• Microsoft is bringing in more options for remapping the Copilot key
• You’ll be able to redefine it to invoke the context menu, or use it as Right Ctrl
• This used to be the Right Ctrl key before Microsoft jettisoned it to make room for the dedicated AI key on Windows 11 laptops

Microsoft is going to provide more options for remapping the Copilot key, the dedicated key introduced to summon Windows 11‘s AI assistant on laptops (and some standalone keyboards, too).

Windows Central noticed that Microsoft has confirmed this move in a support document, which states: “Customers who rely on the Right Ctrl key or Context menu key for keyboard shortcuts or assistive technologies (such as screen readers) experienced some challenges to their workflows when using these devices.

Redmi is preparing to launch its Turbo smartphone lineup in India, starting with the upcoming Redmi Turbo 5. This phone was initially released in China a few months ago and will soon be available in India as well. The Redmi Turbo 5 will reportedly emphasize gaming, battery life, and fast charging. Xiaomi has confirmed that the smartphone will be available through Amazon India. The microsite also gives users a first look at the Indian version of the smartphone through teaser images. However, Xiaomi is still keeping the official launch date under wraps for now.

Redmi Turbo 5 Design Revealed

The teaser images shared by Xiaomi offer a clear look at the Redmi Turbo 5’s design ahead of its launch. The smartphone appears similar to the version that launched earlier in China. It includes two rear camera lenses positioned on the top-left side, with an LED flash next to them. Xiaomi has also confirmed a black color variant for the Indian market. The phone carries Redmi branding on the flat rear panel, and the right side houses both the power button and volume controls.

Expected Specifications of Redmi Turbo 5

In terms of specifications, the Redmi Turbo 5 will most likely prioritize performance and battery life. The device may come with a 6.59-inch 1.5K AMOLED screen that supports a 120Hz refresh rate, delivering outstanding performance when playing games or browsing. The phone may come powered by the MediaTek Dimensity 8500-Ultra chipset and offer 16 GB RAM along with 512 GB of internal storage. It may also have a Sony IMX882 primary camera sensor capable of capturing up to 50 MP images with OIS.

For years, the field of robotics has used the terms “dull, dirty, and dangerous” (DDD) to describe the types of tasks or jobs where robots might be useful—by doing work that’s undesirable for people. A classic example of a DDD job is one of “repetitive physical labor on a steaming hot factory floor involving heavy machinery that threatens life and limb.”

But determining which human activities fit into these categories is not as straightforward as it seems. What exactly is a “dull” task, and who makes that assumption? Is “dirty” work just about needing to wash your hands afterwards, or is there also an aspect of social stigma? What data can we rely on to classify jobs as “dangerous?” Our recent work (which was not dull at all) tackles these questions and proposes a framework to help roboticists understand the job context for our technology.

First, we did an empirical analysis of robotics publications between 1980 and 2024 that mention DDD and found that only 2.7 percent define DDD and only 8.7 percent provide examples of tasks or jobs. The definitions vary, and many of the examples aren’t particularly specific (for example, “industrial manufacturing,” “home care”). Next, we reviewed the social science literature in anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, and sociology to develop better definitions for “dull,” “dirty,” and “dangerous” work. Again, while it might seem intuitive which tasks to put into these buckets, it turns out that there are some underlying social, economic, and cultural factors that matter.

Dangerous Work: Occupations or tasks that result in injury or risk of harm

It’s possible to measure the danger of a task or job by using reported information. There are administrative records and surveys that provide numbers on occupational injury rates and hazardous risk factors. While that seems straightforward, it’s important to understand how this data was collected, reported, and verified.

First, occupational injuries tend to be underreported, with some studies estimating up to 70 percent of cases missing in administrative databases. Second, injuries and risk factors are rarely disaggregated by characteristics like gender, migration status, formal/informal employment, and work activities. For example, because most personal protective equipment—such as masks, vests, and gloves—are sized for men, women in dangerous work environments face increased safety risks.

These caveats are an opportunity for robotics to be helpful. If we went out and looked for it, we could probably find some less obviously dangerous work where robotics might be an important intervention, not to mention some groups that are disproportionately affected and would benefit from more workplace safety.

