

The U.S. ITC has denied a request by Masimo to reinstate a ban on the Apple Watch, closing its case on alleged blood oxygen patent infringement.

Close-up of an Apple Watch Series 9 back, showing circular heart-rate sensor cluster and engraved text, attached to a brown leather band with visible stitching on a dark surface
The rear sensor of the Apple Watch

The long-running lawsuit over the Apple Watch has continued, this time with a partial win for Apple. In the latest development, which saw Masimo accuse Apple of infringing on its blood oxygen patents, the medical tech firm was denied a review of a preliminary ruling.
On March 19, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit backed the original ruling by the International Trade Commission. However, on March 18, the ITC made a ruling that Apple wouldn’t have to do anything else to remedy the case.
Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

A First Amendment Legend Eviscerates Brendan Carr With Substance And Style

Published

on

from the i’d-throw-my-computer-in-a-lake dept

We’ve been covering Brendan Carr’s censorial ambitions for a long time now. When Trump first picked him to chair the FCC, we warned people that the “free speech warrior” branding was a total sham. We later dug into the letter from a massive coalition of 80+ legal scholars, former FCC officials, and civil liberties groups detailing how Carr’s threats fly in the face of the First Amendment. Hell, just this morning Karl wrote about how Carr is still plotting to punish Jimmy Kimmel for mocking President Trump. Meanwhile, Carr has responded to the criticism with smirking emojis and culture-war memes on X, treating the whole thing as performative trolling for an audience of one.

But now, First Amendment lawyer Bob Corn-Revere has published an open letter to Carr that is, frankly, one of the most devastating things I’ve read in years. And you really should go read the whole thing.

While Carr has mostly laughed off or ignored criticism of his many First Amendment violations, a letter from Corn-Revere (beyond the incredible prose of the letter) may hit a bit different given his stature within the First Amendment world. He has famously spent decades fighting in the trenches of the hardest, most politically uncomfortable First Amendment cases in the country. He represented Larry Flynt’s Hustler Magazine in the landmark Hustler v. Falwell case. He defended 2 Live Crew in the obscenity prosecution over As Nasty As They Wanna Be. He was counsel in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, the Supreme Court case that effectively ended the FCC’s broadcast indecency regime. There are many more famous cases on his resume as well. This is someone who has spent his entire career defending speech, including in cases where it was genuinely offensive, deeply unpopular, and legally novel — because that’s what actual First Amendment commitment requires.

Oh, and he served as Chief Counsel to former FCC Chairman James Quello, so he knows how the FCC works from the inside.

Advertisement

So when this person tells Brendan Carr that he has betrayed his professed values, it carries a weight that Carr’s thumbs-down emojis can’t dismiss. The letter opens by pointing to the cautionary tale of Pam Bondi’s sudden firing as Attorney General:

Pam Bondi’s sudden and ignominious end as Attorney General is an important cautionary lesson about what happens to officials in this administration who over-promise in order to curry favor with the man they see as their boss, but who under-perform because of the limits of their authority.

Bondi promised the President she would prosecute his political enemies and failed miserably. The President rewarded her misplaced loyalty by denying her the graceful exit she sought, and instead fired her during a cross-town limo ride to watch a Supreme Court argument.

You have recently threatened to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who air what you call “fake news,” which apparently includes any skeptical reporting about the war in Iran—something you know you cannot do legally.

My advice? Don’t get into a car with the president anytime soon.

That line sets the tone for everything that follows — a pointed warning from someone who’s been inside the institution and watched Carr’s transformation up close, not someone lecturing from a safe distance.

From there, Corn-Revere walks through exactly how Carr has become the precise opposite of the person he used to claim to be, quoting Carr’s own prior statements back at him:

Advertisement

As you may recall, shortly after you were named to head the Federal Communications Commission, I offered you some unsolicited advice in the form of an open letter entitled “A Plea for Institutional Modesty.” I suggested you should be circumspect in your assertions of power over broadcasters because “you don’t have as much power as you may think,” and flexing your regulatory muscles would conflict with both the Communications Act and the Constitution.

But as was clear from your initial acts as chairman and statements you made while campaigning for the job, your quest for political advancement overrode any previous commitment to First Amendment values. Gone were the days when, as a commissioner, you said things like “a newsroom’s decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official, not targeted by them,” or that “inject[ing] partisan politics into our licensing process” is “a deeply troubling transgression of free speech and the FCC’s status as an independent agency.”

I never expected you would heed my gratuitous advice, but had no idea how thoroughly you would betray your former (professed) values. Instead, you emerged as a Bizarro World caricature of yourself, threatening owners of broadcast networks with summer stock Don Corleone impressions and devoting much of your social media activity to jawboning. It is as if you set out to prove that the real mental health crisis in America isn’t about teens on Instagram, but public officials on X.

If someone of BCR’s stature said any of that about me, I might log off the internet forever.

The letter is full of these moments where Corn-Revere combines deep legal knowledge with rhetorical skill matched by very few. Take his description of Carr’s reliance on the long-dormant “news distortion” policy — a regulatory zombie that only exists because the FCC never formally killed it off after eliminating the Fairness Doctrine decades ago:

The news distortion policy is like a phantom limb after the FCC amputated the fairness doctrine—it is not really there in substance, but you still seem to feel you can walk on it.

Your smug social media posts about how broadcasters will be held to their public interest obligations “on your watch” ignores this history, but your claim that “the opposition to holding broadcasters accountable to the public interest comes increasingly from those unfamiliar with longstanding FCC precedent” is even worse, because you know it is a bald-faced lie.

