Apple has introduced 36-month carrier financing for cellular iPads purchased directly from the Apple Store. The option is available through AT&T and Verizon to existing customers who add a new line of service.

Until now, the main financing option offered directly by Apple was Apple Card Monthly Installments, which divides the cost of an iPad across 12 months. The new carrier plans stretch those payments across three years and cover the standard iPad, iPad mini, iPad Air, and iPad Pro.

The higher prices are easier to swallow

The new option arrives only weeks after Apple raised prices across its iPad lineup, and the sticker shock appears to have become significant enough for the company to offer buyers another way to pay. A cellular 11-inch iPad Pro now starts at $1,399. Apple Card financing works out to $116.58 per month for one year, while AT&T or Verizon financing reduces the hardware payment to roughly $39 per month for three years (via 9to5Mac).

The installment will appear on the customer’s carrier bill alongside the cost of cellular service. Buyers get the iPad without paying the full amount upfront, Apple completes the sale, and the carrier gains a new line from an existing subscriber. There is one important catch. Anyone who cancels the line or switches carriers before the iPad is paid off will need to clear the remaining device balance. Once the balance is settled and the carrier’s other requirements are met, the iPad can be unlocked.

Why iPads have become more expensive

Apple has linked its recent price increases to the rising cost of RAM and storage. AI companies are buying huge quantities of memory for data centers, leaving less supply available for consumer electronics. Prices are unlikely to return to normal soon. Until memory costs ease, Apple may lean more heavily on carrier financing for future products that include cellular connectivity.

PAAS AND IAAS

Retail foundation leader Dave Treadwell takes over as senior leader and 19-year vet Dave Brown departs for pastures unknown

Dave Brown, a 19-year veteran of AWS and member of its S-team leadership cabal, is leaving Amazon for parts undisclosed.

It’s hard to overstate Dave’s impact on AWS; the few times I’ve met him, it was very clear that there was nothing I could trot out in the realm of “arcane EC2 trivia” that he didn’t go orders of magnitude deeper on with zero forewarning.

This is a titanic loss for AWS, because that’s roughly how deep Dave routinely dove. He’ll be handing the reins over to fellow S-team member Dave Treadwell, currently the head of Amazon Retail’s “eCommerce Foundation” (itself an upscale term for “bargain basement”).

Brown probably isn’t going to be a direct competitor (though he’s definitionally going to some Amazon competitor short of his next move being “philanthropy”), unless the two-week notice period is simply a bunch of Amazonian goons beating the tar out of him in a dark room around the clock until August.

But the interesting part to me is that suddenly Dave Treadwell has an enviable job.

Think about it for a second: Amazon retail was, for a time, the largest AWS customer — and certainly one of the most complicated. If I think I have beef about AWS-isms, there’s no doubt that “Tread,” as he’s apparently called, has mountains to my molehill of complaints.

So if I can slip into his role for a second, here would be my to-do list if I were coming from an Amazon Retail background and suddenly had EC2 bequeathed to me to run:

1. GPU capacity acquisition: Special people get special allocation rules, balanced between Capacity Blocks, war-clicking past InsufficientInstanceCapacity screens, and having to know a guy. Amazon has an entire internal project to solve this for its own teams. If I’m Tread, take a page from retail and smash Spot Fleet dynamics into a proper capacity marketplace. “Only 2 p6-b300.48xlarge left in stock. Ships from and sold by GPUZ4LOLZ (91% positive feedback).”

2. Savings plans / Reserved Instances archaeology: These sometimes-but-often-not overlapping discount vehicles were clearly designed by folks who never had to explain them to a CFO with anger management issues. Treadwell has a golden opportunity here to roll out dynamic raw pricing: on-demand rates that themselves fluctuate hourly like a third-party listing on discontinued and incompatible printer ink, replacing traditional commitment vehicles with a “Subscribe & Save 5%” toggle on vCPUs.

3. Instance type proliferation: As of this writing, there are 1,354 EC2 instance types available in us-east-1 alone, and the console picker assumes that you already know the correct answer. Riiiight. There’s a solution here! “Customers who launched m7i.large also launched …” combined with sponsored placement by EC2 sub-departments means the top result is now suddenly the instance family that AWS overbought. Is this the best instance for the customer? Who gives a rat’s ass; it’s what’s best for Amazon, a north star that Amazon Retail has been chasing for years.

