• Attackers now rely on employees to unknowingly launch the malware themselves
• Fake IT support calls transform routine troubleshooting into a full network compromise
• Browser crashes become the opening move in carefully staged social engineering attacks

Cybercriminal activity continues to move away from direct software exploitation toward manipulating everyday user behavior within corporate environments, experts have warned.

New research by Huntress describes a campaign in which attackers intentionally crash a user’s browser and display alarming security messages that encourage a “repair.”

David Barnett has learned a lot since first launching PopSockets more than a decade ago. 

As the tale goes, the former philosophy professor was looking for an easy way to hold his headphones and went on to create one of the most viral phone accessories of all time: A device that grips to the back of the phone and can be used as a kickstand or a handle — better known as the PopSockets. 

Barnett sat down with Equity this week to talk about his journey building this company from his garage, why he decided to never take on traditional venture capital funding, and some of the lessons he’s learned while scaling the business. 

“I was a philosophy professor, so I had no experience with manufacturing,” he recalled, adding that he also lacked experience in business, tax, accounting, and finance. “I burned through a lot of money with no revenue,” he continued, adding that he had “wave after wave of manufacturing defects” during the early days. 

 Still, he managed along and was able to land in a local toy store where he would often stop by to watch how customers interacted with his brand. “The sales were quite slow,” he said. He adjusted the Popsocket a bit, and that’s when everything started to take off. “That was the point where I thought, ‘Okay, this could work in retail.”

From there, he spoke about the hits and misses of entering retail (including a dispute he had with Amazon that briefly caused him to pull his product from the website). He spoke about adapting the product even more, protecting intellectual property, and when he knew it was time to step down as CEO and let someone else take the reins. 

“The greatest lesson I’ve learned is that it’s all about the people,” he said, adding that he was looking for this trait in his successor. “I think that’s the most important skill one can have as a leader.” 

UFC 326 live streams feature a headline bout that’s been more than a decade in the making. Max Holloway vs Charles Oliveira 2 is rematch from 2015 and the pair finally go head-to-head again in the Octagon at T-Mobile Arena, Las Vegas, on Saturday. The prize? To find out which one is the baddest mother in the UFC.

So much has happened in the careers of these two elite fighters since Holloway beat Oliveira via TKO on a Fight Night in Saskatchewan all those years ago. Both have enjoyed titles, taken part in infamous feuds and tasted their fair share of defeats, too, as the duo head towards the final acts of their careers. Now, Dana White has given MMA fans what they want and made this long-awaited rematch happen at last, with Holloway’s symbolic BMF title on the line.

For most of gaming history, the deal between players and technology was refreshingly simple: save up, buy a machine, install a game, and that experience was yours for as long as the hardware kept breathing. Old consoles might collect dust, but they still booted up when nostalgia struck. A five-year-old gaming PC might wheeze at the latest AAA release, but it could still run older favorites just fine. Ownership wasn’t just a technical detail, but was part of gaming culture itself, whether that meant shelves stacked with discs or a lovingly assembled PC rig with mismatched RGB fans and a side panel that had been opened far too many times.

Unfortunately, that long-standing contract is quietly changing. Across the industry, hardware is increasingly being offered as a service rather than a product. Gaming laptops can now be rented through subscription programs, consoles are available on lease-style payment plans, and cloud gaming services promise high-end performance without requiring a powerful PC at home. The pitch is appealingly simple: skip the painful upfront cost and just pay a manageable monthly fee. But the catch is equally simple: when the subscription ends, the hardware goes back, the service stops working, and sometimes even access to the games disappears. What used to be something gamers owned is slowly becoming something they merely access.

The shift isn’t happening randomly either. Gaming hardware has become dramatically more expensive in recent years, largely because the same advanced chips used in gaming PCs are now in massive demand from AI companies and data centers. According to a 2026 outlook from Deloitte, spending on compute and storage hardware for AI deployments surged by 166 percent year-over-year in 2025, reaching roughly $82 billion. Those same fabrication plants produce the GPUs, memory, and processors that power gaming machines, meaning consumer hardware is now competing directly with enterprise AI infrastructure for supply. The result is predictable: prices stay high, availability tight, and suddenly the idea of renting a powerful gaming machine starts to look a lot more tempting. Especially for players who can’t justify dropping $1,500 or more on a PC just to play the latest releases.