The letter also hammers home a point we’ve made repeatedly: the actual, messy consequences of Carr’s performative bullying, and shows how spectacularly it has backfired over and over again. After Carr strong-armed Disney into suspending Jimmy Kimmel Live:

Protesters picketed outside the gates of the Magic Kingdom, and an estimated 7.1 million people cancelled subscriptions to Disney-owned streaming services Disney+ and Hulu over the controversy—at about twice the usual churn rate.

ABC affiliate group owners Sinclair Broadcasting and Nexstar Media Group, who had business before the Commission, and who dutifully followed your demand, also lost money. It turns out that advertisers will not pay as much for spots during reruns of Celebrity Family Feud as during Jimmy Kimmel Live!, and Sinclair revenue dropped a reported 16 percent for the quarter. Nexstar also suffered losses, although the amounts were not disclosed.

The result? The suspension ended a little more than a week after it began and Kimmel triumphantly returned to the air to his highest viewership in over a decade. Kimmel’s comeback garnered 6.3 million broadcast viewers and roughly 20 – 26 million views on social media within 24 hours.

His attempt to manipulate equal opportunity rules to silence Stephen Colbert went even worse:

Advertisement

In January, you caused the FCC staff to reinterpret whether candidate interviews on certain talk shows were exempt from the equal opportunities rule, reversing decades of precedent.

You apparently were miffed that candidate interviews on certain TV shows did not trigger “equal time” requirements for their opponents under exemptions to the rule Congress adopted in 1959. Yet mysteriously, you said there was no need to apply your reinterpretation to conservative talk radio interviews.

But your main target of this move, Stephen Colbert, outsmarted you. He ridiculed your reinterpretation of the equal opportunities rule on air, and gleefully transmitted his interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico on The Late Show’s YouTube channel, which is beyond the FCC’s jurisdiction. The interview got over seven million views overnight (more than three times the on-air viewership), Talarico immediately received $2.5 million in campaign contributions, and won his primary.

Carr’s tactics are unconstitutional and tactically stupid. He keeps creating the very outcomes he’s supposedly trying to prevent — even as some less strong-willed news orgs buckle under his threats or pre-censor themselves to avoid his performative wrath.

But the part of the letter that really sticks with me is the section on Carr’s legal knowledge — specifically, the massive gap between what Carr actually knows and what he pretends to believe. Corn-Revere lays out the full chain of Supreme Court precedent cutting back on the FCC’s assumed authority over broadcast content — and then lands this:

But you know all this. Just as you know the FCC eliminated the fairness doctrine four decades ago, which is the regulatory progenitor of the “news distortion policy” you now love to cite (but only against broadcasts you perceive as critical of this administration).

This matters because it removes the escape hatch of ignorance. When politicians misstate the law, you can at least entertain the possibility they just don’t know better. Carr has been an FCC commissioner for nearly a decade. He practiced communications law. He knows what he’s doing is legally indefensible, and he knows his smug social media posts about “the law is clear” are, as Corn-Revere puts it, “a bald-faced lie.”

The letter ends by looking at what all of this does to Carr’s legacy, and it lands with a quiet brutality that no amount of trolling can deflect:

Advertisement

Your recent appearance before the Conservative Political Action Conference is a prime example, where you explained the president is “winning” against the media by listing several media personalities who have left their jobs, including (as you put it) “sleepy eyed Chuck Todd.” I should not have to remind you of this, but it is a poor and pathetic leader who measures “winning” by what he thinks he has destroyed rather than by what he has managed to build.

And:

As I wrote in my first open letter, selling out your (professed) values represents short-term thinking. I noted that “officials who have tried to muzzle the press for short-term political gain have not been treated well by history,” and “if I were your adviser, this is not how I would want history to remember you.” Now, to the extent you will be remembered at all, it will most likely be mainly as a South Park character.

I wish you had listened.

Carr will likely ignore this, much like he brushed off the coalition letter, his own past statements, and basically every legal guardrail he’s encountered since taking the chair. That’s his whole game — the threats, the memes, the emojis, the audition tape for whatever comes next.

Still, the record is there now, written by someone whose First Amendment track record makes Carr’s look like a cheap Halloween costume. And unlike Carr’s social media posts, this letter will age well.

There’s a lot more in the letter. Go read the whole thing. You won’t regret it, even if Brendan Carr would likely wish to censor it like he wishes to censor Jimmy Kimmel.

Advertisement

Filed Under: 1st amendment, bob corn-revere, brendan carr, donald trump, fcc, free speech, jimmy kimmel, news distortion

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Sony Inzone H6 Air review: amazing sound, incredible comfort

Published

on

Why you can trust TechRadar


We spend hours testing every product or service we review, so you can be sure you’re buying the best. Find out more about how we test.

Sony Inzone H6 Air: two-minute review

True to its name, the new Sony Inzone H6 Air wired gaming headset is incredibly lightweight. Coming in at just 7oz / 199g (and only slightly more with the detachable cardioid microphone attached), it’s among the lightest gaming headsets on the market.

This isn’t just impressive on the spec sheet either; when paired with the wonderfully soft earcups, it easily creates one of the most comfortable headsets I’ve tested. You can wear the Sony Inzone H6 Air for hours at a time with minimal fatigue. In fact, it’s easy to forget that you’re even wearing it at all.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Valve's Proton 11 beta boosts Linux gaming with better performance and classic game support

Published

on


Valve has released a new beta version of Proton, the company’s official compatibility layer for improving Linux gaming. Proton 11.0-beta1 is a notable update for several reasons, including improved support for running classic games from the 90s. The release also lays the groundwork for further improvements expected in the near…
Read Entire Article
Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

5 Muscle Cars From The ’70s That Look Even Cooler Today

Published

on





Despite the term muscle car being used so often by car enthusiasts, journalists, automotive historians, and industry marketing teams, the exact definition of what is or isn’t a muscle car has always been a bit ambiguous. Is every two-door American coupe with a V8 engine a muscle car? Do V8 pony cars like the Camaro and Mustang also count as muscle cars? Can a true muscle car be from any era or only from a certain time period? Is there such a thing as a non-American muscle car?