4. SageMaker is someone’s empire-building project: There are over 35 SageMaker products, or features, or whatever the distinction is supposed to be at AWS. Tread should leave this alone, and introduce the amazing source of truth that is Customer Reviews. “1 star. Not as described. Arrived as Jupyter notebook; what the hell do I do with it?” They can repurpose their fake review detection to take down fraudulent reviews from other SageMaker sub-teams.

5. Quota request supplication: You know the drill; beg, plead, and wait for the privilege to give AWS more money. The fix here is almost too easy; y’know who doesn’t have to wait for quota increases? That’s right: Amazon Prime members.

That’s the easy punch list if it were me. But I’m me, and Tread is not. I’m sure he’s got planned more treats with far greater nuance and customer hostility; we’ll know for sure that he’s settled in when the EC2 section of our AWS bills starts including ads – and when Josh Pigford’s excellent Knockoff extension starts working in the EC2 console. ®

Strands is the NYT’s latest word game after the likes of Wordle, Spelling Bee and Connections – and it’s great fun. It can be difficult, though, so read on for my Strands hints.

Want more word-based fun? Then check out my NYT Connections today and Quordle today pages for hints and answers for those games, and Marc’s Wordle today page for the original viral word game.

Quordle was one of the original Wordle alternatives and is still going strong now more than 1,500 games later. It offers a genuine challenge, though, so read on if you need some Quordle hints today — or scroll down further for the answers.

Enjoy playing word games? You can also check out my NYT Connections today and NYT Strands today pages for hints and answers for those puzzles, while Marc’s Wordle today column covers the original viral word game.

ai and ml

One-two punch offers a glimpse of how low-precision AI can complement high-precision simulations

How AI will change the way scientific computing is done remains an open question. One relies on ultra-precise double-precision mathematics, while the other is perfectly happy working with 4 bits.

On the surface, the two are diametrically opposed, two extremes of a spectrum we call high-performance computing (HPC) — and yes, whether you like it or not, AI is HPC.

However, the latest AI offering from Cadence Design Systems, one of the biggest names in industrial HPC, offers a glimpse of how high- and low-precision compute could not just coexist, but work together to solve bigger and more complex problems faster and with fewer resources.

Announced on Wednesday, Cadence’s AuraStack is an agentic AI system built to assist electrical engineers to design and test printed circuit boards (PCBs), or conduct advanced packaging design and testing — two tasks that have historically relied on highly precise simulations.

AI is definitely a big piece of what Cadence has built; however the company isn’t replacing these tools with hallucination-prone AI models. Instead, AuraStack is a bit like Anthropic’s Claude Code or OpenAI’s Codex, but rather than writing, compiling, debugging, and running C or Rust in a sandbox, Cadence’s latest agent is designed to orchestrate its existing test and simulation suites.

“AI is amplifying the value of our engineering products and technologies,” Michael Jackson, CVP of Cadence’s system design and analysis division, told The Register.

In other words, the AI model — we’re told AuraStack integrates with a wide range of open and proprietary models — functions as a natural language interface capable of planning and orchestrating complex multi-step circuit design and testing workflows that run at higher precision using CPUs, GPUs, and other accelerators.

“For example, if I’m going to check and fix the IR reliability, I need to identify the power management components. I need to create a simulation-ready power tree, and then I need to do the simulation, and then I need to provide feedback to the designer,” Jackson said.

Cadence’s existing product stack already automates many of these processes. The problem, Jackson explains, is that a PCB or package design often requires completing thousands of tasks throughout its development. “Sixty-five percent of an engineer’s day is spent navigating and dealing with a lot of these tasks,” he said.

By orchestrating that scutwork, Jackson claims that AuraStack can deliver a 15x boost to productivity by letting the designer focus on design and engineering decisions rather than the individual tasks.

These gains are enough that several large players in the electronics space, including Nvidia, have already signed up for the service.

Cadence isn’t just melding AI with HPC for chip design or advanced packaging. The engineering software provider has built similar agents for digital and analog chip design.

The idea of using low precision compute to run AI models that orchestrate more precise single- and double-precision physics simulations isn’t new. Nvidia is one of the biggest champions of this approach, which makes sense seeing as its GPUs aren’t limited to training and running AI models, even if that’s what most folks are buying them for these days.