Hardware as a subscription

Major hardware companies have begun experimenting with what’s often called Hardware-as-a-Service. Instead of selling a device outright, companies rent it to users through monthly subscriptions that include support, upgrades, and maintenance.

HP, for example, recently launched the OMEN Gaming Subscription program. For a monthly fee ranging roughly from $50 to $130, depending on the tier, subscribers receive a gaming laptop along with technical support and the option to upgrade to newer hardware after about a year. The catch is straightforward: once the subscription ends, the device must be returned. Sony has explored a similar approach through its Sony Flex program in the UK. Through this service, players can lease a PlayStation 5 console, including newer variants, by paying monthly installments over a 12, 24, or 36-month period. While the total cost across several years may approach the price of buying the console outright, the key difference remains that the user does not retain the hardware at the end of the contract.

This hardware shift is closely tied to the growing rise of cloud gaming, too. Services like NVIDIA GeForce Now and Xbox Cloud Gaming aim to remove the need for local gaming hardware entirely by streaming games from powerful remote servers. In fact, market research firms expect the cloud gaming sector to grow rapidly, with projections suggesting a compound annual growth rate of over 40 percent through 2030. In other words, gaming companies are increasingly exploring models where the device in your living room matters less, or might eventually disappear entirely.

When access replaces ownership

From a business perspective, subscription ecosystems make perfect sense. Instead of relying on occasional hardware sales every few years, companies generate predictable recurring revenue. This strategy mirrors the broader shift seen across the tech industry, where music, movies, and software have largely moved from physical ownership to subscription access.

Industry leaders have acknowledged this transition. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has described Xbox Game Pass as central to the company’s vision of delivering gaming experiences across multiple devices through subscription services rather than relying solely on console ownership. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has also emphasized the growing role of cloud computing, suggesting that powerful data centers can eventually deliver high-end gaming experiences remotely without requiring expensive GPUs in every home.

For players, however, the long-term implications are more complicated. Renting hardware may lower the barrier to entry, but it can also increase long-term costs. A gamer paying $100 per month for a high-end laptop over two years would spend $2,400. Yet, at the end of that period, there is no hardware to sell, reuse, or upgrade. The machine simply goes back to the manufacturer.

There are also cultural implications, particularly for PC gaming enthusiasts. PC gaming has historically been built around customization and experimentation. Players upgrade GPUs, tweak cooling systems, replace memory modules, and modify their systems over time. Rental hardware, by contrast, often arrives sealed, and opening the device for upgrades or maintenance can violate service agreements. In that sense, a rental-first ecosystem could gradually push aside the tinkering culture that helped define PC gaming for decades.

Beyond financial and cultural concerns, the shift toward rental hardware and subscription ecosystems also raises questions about preserving gaming history. When games exist on physical media or are installed locally, they can survive long after the companies behind them disappear. On the other hand, subscription-based services change that dynamic by tying access to active servers and ongoing licensing. In fact, the video game preservation community has warned that this creates a growing risk for the medium’s long-term survival.

Frank Cifaldi, co-director of the Video Game History Foundation, has described modern games as increasingly being treated as licensed services rather than permanent products that players actually own. Further, legal experts such as Dr. David C. Mowery have also noted that strict digital rights management and game-as-a-service models make it harder for archives and researchers to preserve titles for future generations, since both the hardware and the games themselves may only exist within controlled subscription platforms.

A hybrid future for gaming

Don’t get me wrong, none of this means rental-based gaming is inherently bad. In fact, it could make gaming far more accessible for players who cannot afford expensive hardware. Subscription access lowers the entry barrier and allows more people to experience high-end games without major upfront investments.

Ideally, the future lands somewhere in the middle with a hybrid model. Subscriptions, cloud services, and rental hardware could continue lowering the barrier for casual players who want easy access to games without spending heavily on hardware. At the same time, the enthusiasts, the builders, collectors, and modders would still have the option to buy and own their machines outright. Gaming has always supported multiple ways to play, from smartphones to high-end PCs, so it would be great if the industry evolved to allow both access and ownership to coexist comfortably.