You’ll probably get differing answers to these questions depending on who you ask, but most agree that the original American muscle car era officially started in 1964 with the debut of the Pontiac GTO, and lasted for approximately one decade before tightening emission rules and the oil crisis brought an end to the party. 

While V8 performance was a huge draw of those original muscle cars, cool looks and cool names were an equally important part of the formula that helped these cars win over the youth market. The 1960s were filled with cool-looking muscle cars that have gotten even better as they’ve aged. What about the 1970s? Even though this decade represents the tail end of the muscle car era, the cars from that period are just as cool. While looks will always be subjective, here are five 1970s muscle cars that we feel look even cooler today.

Advertisement

1971-1973 Ford Mustang Mach 1

When most people picture a classic Ford Mustang, it’s most likely a 1960s variant — maybe an early Mustang convertible, a ’65 Shelby GT350, or a 1969 Boss 302. When they think of a 1970s Mustang, they might picture the controversial, and often-loathed Ford Mustang II. However, in between those aforementioned classics and the downsized Mustang II, sits one of the coolest and most muscular-looking Mustangs that Ford has ever built — the 1971-1973 Mach 1.

Beneath the bodywork, the ’71-’73 Mustangs are still on the original first-generation Mustang platform, but Ford restyled the Mustang so significantly for 1971 that it basically looks like a new generation. Larger than the earlier cars, the 1971 Mustang has a dramatically long hood that, when combined with the fastback roofline, gives this generation less of a pony car feel and more of a macho, muscle car look. 

Advertisement

Add in the Mach 1’s scooped hood and spoilers, and you get a vibe that’s quite far removed from the more svelte Mustangs of the 1960s. Ford would continue to sell this final iteration of the first-gen Mustang until 1974, when it was replaced by the completely redesigned and downsized Mustang II. This body style of Mustang would also earn silver screen fame as the star of the original, cult classic car chase film “Gone in 60 Seconds”.

Advertisement

1971-1972 Plymouth Road Runner/GTX

The Plymouth Road Runner is one of the most popular Mopar muscle cars of all time, not just because of its cartoon-derived model name, but for its budget-friendly price tag that won over tens of thousands of muscle car buyers upon its debut in 1968. For 1971, the Plymouth Satellite, which the Road Runner, and the more expensive Plymouth GTX were based on, got a dramatic redesign.

The new car had what was called fuselage styling, and the two-door Satellite, Road Runner, and GTX had a wider and more pronounced coupe look compared to the boxier models that came before. Other styling features that differentiated this distinctly 1970s design from the earlier cars was its dual-pronged bumper, which was integrated into the bodywork.

This same basic body style would continue through 1974, but the later cars would adopt a less distinct front-end design. When they came out, the styling of these early ’70s Plymouth muscle cars was polarizing, but the early ’70s Road Runner and GTX have proven to be desirable even for generations born long after the original muscle car era. A Plymouth GTX of this body style was even driven by one Dominic Toretto in 2017’s “The Fate of the Furious”.

Advertisement

1970-1973 Camaro

When it comes to classic Chevrolet Camaros, you can always expect the first generation 1967-1969 cars to rank among the best of the Camaro breed. However, the second-generation models, particularly the early ’70s variants, are not to be overlooked. The second-generation Camaro arrived later in the 1970 model year and represented a significant change, especially in terms of styling.

The new Camaro was slightly larger than before, and had a fastback roofline compared to the more upright look of the first-generation car. It also had distinct new rounded taillights, and a stylish and unique split front bumper option that’s long been a favorite of Camaro fans. As with most muscle cars, second-gen Camaro horsepower numbers had begun to decline from their peak, but early ’70s Camaros still enjoyed potent engine options like the LT-1 small block in the Camaro Z/28, and through 1972, the iconic big block Chevy V8.

Chevy would give the second-gen Camaro several styling updates over its lifespan, and this body style of Camaro would continue all the way until the introduction of the third-generation Camaro in 1982. However, many enthusiasts prefer the classic look of the early ’70s models along with their performance options that were truer to the original muscle car era.

Advertisement

1970-1973 Pontiac Trans Am

The Pontiac Trans Am first debuted during the 1969 model year as a special, limited production version of the Firebird, but it wasn’t until the early ’70s that the Trans Am became an American icon. Like the Chevy Camaro it shared its platform with, the second-generation 1970 Firebird arrived with a distinct new look — and the high-performance Trans Am variant took things even further. 

Among the styling elements that arrived on the second-generation Trans Am was the iconic Pontiac shaker hood scoop and, later, the memorable hood decal. These options looked cool, but the early ’70s Trans Ams also had the horsepower to back up their aggressive looks, first with Pontiac’s Ram Air 400 cubic-inch V8s and then with the even larger 455 HO Pontiac V8 and its massive torque numbers. 

The second-generation Trans Am would continue to evolve through the rest of the 1970s and into the 80s, reaching even higher levels of cultural stardom thanks to movies like “Smokey and the Bandit”. Under the hood, however, later cars lacked some of the performance options that defined the earlier cars. When it comes to the combination of muscle and that iconic ’70s attitude, it’s the early second-generation Trans Ams that are king.

Advertisement

1971-1974 Dodge Charger

The Dodge Charger is a model that needs absolutely zero introduction for muscle car fans. The Charger first debuted for the 1966 model year and would go through many evolutions during its long history – but most would agree the second-generation 1968-1970 models are the most recognizable. Not to be overlooked, though, is the third-generation Charger sold between 1971 and 1974 — which has a unique muscle car vibe all its own.