Earlier this year, we explored how researchers at the Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratories used AI agents to develop and test new hypotheses. They described the system as a self-driving lab. However, those tests, while similar in concept to what Cadence is doing with AuraStack, didn’t use LLMs and instead used more mature architectures like variational auto-encoders.

But given the success of code assistants, it’s not hard to imagine agent harnesses similar to AuraStack being used to automate lab equipment, perform simulations, and then iterate on the results, enabling scientists to continue their research even after they’ve nodded off for the night. ®

OpenAI is building an AI-powered smart speaker nobody wants. That is, if you believe the Bloomberg report from Mark Gurman and you’ve read his description of said rumored device.

According to the report:

from the shadow-court dept

This story was originally published by ProPublica. Republished under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.

In its term that ended last October, the Supreme Court passed an important milestone that went unnoticed: For the first time, it decided more cases by secret ballot, and with few signed opinions, than it did for cases argued in open court.

These decisions, which make up the court’s “shadow docket,” are a fast-track way to get a decision from the top court. They rarely include arguments, have limited briefings and have expedited timetables, and justices infrequently provide explanation of how they voted or to cite legal precedent. 

The Supreme Court’s increased willingness to bypass its regular process has empowered President Donald Trump at the same time as the administration has increased use of executive authority. The court has repeatedly green-lit policies of his that lower courts have blocked — and has done so with little to no explanation. 

These emergency decisions have thrown lower courts’ processes into turmoil and have sometimes directly contradicted longstanding legal precedent. The outcomes have been consequential: The high court has used the process to limit federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions and diminished Congress’ authority over federal agencies, and it has allowed for the detention of American citizens by immigration agents. 

ProPublica analyzed over two decades of Supreme Court rulings, which cover all of the years under Chief Justice John Roberts and go as far back as the online archives allow. We found that when the last court term ended, justices had issued 63 orders on the shadow docket, as opposed to 56 orders on the more traditional merits docket — where the court hears oral arguments scheduled months in advance and the justices issue signed opinions.

Legal scholars and court watchers were shocked by our finding. They told ProPublica it’s likely the first time in modern history that so many consequential decisions were made in secret by its nine members.

“The patterns show a court going out of its way to enable Trump,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and a Supreme Court analyst. He said that our findings reinforce the appearance that the justices are voting on their political preferences. 

“That’s the real blow to the court’s credibility,” he said.

Representatives from the Supreme Court did not respond to a detailed list of questions. 

In a statement, a spokesperson for the White House wrote, “President Trump has faced a historically unprecedented number of injunctions by liberal lower court judges, the same judges who would rather push their own policy schemes and undermine the Administration’s lawful agenda. President Trump will not stop implementing the America First initiatives on which he was elected.”

For the First Time in Two Decades, Decisions on the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket Outnumber the Merits Docket

There are two ways to get a decision from the Supreme Court. One is to exhaust your appeals to lower courts and ask to argue your case in front of the high court. The justices determine whether to take the case on, and if they do, lawyers argue their case in front of them. The other is to petition the justices directly via the emergency docket — to freeze a lower court ruling or government policy while the case goes through appeal.

The appeals to the emergency docket have long outnumbered those to the merits docket, but most are procedural requests or requests to stay execution for capital offenses. When those are removed, what’s left is known as the shadow docket — cases that seek to skip the usual order of things and ask for a quick ruling from the court’s justices.

The modern shadow docket was born in 2016 when the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay against President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, experts say. Papers obtained by The New York Times show that liberal justices at the time urged Roberts not to decide the case on an emergency basis because it broke with longtime precedent. The conservative justices, meanwhile, forcefully argued that the president’s plan would eventually be overturned by the court anyway and that it would put too much of a burden on the energy industry.

Driven by its numerous losses in lower courts, the current Trump administration appeals to the emergency docket significantly more often than previous administrations, and the court has increasingly agreed to take quick action on its appeals.

The Obama and George W. Bush administrations together filed just eight petitions in 16 years. The Trump administration filed 32 in 2025 alone, an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice found.

The increased willingness of the Roberts court to intervene on Trump’s behalf — as well as in other issues that favor conservatives and Trump allies — has upended American life, said Donald Ayer, a former deputy solicitor general and deputy attorney general who served under the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

“On many subjects of real importance to our future, they’ve demolished what used to be the law,” he said.