Still, the rise of rental hardware signals a significant philosophical shift for the industry. For the first time, gaming platforms are increasingly being treated less like products and more like ongoing services. If that model continues to expand, the future of gaming might not revolve around the machines players own, but the subscriptions they maintain. And for a hobby built on personal rigs, physical collections, and the joy of tinkering, that’s a change that can feel both exciting and a little unsettling.

from the please-don’t-kill-us-mr.-dictator dept

We’ve been covering the ongoing saga of the Trump administration’s attempt to destroy Anthropic for the sin of having modest ethical guidelines around its AI technology.

The short version: Anthropic said it didn’t want its AI making autonomous kill decisions without human oversight. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded by declaring the company a supply chain risk—a designation designed for foreign adversaries, not San Francisco companies with ethics policies—and ordering every federal agency to purge Anthropic’s technology. Now Anthropic is back at the negotiating table with the same people who just tried to kill it.

On Thursday, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published a new statement about “where things stand” with the Defense Department. And it is… something. It reads like what happens when a serious person at a serious company has to write a serious document in an environment that has gone completely insane—and the result is a press release that, under any previous administration, would have been recognized as deeply alarming corporate groveling, but which now just kind of… slides into the news cycle as another Thursday.

The statement is titled “Where things stand with the Department of War.” Not the Department of Defense. The Department of War. Yes, Trump and Hegseth have spent hundreds of millions of dollars renaming the Defense Department, but it’s not up to them. It’s up to Congress. According to the law, it’s still the Department of Defense, and anyone using the name Department of War is clearly sucking up to the administration. It’s all theater.

Amodei uses the fictitious name throughout his statement. Every single reference. “Department of War.” This is a company that six days ago was being praised for standing on principle, and its CEO can’t even bring himself to use the department’s legal name because the administration insists upon everyone using the cosplay version. Before you even get to the substance, the document has already bent the knee. He’s negotiating with people who branded him a national security threat, and he opens by adopting their preferred terminology like a hostage reading a prepared script.

From there, the statement proceeds through a series of passages that are individually rational and collectively dystopian. Take this section:

I would like to reiterate that we had been having productive conversations with the Department of War over the last several days, both about ways we could serve the Department that adhere to our two narrow exceptions, and ways for us to ensure a smooth transition if that is not possible. As we wrote on Thursday, we are very proud of the work we have done together with the Department, supporting frontline warfighters with applications such as intelligence analysis, modeling and simulation, operational planning, cyber operations, and more.

“We are very proud of the work we have done together with the Department”—the department that is currently trying to destroy the company over a contractual dispute. The department whose secretary called Anthropic’s stance “a master class in arrogance and betrayal” and “a cowardly act of corporate virtue-signaling that places Silicon Valley ideology above American lives.” The department that declared Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security—again, a designation designed for hostile foreign infiltration of military systems, not for a San Francisco company that said “maybe a human should be in the loop before the robot decides to kill someone.”

And here’s Dario, proudly listing all the ways Anthropic has served these same people. “Supporting frontline warfighters.” This is the language of a Pentagon press release. Six days. It took six days to go from “we have principles about autonomous weapons” to “we are very proud of supporting frontline warfighters with cyber operations.”

This may be a rational decision from a company trying to stave off a ridiculous fight, but the real story is that they feel the need to act this way.

Then there’s the apology. Earlier this week, an internal Amodei memo leaked in which he described OpenAI’s rushed Pentagon deal as “safety theater” and “straight up lies,” and noted that the key difference between the two companies’ positions was that OpenAI “cared about placating employees” while Anthropic “actually cared about preventing abuses.” It was blunt. It was competitive. It also appeared to be accurate—OpenAI subsequently rewrote its contract to address many of the concerns Amodei identified.

But accuracy is apparently a liability now:

I also want to apologize directly for a post internal to the company that was leaked to the press yesterday. Anthropic did not leak this post nor direct anyone else to do so—it is not in our interest to escalate this situation. That particular post was written within a few hours of the President’s Truth Social post announcing Anthropic would be removed from all federal systems, the Secretary of War’s X post announcing the supply chain risk designation, and the announcement of a deal between the Pentagon and OpenAI, which even OpenAI later characterized as confusing. It was a difficult day for the company, and I apologize for the tone of the post. It does not reflect my careful or considered views. It was also written six days ago, and is an out-of-date assessment of the current situation.