When the new, long-hooded Charger arrived for 1971, it came with styling that was a big departure from the earlier cars, although its general Coke Bottle shape carried over, and options like concealed headlights were still available. Across the auto industry, muscle car performance had mostly passed its peak by 1971, but the third-generation Charger continued to offer engines like 440 big block and, in certain ultra-rare 1971 models — the 426 HEMI V8. 

Advertisement

This version of the Charger also had a lot of success on the race track, including in NASCAR, where it was driven by the legendary Richard Petty. Sure, the third-generation Dodge Charger may not have the same widespread “Dukes of Hazzard” and “Fast and the Furious” fame that earlier Charger models enjoy, but that doesn’t stop it from being one of the coolest muscle cars of the 1970s.



Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

12 Cheap Wal-Mart Finds To Help You Spring Clean The Garage

Published

on





We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.

Spring can be one of the best times of the year. The flowers are blooming, birds are chirping, and the first butterflies emerge to flit about the fields, as the cold weather gives way to summer sunshine. But the fading of winter also often comes with some obligations.

Maybe you’ve been putting off cleaning your garage for too long, maybe you’re helping an aging parent, relative, or neighbor who can’t do it anymore, or maybe you’ve moved into a new home, and the previous tenant left the place a mess. There are countless reasons you might need to clean the garage, but it’s probably not a job you’re looking forward to.

Advertisement

If you’re planning to clean your garage this spring, these affordable Walmart gadgets could make the chore a bit easier. Of course, SlashGear isn’t recommending you go out and buy all of these products, but one or two might take some of the sting out of your chores.

Advertisement

Casabella power spin scrubber

The Casabella Power Spin Scrubber is an all-purpose scrubber for cleaning dirt and grime on various surfaces. It’s a telescoping scrubber that compresses down to 27 inches and extends up to 47.5 inches.

The scrubbing brushes spin at 420 RPM and feature medium-strength bristles to balance scraping away dirt and grime while minimizing damage to whatever you’re cleaning. It’s safe to use on tile, linoleum, windows, and more, and is designed to help you clean up messes inside and outside your house. So when you’re done cleaning out the garage, you can take it inside to streamline your weekend chores.

The extended form not only helps you scrub high, hard-to-reach places, but it also allows you to save your back by eliminating the need to crouch to scrub. The scrubber comes with two flat brush attachments, an angled brush, and a dome brush. Spinning at roughly seven revolutions per second, these implements can clean up messes without putting in so much elbow grease. It takes about 3 hours to charge using the included charging cable, and you’ll get about 100 minutes of powered scrubbing.

Advertisement

Swiffer dusters with extension pole

While dust has a way of gathering in our homes, it has an even easier time getting into your garage. Swiffer dusters have become a popular alternative to a feather duster, a spray cleaner, or towels for cleaning all kinds of surfaces.

Gone are the days when you had to balance on a kitchen stool to dust hard-to-reach surfaces. These Swiffer dusters have a handle that extends up to 6 feet. At one end of the handle, you’ll find a brush coated in 360 degrees of grabbing fibers. When those fibers encounter dust, they snatch it up and hold it tight.

Advertisement

The head swivels and locks into one of four positions to meet different cleaning needs, and it comes packaged with three heavy-duty duster refills. If you’re using a Swiffer duster to clean out your garage, there’s a good chance you’ll need all those refills and then some. When they’re gone, you can save your handle and buy more replacement dusters.

Advertisement

Platinum series deep cleaning pressurized handheld steamer

The steam engine used to power the world before being replaced by more efficient systems. Today, steam is used for fewer tasks, but it can be a great solution for cleaning floors, fabrics, vents, tools, and more without needing to use cleaning compounds or caustic chemicals.

The Platinum series deep cleaning pressurized handheld steamer holds up to 11.5 ounces of water and reaches a maximum temperature of 375 degrees Fahrenheit. The steamer heats to a working temperature in about 4 minutes, producing hot, pressurized steam for cleaning and sanitizing.

A steam cleaner can be used to clean floors, fabrics, vents, and tools. You can use it to loosen sticky adhesives, strip away dirt, grease, and grime, and deep clean carpets and upholstery. It comes with nine attachments for completing different tasks, including two different spray nozzles, an extended connecting nozzle, an upholstery brush, a door and window wand, a microfiber cover, and more. Clean like it’s the 18th century with the power of steam.

Advertisement

Rubbermaid cordless power scrubber

Unlike other powered scrubbers, the Rubbermaid cordless power scrubber is small and ideal for finer details, such as cleaning grout between tiles. It’s basically an electric toothbrush for your house and belongings.

While its primary job might be cleaning grout and grime in your bathroom and kitchen, you can also use it to scrub the tiny crevices of your tools or around the faucets of your workshop sink, if you have one. If you’ve still got some detail work to do after getting most of your garage clean, it’s likely that this can help you get the job done.

Advertisement

The scrubber is designed to cut your cleaning time in half when compared to manual scrubbing. It’s water-resistant and features an ergonomic design with rubberized molding for increased comfort and grip. You can choose between pulsed cleaning or continuous scrubbing with the flip of a switch. The kit includes a powered handle, a grout-cleaning head, and a multi-purpose head. Even batteries are included.

Advertisement

20 rubber flex blade floor squeegee

One of the nice things about cleaning the garage is that you can be a little more cavalier than you might be inside your home. Instead of pushing around a push broom and kicking up a bunch of dust, you can spray the whole area down with a garden hose. Of course, a wet garage floor can be a hazard, so you’ll probably need a way to drain the water again.

The Libman No 1241 high-power 20-inch squeegee is designed for this exact task. It can move a lot of water quickly and relatively easily. And it can be pretty fun, at least for a little while.