Public scrutiny of the shadow docket ramped up in September 2021 after the Supreme Court used it to issue a one-paragraph, unsigned opinion that further rolled back abortion rights established in the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. In the order, the court refused to block Texas’ Senate Bill 8, the “Heartbeat Act,” which banned abortion after an embryo’s cardiac activity is detectable, typically at six weeks of pregnancy and before many people know they are pregnant. Protests erupted nationwide, and the Senate held a hearing on the shadow docket.

In an unusual public acknowledgement, Justice Elena Kagan referenced the shadow docket by name in her scathing dissent, accusing the majority of green-lighting a “patently unconstitutional law” with only a cursory review in less than 72 hours.

“In all these ways, the majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow docket decisionmaking — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend,” Kagan wrote.

That an opinion was even issued and that four of the justices signed their names to it was uncommon. On the shadow docket, justices do not have to make their votes known. In rare cases, their votes are revealed in terse indications that they grant or deny the application, or even more rarely, as an opinion. We found that just 17% of votes cast had any sort of public record of a vote or opinion.

Responding to public criticism, Justice Samuel Alito contended that the court isn’t to blame for the rise in shadow docket cases. “We do not file these emergency applications,” he said. “Parties file them.”

The debate has continued. “We cannot expect the public to have faith in our judicial system if, without clear explanation, we consistently green-light harmful acts that do real damage,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during an April speech on the shadow docket at Yale Law School.

Until this past Supreme Court term, emergency applications fluctuated year to year but showed no clear upward trend. The applications are given first to a single justice, who decides if a case is worth referring to the full court. In recent years, justices have referred more of such appeals for a review and vote by the full court.

Last term, when there were both more cases and more referrals to the full court, the appeals to the shadow docket finally overtook those to the merits docket.

Emergency Applications Referred for a Full Court Vote Have Risen Sharply

The cases were consequential. On June 23, 2025, after a lower court had ruled that eight men being deported to South Sudan should have due process, the Supreme Court intervened after a request from the administration to stop that order. The men were deported. The majority didn’t issue an opinion justifying its ruling.

Three months later, the Supreme Court voted to allow immigration agents to stop people based on racial or ethnic characteristics while still-ongoing litigation against it proceeded. To justify the decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a rare shadow docket opinion that people who were in the country legally would be “free to go after the brief encounter.” These became known as “Kavanaugh stops.” Last year, ProPublica found more than 170 citizens who had been stopped and detained by ICE agents. The more than 50 Americans held even after agents learned of their citizenship were almost all Latino.

And in May, while an election in Louisiana was already underway, the justices allowed the state to immediately redraw its electoral map, removing one of the two majority-Black voting districts. Louisiana can now use that map for the 2026 midterms as part of a nationwide redistricting battle for control of the House of Representatives — an effort touched off by Trump’s call for Republican-led states to create more safe seats for themselves.

Roberts once signed on to a Kagan dissent that assailed the shadow docket. But our analysis found that he has referred more substantive cases for a vote by the full court than any other justice, going from just one in the 2005 term when he joined the court to nearly half of all referrals in the last term.

There is an additional difference between the shadow docket and the merits docket. After the court holds public argument, the justices’ ultimate merits decisions are closely watched and extensively covered by the press. The summer’s “decision season,” when the final and most significant rulings come down, has a predictable cadence that ends when the justices go on summer recess. Not so with the shadow docket. Increasingly, the justices are making big decisions after they’ve issued their final merits docket decision, when public attention has waned.

A group of Democrats led by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., have sponsored legislation to make the shadow docket more transparent.

Raskin told ProPublica that the court’s legitimacy has fallen with every significant decision made without “real opinions or analysis.”

“Lower federal courts have been deciding against the Trump administration in an overwhelming majority of cases with weighty and well-reasoned opinions,” Raskin said in a written statement. “Yet when things get to the twilight zone of the shadow docket, the Supreme Court is overturning 100-page opinions with a flippant sentence or two.” He added, “The result is a body that looks less like a Supreme Court and more like a Royal Court rubber stamping the madness and folly of the Trump Administration.”

“The jurisprudence of the Roberts Court today is as murky as the green algae water in the Reflecting Pool.”