He is apologizing for the tone of an accurate description of events because the accurate description made the people trying to destroy his company unhappy. He notes it was “a difficult day for the company”—the day the President of the United States directed every federal agency to cease using your technology and the Defense Secretary branded you a threat to national security. Yeah, I’d call that a difficult day. And on that difficult day, Amodei accurately described what was happening, and now he has to say sorry for it because the accurate description “does not reflect my careful or considered views.”

Translation: the careful and considered view is that you don’t say true things out loud when the administration is watching and deeply focused on punishing you.

And then we arrive at the closing:

Our most important priority right now is making sure that our warfighters and national security experts are not deprived of important tools in the middle of major combat operations. Anthropic will provide our models to the Department of War and national security community, at nominal cost and with continuing support from our engineers, for as long as is necessary to make that transition, and for as long as we are permitted to do so.

Anthropic is offering to provide its AI models to the military at nominal cost—essentially a discount—while simultaneously preparing to challenge the supply chain risk designation in court. The company is saying: “We believe your action against us is illegal, we will fight it in court, and also here’s our technology at a steep discount, please don’t hurt us anymore.”

And the framing: “Our most important priority right now is making sure that our warfighters… are not deprived of important tools in the middle of major combat operations.” This is Anthropic fully adopting Hegseth’s rhetoric—the exact framing that was used to justify the attack on them in the first place. Hegseth’s entire argument was that Anthropic’s ethical guidelines were depriving “warfighters” of critical tools. And now Anthropic is echoing that language as though it were their own concern all along. The “warfighters” language is especially rich given that this administration keeps tap dancing around the question of whether we’re actually “at war” with Iran—apparently we have warfighters who aren’t fighting a war.

The statement closes with what might be the single most remarkable sentence:

Anthropic has much more in common with the Department of War than we have differences. We both are committed to advancing US national security and defending the American people, and agree on the urgency of applying AI across the government. All our future decisions will flow from that shared premise.

Remember, this company was founded by people who left OpenAI specifically because they thought AI safety was being treated as an afterthought. Their entire brand, their entire reason for existing, was the proposition that there are some things AI should not be used for without significant guardrails. “Anthropic has much more in common with the Department of War than we have differences” is the kind of sentence you write when survival has replaced principle as the operating framework.

Every individual decision in this statement is probably the rational play. Using the administration’s preferred name costs nothing. Apologizing for the memo reduces friction. “Warfighter” language signals alignment. These are survival tactics, and they’re being deployed by someone who appears to have no good options.

That’s the actual horror. This is what the “good” decisions look like in an authoritarian world.

Under any previous administration—Democrat or Republican—a company telling the Defense Department “we’d prefer our AI not make autonomous kill decisions without human oversight” would have been a mostly unremarkable negotiating position. It might have been a deal breaker for that particular contract. The two sides might have parted ways. What would not have happened is the Secretary of Defense going on social media to accuse the company of “betrayal” and “duplicity,” the President directing all federal agencies to stop using the company’s products, and the company’s CEO subsequently having to write a public groveling statement apologizing for having accurately described the situation while pledging free labor to the government that attacked him.

And every AI company watching this—every tech company of any kind—is absorbing the lesson. Tell the administration “no” on even the most modest ethical point, and this is what follows: a week of chaos, a supply chain risk designation, your CEO apologizing for telling the truth, and a press release pledging your technology to the military at cost while you simultaneously sue to stay alive.

As I wrote last year, authoritarian systems are fundamentally incompatible with innovation. They produce exactly this kind of environment—one where the rational move for a company is to grovel in public while fighting in court, to adopt the language of the people attacking you, and to apologize for having been right. The AI bros who supported Trump because Biden’s AI plan involved some annoying paperwork should take a long look at this statement and ask themselves whether this is the “pro-innovation” environment they were promised.

Because right now, the most “pro-innovation” thing happening in American AI is a hostage note written in business casual—and everyone pretending it’s just a press release.

Filed Under: ai, dario amodei, defense department, hostage negotiation, pete hegseth, supply chain risk

Companies: anthropic

• Compal experiments with turning the laptop palm rest into a color E Ink display
• The AI Book concept keeps displaying information even when the laptop is closed
• A hinge flips the E Ink screen outward for quick external notifications

Compal Electronics has introduced a laptop concept which replaces the conventional palm rest and touchpad area with a color E-Ink touchscreen.