The actual squeegee portion is a 20-inch rubber blade attached to a steel frame. That frame then attaches to a red steel handle with a built-in hanging hole for storage. The handle extends an additional 6 inches, bringing it to a full 5 feet, and it has a powder coating to protect it from rust.

Advertisement

Hyper Tough 5 gallon wet/dry vacuum

A wet/dry vacuum, otherwise known as a shop vacuum, can be incredibly helpful when cleaning up your garage and other big jobs, and it can also be used to clean up wet messes. It can be a go-to tool for your garage and home, not just in the spring but all year long.

As the name suggests, the Hyper Tough 5-gallon wet/dry vacuum can hold up to 5 gallons of solid debris and liquid messes, and a 12-foot power cord gives you plenty of reach. It can deliver up to 4 horsepower to tackle big messes. It’s lightweight and compact, standing just 14 inches tall and weighing 11.9 pounds.

Advertisement

In addition to the vacuum itself, you’ll also get a 1.25-inch hose, three extension wands, a floor nozzle for cleaning a larger area on the ground, a crevice nozzle for getting into nooks and crannies, a gulper nozzle for picking up hardware and other small objects, a foam filter, a reusable dry filter with clamp ring, and a dust bag.

Advertisement

Dirt Devil robot vacuum cleaner

The robots are taking over … our chores. Often, a big part of cleaning up the garage is clearing away dust, dirt, and debris on the floor. Fortunately, a robot vacuum cleaner can take some of the effort out of cleaning almost any space, including your garage.

The Dirt Devil robot vacuum cleaner runs for up to 110 minutes before the battery runs low, and then returns to the charging dock until next time. Using a built-in gyroscope, the robot charts a zigzagging route through your garage, clearing a 6.25-inch-wide path.

An app and Wi-Fi connection let you check on your vacuum, schedule cleaning, and even control it manually. It has a built-in HEPA filter, and its slim design might allow it to get under low shelves in your garage, as long as there’s a little floor clearance. A robot vacuum can’t clean your whole garage for you, but it could take some of the prep work out of the job. Just make sure to close the garage door so it doesn’t escape into the neighborhood.

Advertisement

Electric corded 3-in-1 leaf blower

As the name suggests, leaf blowers are often used to clean fallen leaves from your yard, instead of using a rake. Likewise, a leaf blower can be used to move other small pieces of debris out of your garage. It probably won’t take all of the work out of your spring cleaning, but this electric corded leaf blower could knock off a few steps.

The blower moves a lot of air, and fast, up to 400 cubic feet of air per minute, and delivers air speeds up to 250 miles per hour. You can also kick it down to a lower speed if the task at hand doesn’t need so much power. It weighs just 7.5 pounds, so you can haul it around longer without too much strain or fatigue.

Advertisement

In addition to blowing away dust and debris, the blower tube can be replaced with a vacuum tube, which you can use to suck up debris. After your garage is clean, you can take the blower into the backyard to suck up and mulch debris. The mulching function boasts a 16-to-one mulching ratio, meaning that what would normally take up 16 bags is reduced to a single bag after being mulched. It even comes with a bushel bag for collecting the mulch. When winter comes around, you can use a blower to clear your driveway of snow, so it could come in handy all year.

Advertisement

Libman 18 high power push broom

Sweeping up is probably one of the first and last steps in any garage spring cleaning, helping to clear the way at the beginning and providing a clean finish at the end. You could always use the same broom you use inside your house, but that’s not very efficient. That’s what push brooms are for.

The steel handle of the Libman 18″ high-power push broom is powder-coated to help prevent rusting, and it has a hanger hole at one end for storage. At the other end, you’ll find an 18-inch length of 3-inch bristles. The broom mixes firm and flexible fibers (made from recycled water bottles) so it can push a range of debris at once. It can catch everything from sawdust to nuts and bolts, and everything in between. A good push broom can turn a tedious chore into something much more manageable.

Advertisement

Netgear – AC750 WiFi range extender and signal booster

It wasn’t very long ago that you had to tie up your home phone line and listen to an array of bizarre sounds to get on the internet. A direct Ethernet connection to your router is usually stronger and more reliable, but that would mean moving your router to the garage or running a cable through your house. Besides, wireless internet connectivity is one of the great conveniences of modern life. If you want to enjoy some tunes, podcasts, or streaming while cleaning, you may need to extend your Wi-Fi range. 

A Wi-Fi range extender can help by acting as a relay. You plug the extender into an electrical outlet inside your router’s coverage range. The extender then repeats the signal, like a digital game of telephone, allowing it to reach farther than it otherwise would.

The NETGEAR – AC750 WiFi range extender and signal booster can deliver speeds up to 750 Mbps, provided your internet speeds are already that fast. A repeater can’t make your internet connection faster than it already is. For that, you’ll need a Wi-Fi booster. A Wi-Fi range extender probably won’t directly help you clean your garage in the same way a good broom can, but it can give you access to music, communication, reference materials, and more, which could make the job a little easier and a lot more pleasant.

Advertisement

Lasko 20 classic box fan

One of the best things about springtime is that it’s finally getting warmer, but that can also be one of the worst things, especially if you’re planning on getting your heart rate up with a good cleaning project.

Advertisement

A box fan doesn’t have the same cooling effects as an air conditioner or a swamp cooler, but it does help to circulate air, which helps your body cool off on its own while you’re busy sweeping, scrubbing, and organizing inside a stuffy garage. The Lasko 20″ classic box fan has three fan speeds and top-mounted controls. The 20 inches in the name refers to the length of the fan blades, not the dimensions of the fan box.

The durable steel box can be placed on the floor, onto a higher surface, or in a window within reach of the 6-foot power cord. And the motor is water-resistant, so you probably don’t need to worry about a little contact with moisture during your cleaning frenzy. 