How We Reported This Story

To compare the number of cases on the Supreme Court’s shadow docket to the traditional merits docket, we compared emergency applications listed on the court’s online docket search with counts of decisions compiled in Penn State’s Supreme Court Database (Version 2025 Release 01). For the merits docket, we counted only signed decisions in argued cases, the typical format for those rulings.

The court’s online docket goes back to the year 2000, but our analysis looks at Supreme Court terms from October 2003 to October 2025, where emergency applications are easily identified by the letter “A” in their docket number.

We identified more than 27,000 emergency applications during that period, including thousands of requests that are not commonly understood to be a part of the shadow docket. Most appeals to the emergency docket are the type of requests that were traditionally handled there: procedural requests, such as extending the time to file, and requests to stay execution for capital offenses. The remainder are the focus of our reporting.

Substantive Shadow Docket Cases Are a Small Fraction of All Emergency Applications

We defined a substantive application on the shadow docket as any filing where the full court was asked to intervene in the traditional appeals process, such as staying a lower court’s order. 

Most of the cases we excluded are decided by just one justice, each of whom oversees one or more federal circuits and has the power to refer filings to the wider court. When the cases are referred to the full court, they are the subject of a vote by the justices. We ran our approach by multiple experts, all of whom found it sound.

A filer can appeal to another justice if their application is denied. The next justice to receive the application always refers it to the full court. We did not include these renewed applications because our analysis found the court has never granted one.

The court has labeled capital punishment cases only since the October 2017 term. To identify them prior to that, we flagged applications for stays of execution. We then manually reviewed every case referred to the full court. For applications decided by a single justice, we used an AI model to flag potential capital cases by examining the parties on the application and the relief requested. The model flagged over 60 possible capital cases, and those were manually reviewed. Despite our effort, it is possible some capital cases may still be included in our final tallies before the 2017 term.

Although rulings on the shadow docket are typically unsigned and do not include vote breakdowns, we were able to identify how a justice voted in some cases. The analysis is based on either the opinions issued by the justices, most of which are dissenting opinions, or if the justice indicated they would have granted or denied. In some decisions, the justices issued a statement not attached to either a grant or denial. We did not record these as votes.

Filed Under: emergency docket, merits, secrecy, secret law, shadow docket, supreme court, transparency

Looking for the most recent Strands answer? Click here for our daily Strands hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Mini Crossword, Wordle, Connections and Connections: Sports Edition puzzles.

Today’s NYT Strands puzzle was kind of tough. Some of the answers are difficult to unscramble, so if you need hints and answers, read on.

I go into depth about the rules for Strands in this story. 

If you’re looking for today’s Wordle, Connections and Mini Crossword answers, you can visit CNET’s NYT puzzle hints page.

Read more: NYT Connections Turns 1: These Are the 5 Toughest Puzzles So Far

Hint for today’s Strands puzzle

Today’s Strands theme is: ‘Rerouting…”

If that doesn’t help you, here’s a clue: Go another way.

Clue words to unlock in-game hints

Your goal is to find hidden words that fit the puzzle’s theme. If you’re stuck, find any words you can. Every time you find three words of four letters or more, Strands will reveal one of the theme words. These are the words I used to get those hints but any words of four or more letters that you find will work:

• CART, CANT, HENCE, COVE, TOON, CHEER, WIPE, WIPED, GIVE, CHANT, VOTE

Answers for today’s Strands puzzle

These are the answers that tie into the theme. The goal of the puzzle is to find them all, including the spangram, a theme word that reaches from one side of the puzzle to the other. When you have all of them (I originally thought there were always eight but learned that the number can vary), every letter on the board will be used. Here are the nonspangram answers:

• TACK, TURN, VEER, PIVOT, SWERVE, ZIGZAG, DEVIATE

Today’s Strands spangram

Today’s Strands spangram is CHANGECOURSE. To find it, start with the C that is four letters down on the far-left vertical row, and wind a twisty path to spell it out.

• Environmental groups seek broader review before massive satellite constellations receive approval
• More than one million proposed satellites face increased regulatory scrutiny
• FCC is reconsidering satellite environmental review rules

Environmental groups have petitioned federal regulators to pause approval of orbital data center satellite constellations pending a full environmental review process.

Earthjustice recently filed a petition on behalf of DarkSky International, Environment America, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, known as PEER.