The AI Book design places the secondary display directly beneath the keyboard, creating an interactive surface where users can write notes, draw sketches, or view quick references using stylus input.

For many residential pool owners, the dream of a crystal-clear oasis often clashes with the reality of manual maintenance. Traditional cleaning methods involving heavy hoses and manual scrubbing are famously time-consuming and laborious. This is where the Talosbo C1 enters the frame as a professional-grade solution designed to automate the most taxing aspects of pool ownership.

As a smart pool robot engineered for both efficiency and ease of use, the Talosbo C1 aims to replace outdated equipment with a sophisticated, cordless experience. In this review, we examine how its technical parameters translate into real-world performance.

Technical Superiority: Enhanced Suction and Filtration

At the heart of any pool cleaning robot is its ability to move water and trap debris. The Talosbo C1 distinguishes itself through an upgraded triple-motor system that provides significantly enhanced suction performance compared to standard models. This increased power allows it to thoroughly scrub pool floors and navigate vertical walls with stability.

The cleaning effectiveness is further bolstered by a Dual High Efficiency Filtration system:

• 180 μm Filter Basket: This large-capacity component captures substantial debris, such as leaves, twigs, and bugs.
• Fine Sponge Layer: Integrated to trap micro impurities like fine dust, sand, and silt, ensuring the water is left crystal clear.

When combined with its durable PVC brushes, the C1 provides a before-and-after comparison that reflects a deep, professional-level scrub of the entire pool surface.

The Cordless Advantage: Power and Auto Parking

One of the most significant pain points for pool owners is the danger and hassle of tangled power cords. As a cordless pool cleaner, the Talosbo C1 removes these physical constraints entirely.

• Extended Battery Life: Equipped for the long haul, the robot offers up to 180 minutes of runtime in Eco mode.
• Large Coverage: This allows it to cover expansive residential pools of up to 150 m² on a single charge.
• Intelligent Auto Parking: To ensure retrieval is as effortless as the cleaning itself, the C1 is programmed with smart sensors that detect when the battery is low or the cycle is complete.
• Edge Retrieval: The robot automatically parks near the pool edge, allowing for easy, dry hand retrieval without the need to “fish” for the device.

Intelligence at Your Fingertips: App Control and OTA Updates

The Talosbo C1 is not just a vacuum; it is a smart pool robot. Through the dedicated mobile application, users gain access to App One Touch Control, allowing one-touch control of the cleaning schedule and mode selection.

The app features 7 optional cleaning modes and multiple specialized cleaning paths. Whether you need a quick floor-only pass before a party or a comprehensive deep clean of the floor, walls, and waterline, the C1 adapts to your specific needs. The system also supports remote OTA (Over the Air) updates. This ensures that as Talosbo optimizes its algorithms and introduces new features, your hardware continues to evolve and improve over time.

Authentic User Experience: From Water Entry to Filter Cleaning

In actual use, the Talosbo C1 prioritizes a humanized design. The process is remarkably simple: drop the robot into the water, select your mode via the app, and let the device handle the rest.

Its wall-climbing ability is particularly impressive, maintaining stable contact with the pool surface even as it reaches the waterline to scrub away stubborn residue. Maintenance is equally streamlined, as the dual filtration basket is designed for quick removal and can be rinsed clean in seconds.

About Talosbo: Our Mission and Background

Talosbo Inc. was born out of one simple need: helping people reclaim their time from home maintenance. Specializing in innovative robotic outdoor care solutions inspired by the legendary strength of Talos, the brand’s mission is to provide efficient tools for pool, garden, and home maintenance.

By offering a full range of robotic outdoor care tools, Talosbo aims to become a comprehensive solution provider for outdoor maintenance, allowing people to spend more time with family and loved ones. The Talosbo C1 embodies this commitment to technological innovation and high-quality manufacturing, representing a smart investment for pool owners in North America and Europe who pursue a high-quality, convenient life.

Final Verdict

The Talosbo C1 Cordless Robotic Pool Vacuum Cleaner is a standout choice for residential pool owners and small commercial operators alike. Its combination of enhanced triple-motor suction, dual filtration, and intelligent app control effectively automates pool management. For more information on purchasing or to explore the full range of Talosbo smart equipment, visit the official Talosbo C1 Product Page or follow their Official Facebook Page