Advertisement

3-piece magnetic pick-up retrieval tool set

A lot of picking up is about just picking things up off the ground. In a garage, where so much of the debris is metal (screws, nails, washers, nuts and bolts, and the like), a magnetic pick-up tool set can help you retrieve fallen or unreachable metal objects without the bending, straining, and craning.

The Hyper Tough 3-Piece Magnetic Pick-Up and Retrieval Tool Set gives you two ways to retrieve objects. Either use the telescoping wand with a magnet at the end or a steel claw with four retractable wires for grabbing small objects that the magnet can’t pick up. The magnetic pick-up has a maximum lifting capacity of 2 pounds.The third piece in the set is a 3-inch magnetic tray to help keep metal items secure while you poke around the garage.

For the times when you’ve dropped something behind a shelf or down a narrow hole, this three-piece retrieval set could come to the rescue.

Advertisement

Methodology, how we made our choices

When writing this article, we thought about the times we’ve had to clean out the garage, both as kids and adults, and the sorts of gadgets and gizmos we wish we’d had. Additionally, we considered instances in which a particular one of these products came in handy for solving a problem that would otherwise have been more difficult.

We also gave preference and special consideration to products that could be used again outside the garage. While things like a push room or oversized floor squeegee probably won’t come in handy for your regular in-home cleaning, there are scrubbers, dusters, steamers, vacuums, and more that you can use for more than this specific job.

Advertisement

In many cases, these products have been used successfully either by the author or other SlashGear authors. In every case, we also considered the wisdom of the crowd, looking at the products people are buying and liking enough to leave a positive review. The value of these products is supported by at least 100 reviews (often significantly more) and a rating of at least 4.0 stars.



Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Trump Is Literally Negotiating With Himself Over How Much Taxpayer Money He Gets Because His Taxes Were Leaked

Published

on

from the robbing-us-blind dept

Back in January, we covered Trump’s audacious lawsuit demanding $10 billion from his own IRS over the 2019-2020 leak of his tax returns by IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn (who is currently serving a five-year prison sentence for the leak, meaning the system that Trump claims failed him actually worked just fine). It’s also worth remembering that every major party presidential nominee since Nixon had voluntarily released their tax returns — Trump was the exception, not the rule, and the “harm” he suffered was exposure to the same transparency his predecessors embraced without incident.

The original piece laid out why the whole thing was a scam: Trump is the plaintiff, the IRS and Treasury are the defendants, and the DOJ defending those defendants is stocked with Trump’s former personal attorneys who have made clear they still consider themselves his personal attorneys — a problem that has only gotten worse with Todd Blanche now serving as acting AG. The fix was obviously in. The only real question was how brazenly the parties would go about it.

We now have an answer, and it turns out the answer is: extremely brazenly, and in writing, on the public docket.

Earlier today, the parties filed a consent motion for a 90-day extension explaining why they needed the Court to hit pause on the litigation:

Advertisement

Good cause exists to grant an extension in this matter while the Parties engage in discussions designed to resolve this matter and to avoid protracted litigation. This limited pause will neither prejudice the Parties nor delay ultimate resolution. Rather, the extension will promote judicial economy and allow the Parties to explore avenues that could narrow or resolve the issues efficiently.

[…]

The Parties are engaging in discussions and need time to work through how to ensure those discussions can take place productively to avoid protracted litigation. This brief period will allow the Parties to initiate and structure those discussions in a manner that best serves the interests of all Parties and the Court.

Read that the normal way you’d read any consent motion, and it’s mundane. Two adversarial parties are exploring settlement. Courts love this. Judicial economy! Everyone wins.

Now read it again with the actual parties in mind.

The plaintiff is the sitting President of the United States. The defendants are two agencies of the executive branch that the plaintiff (again, the President of the United States) runs. The lawyers representing those defendants report, through a chain of command, to Trump’s former personal lawyers. “The Parties are engaging in discussions” means Trump’s lawyers are negotiating with Trump’s other lawyers over how much of your money Trump gets to take home. The “interests of all Parties” reduces, functionally, to the interests of one guy. The phrase “avoid protracted litigation” means “skip the part where a judge or a jury or any actual adversarial process might interfere with the predetermined outcome.”

Real negotiations require two sides with opposing interests. This is just a man haggling with his own wallet over how much of your money to take.

Advertisement

The filing notes that there hasn’t even been an attempt at a defense from the government yet:

None of the Parties will suffer prejudice: the case is newly filed, no scheduling order has issued, and the Government has not yet answered or otherwise responded on the merits. An extension will conserve judicial and party resources and avoid piecemeal litigation that could arise if the Parties are forced to proceed without first exploring these discussions.

The consent motion even includes, with a straight face, the boilerplate certification that plaintiff’s counsel ‘conferred in good faith’ with the very people he effectively works for:

Pursuant to Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), Daniel Epstein, co-counsel for Plaintiffs, certifies that he conferred in good faith with counsel for Defendants on April 15, 2026 by telephone regarding the relief sought in this motion. Defendants consent to the requested extension.

The only party with an actual adverse interest here — the American public — has no seat at the table and no lawyer in the room.

The structure of the scam is clear. Step one, filed back in January: sue your own government that you control for $10 billion over something that wasn’t its fault, using a complaint so flimsy it quotes the leaker himself saying Trump suffered “little harm” — and demanding damages for being exposed to information that every other modern presidential candidate simply released voluntarily. Step two, filed this week: get the defendant you control to agree with you that litigation should pause so you can work out a deal. Step three, coming soon to a docket near you: announce a “settlement” in which the taxpayers cut a check to the president for some eye-watering sum, with the DOJ loudly proclaiming that this was the responsible outcome that avoided wasteful litigation.

Advertisement

At each step, the paperwork will look perfectly normal, indistinguishable from thousands of other consent motions on other dockets. The corruption lives entirely in the gap between what the documents say and who is actually on each side of them.

This is worth naming plainly: what’s happening here is exactly the kind of self-dealing abuse of public office that the impeachment clause was written to address. Hamilton, in Federalist 65, defined impeachable offenses as those:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

If a sitting president negotiating a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded payout to himself — through agencies he controls and lawyers loyal to him personally, over damages he demonstrably did not suffer (he is richer than he has ever been and won re-election after the leak) — does not qualify as an abuse of public trust, then the phrase has no meaning.

But none of that matters, because the political machinery that would be required to act on any of this has been thoroughly captured or cowed. Congress has largely abdicated. The Supreme Court, as noted in January, has made it clear there’s not much the courts can do about presidential self-dealing. The DOJ is, for these purposes, Trump’s law firm. And so the scheme proceeds on schedule, in plain sight, with everyone involved politely pretending that “the Parties are engaging in discussions” describes something other than what it is.

Advertisement

We’ll almost certainly be back for part three when the inevitable settlement drops. You already know roughly what it will look like. The only real variables are the size of the number and how straight a face whoever is serving as Attorney General at that point manages to keep while announcing it.

Filed Under: corruption, doj, donald trump, irs, tax returns, todd blanche

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

4 Of The Best iPhone Apps You May Have Missed In 2025

Published

on





The iPhone has been a mainstay in my daily tech life for over eight years now. During that time, I’ve come to realize that it’s not the latest chip or camera sensors that define its utility for me — it’s the apps created by thousands of developers that give the iPhone its signature identity. Whether it’s the refined design language, the UI interactions, or the cross-device perks linked to your Apple account, it’s the apps that do the heavy lifting.

Now, the easiest way to discover awesome apps is the annual list of App Store award winners. Digging a bit deeper, you can sift through the “Popular Apps” section on the App Store. Then there are lists curated by experts, like our compilation of the best free iPhone apps you should install ASAP. Reddit is another great spot for discovering iPhone apps, but it can quickly get messy with sneakily promoted software and the sheer barrage of recommendations that can pull you into a confusing rabbit hole.

I am a member of numerous such communities, often talk to developers, and test these apps for a living. If you use an iPhone as your daily driver, the following is a selection of apps that will make a meaningful difference in how you use Apple’s smartphone or help you get more out of it.

Advertisement

1. Wispr Flow

This entire article was written by AI. Or to put it more specifically, voice AI. Now, speech-to-text apps aren’t a fresh breakthrough. But if you’ve ever tried dictating a message to Siri, the spelling and grammar errors will make you want to pull your hair out. The situation with Google’s Gboard isn’t too different, though it’s a tad better. Wispr Flow feels like an evolution, for multiple reasons. The concept is pretty simple. If you find it tiring to write long emails, or just need something quick to note down an idea in the heat of the moment — but typing it all feels like a drag — this app is a Godsend for you.

I can recommend this app for multiple reasons. First, it’s eerily accurate. And I’m not just talking about spellings, but also the appropriate placement of punctuation in the written text, which corresponds to the breaks and flows in your narration. Second, it’s pretty good at deciphering accents. I have a decidedly strong Asian accent, and I often pronounce words in a significantly different way than an average American or British person. Wispr Flow handled it pretty well, and the built-in auto-formatting function is a great bonus.

Advertisement

Another reason I love Wispr Flow is that it saves you from the chore of sending voice notes as a text response, which can be a bit uncomfortable for both parties. It almost feels magical, and is one of the truly useful AI products I’ve used in a while. But what about privacy? While the transcription itself is processed in the cloud to ensure speed and accuracy, enabling privacy mode ensures a strict zero-retention policy. As soon as transcription is done, all the dictation and voice data is instantly removed from the servers. It’s a no-retention policy, and none of your data is ever used for AI model training.

Advertisement

2. Adobe Indigo

Adobe introduced Indigo as a test project midway through 2025, and since then, I have used it more than the default camera app on the iPhone for multiple reasons. The biggest draw of this app is that it aims to offer a more natural, SLR-like look to the pictures you take with your iPhone, with the flexibility to get those images in the usual JPEG and RAW formats simultaneously, so you can edit them later. The key focus, as I mentioned earlier, is to give you a natural picture that mimics what you actually see with your eyes.

For example, if you sit in a dark room and there is a strong light outside, what the iPhone does is it takes multiple frames, underexposed and overexposed, and then it merges those frames to give you a final image that is pretty well-lit for the objects outside, as well as those that are dimly lit in the room. In reality, you wouldn’t see those shadowed objects as clearly, and Indigo preserves this natural contrast instead of artificially brightening the room.

Project Indigo relies on on-device AI rendering that focuses heavily on achieving a natural look in the frame. In many cases, these images look visibly different from what the default iPhone camera captures. The app also offers a fairly fleshed-out pro mode that lets you use a whole bunch of tools to get more creative control over the final image. But my favorite feature in Project Indigo is the super-resolution system, which combines multiple frames to give you a final picture that is sharper, less grainy, and looks much better than the iPhone’s native digital upscaling, especially for zoomed-in shots. It performs dramatically better in low-light scenarios than the iPhone’s built-in night camera mode.

Advertisement

3. Focus Friend

I often find myself switching to focus mode on my phone or Do Not Disturb just to avoid the constant chatter from app notifications. But it also comes at the cost of missing important notifications, such as text message alerts from friends and family members or notifications from workplace apps like Slack or Microsoft Teams. And let’s not forget the pull, especially from the social media apps. You might pick up your phone to answer a text message, but that one notification from Instagram or another social media app eventually pulls you into a doomscrolling loop, wasting plenty of your productive time.

This is where Focus Friend, an app developed by Hank Green, comes into the picture. Instead of an average productivity app that binds you with a timer or imposes harsh restrictions on app activity, Focus Friend takes a more playful approach, assigning you a virtual buddy that tags along on your work journey. This virtual companion feels almost like an accountability partner where your distractions actually take a toll on your virtual buddy’s activities and missions. It’s almost a gamified version of the well-known Pomodoro system for timer and productivity apps.

On the functional side, you can block apps, especially if you enable deep focus mode. There are also systems available for enabling break timers. On the more playful side of things, you get access to different kinds of bean skins, room decorations, and live activity progress so that you don’t even have to unlock your iPhone. But the best part about Focus Friend is that it turns the entire task of staying focused at work into something playful and emotional, blending it all with a beautiful design you would want to revisit.

Advertisement

4. Showcase

Showcase is one of the best tools for keeping track of the best streaming apps that I have discovered through Reddit. If you are subscribed to multiple streaming platforms and have a running library of TV shows and movies you are locked into, or just leaving on the watch list, this is the app to get. At its core, Showcase is a tracking app that also features smart alerts, a discovery system, and a sharing feature — all wrapped in a beautifully designed user interface.

But the app actually goes above and beyond just serving as a tracking app for your streaming content. For example, there is a calendar syncing system where you can check the release date of a particular film or TV show and add it directly to your personal calendar on the iPhone. It also solves the dilemma of finding content online by telling you which streaming service is currently hosting a desired film or TV show. And to make sure you don’t miss any upcoming releases you’re planning to watch, the app also lets you set up home screen widgets.

There is also a hide-and-snooze system that lets you remove content from your library that you are not interested in. And while you are discovering new content to watch, the app also has a detailed info segment that offers the same kind of information you would otherwise look up in databases like IMDb. Another aspect that sets this app apart is the discovery function, which is actually curated by human experts instead of just being an algorithmically driven feed that is personalized based on your watch history. And yes, you can go totally ad-free, as well.

Advertisement



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

NIST Limits CVE Enrichment After 263% Surge In Vulnerability Submissions

Published

on

NIST is narrowing how it handles CVEs in the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), saying it will only automatically enrich higher-priority vulnerabilities. “CVEs that do not meet those criteria will still be listed in the NVD but will not automatically be enriched by NIST,” it said. “This change is driven by a surge in CVE submissions, which increased 263% between 2020 and 2025. We don’t expect this trend to let up anytime soon.” The Hacker News reports: The prioritization criteria outlined by NIST, which went into effect on April 15, 2026, are as follows:

– CVEs appearing in the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.
– CVEs for software used within the federal government.
– CVEs for critical software as defined by Executive Order 14028: this includes software that’s designed to run with elevated privilege or managed privileges, has privileged access to networking or computing resources, controls access to data or operational technology, and operates outside of normal trust boundaries with elevated access.

Any CVE submission that doesn’t meet these thresholds will be marked as “Not Scheduled.” The idea, NIST said, is to focus on CVEs that have the maximum potential for widespread impact. “While CVEs that do not meet these criteria may have a significant impact on affected systems, they generally do not present the same level of systemic risk as those in the prioritized categories,” it added. […]

Changes have also been instituted for various other aspects of the NVD operations. These include:
– NIST will no longer routinely provide a separate severity score for a CVE where the CVE Numbering Authority has already provided a severity score.
– A modified CVE will be reanalyzed only if it “materially impacts” the enrichment data. Users can request specific CVEs to be reanalyzed by sending an email to the same address listed above.
– All unenriched CVEs currently in backlog with an NVD publish date earlier than March 1, 2026, will be moved into the “Not Scheduled” category. This does not apply to CVEs that are already in the KEV catalog.
– NIST has updated the CVE status labels and descriptions, as well as the NVD Dashboard, to accurately reflect the status of all CVEs and other statistics in real time.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Electric Wind-Up Plane Uses Supercapacitors For Free Flight Fun

Published

on

There’s something to be said for a simple wind-up, free flight model airplane. With no controls, it must be built very well to fly well, and with only the limited power of a rubber band, it needs a good, high-lift design without much superfluous drag to maximize flight time. There’s also something to be said for modernity though, and prolific hacker [Tom Stanton] puts them together with this supercapacitor plane.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because [Tom] did this before back in 2023. But for that first attempt he converted a commercial R/C toy rather than a plane optimized for low-power free flight. Just like with the best rubber-band machines, his goal for the new production is more flight time than winding time. Plus lots of views on YouTube, but that goes without saying.

Thus this machine is smaller and lighter than the previous iteration. Rather than balsa and tissue like the free-flight aircraft of our youths, [Tom] is using 3D printed plastic for the structure. But he’s got a neat hack built in: he’s printing the wings and control surfaces directly onto tissue paper, eliminating the bonding step. Of course that means his wings are printed flat, but a bit of heat and some bending and he has a single-surface airfoil. Single-surface airfoils are normal in this application, anyway: closed wings add too much weight for too little gain. If you want to try the technique, he’s got files on Printables.

Another interesting factoid [Tom] discovered is that the energy density of supercapacitors decreases sharply below 10 F. As you might imagine by the square-cubed law, bigger is better, but the sharp drop-off dictated he use a single 10 F cap for this build, along with a micro motor. Using the wind-up generator from his previous build, he’s able to get 45 seconds of flight out of just 4 seconds of cranking, a good ratio indeed.

Advertisement

[Tom] seems to like playing with different ways to power his toys; aside from supercapacitors, we’ve also seen him finessing aircraft air motors — including an attempt at a turbine for a model helicopter.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025