Dirty Work: Occupations or tasks that are physically, socially, or morally tainted

Colloquially, most people might think of dirty work as involving physical dirtiness, such as trash removal, cleaning, or dealing with hazardous substances. But social science literature makes clear that dirty work is also about stigma. Socially tainted jobs are often servile or involve interacting with stigmatized groups (for example, correctional officers), and morally tainted jobs include tasks that people commonly perceive as sinful, deceptive, or otherwise defying norms of civility (like a stripper or a collection agent).

“Dirty work” is a social construct that can vary across time (like tattoo industry stigma in the United States) and culture (such as nursing in the U.S. versus in Bangladesh). One way to measure whether work is “dirty” is by using the closely related concept of occupational prestige, captured through quantitative surveys where people rank jobs. Another way to measure it is through qualitative data, like ethnographies and interviews. Similar to “dangerous,” we see some hidden opportunities for robotics in “dirty” work. But one of our more interesting takeaways from the data is that a lower-ranked job can be something that the workers themselves enjoy or find immense pride and meaning in. If we care about what tasks are truly undesirable, understanding this worker perspective is important.

Dull Work: Occupations or tasks that are repetitive and lacking in autonomy

When it comes to defining dull work, what matters most is workers’ own experiences. Outsiders can make a lot of false assumptions about what tasks have value and meaning. Sometimes things that seem boring or routine create the right conditions for developing skills and competence, such as the concentration needed for woodworking, or for socializing and support, when tasks are done alongside others. Instead of assuming that repetitive work is negative, it’s important to examine qualitative data on how people experience the work and what purpose it serves for them.

DDD: An actionable framework

In our paper, we propose a framework to help the robotics community explore how automation impacts individual jobs. For each term—dull, dirty, and dangerous—the framework gathers key pieces of information to reflect on what physical or social aspects of the task are, in fact, DDD. Worker perspective is an important part of all three considerations. The framework also emphasizes awareness of context—meaning the physical and social environment of an occupation and industry that can influence the DDD nature of a task. Our corresponding worksheet suggests existing data sources to draw on and encourages us to seek out multiple perspectives and consider potential sources of bias in the information.

What makes tasks dull, dirty, or dangerous depends on the perspective of the humans doing those tasks.RAI

Let’s take, for example, the waste and recycling industry. The world generates over 2 billion tonnes of waste annually, and this figure is expected to rise to nearly 4 billion tonnes by 2050. Intuitively, trash collection seems like a job that hits all the Ds. Going through our worksheet, we confirm that globally, workers in this industry face significant health hazards (dangerous), and waste collection is ranked as a low-status job (dirty), although interestingly, many workers take pride in providing this essential service.

The job is also repetitive, but there are aspects that make it not dull. Specifically, workers cite the day-to-day interaction with their coworkers (which includes extensive insider vocabulary, work hacks, and mutual aid groups) and task variety as two of the most enjoyable aspects of the job. Task variety includes inspecting their vehicle and equipment, driving their truck, coordinating with crew members, lifting bins and bags, detecting incorrect sorting of waste, and unloading at the end destination.

This finding matters because some types of robotic solutions will eliminate the parts of the job that workers most appreciate. For instance, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends the adoption of automated side loader trucks and collision avoidance systems. This innovation increases safety, which is great, but it also results in a sole worker operating a joystick in a cab, surrounded by sensor and camera surveillance.

Instead, we should challenge ourselves to think of solutions that make jobs safer without making them terrible in a different way. To do this, we need to understand all aspects of what makes a job dull, dirty, or dangerous (or not). Our framework aims to facilitate this understanding.

Finally, it’s important to note that DDD is only one of many possible approaches to classify what work might be better served by robots. There are lots of ways we could think about which types of tasks or jobs to automate (for example, economic impact or environmental sustainability). Given the popularity of DDD in robotics, we chose this common phrase as a starting point. We would love to see more work in this space, whether it’s data collection on DDD itself or the creation of other frameworks.

At RAI, we believe that the fusion of robotics and social sciences opens a whole new world of information, perspectives, opportunities, and value. It fosters a culture of curiosity and mutual learning, and allows us to create actionable tools for anyone in robotics who cares about societal impact.

Dull, Dirty, Dangerous: Understanding the Past, Present, and Future of a Key Motivation for Robotics, by Nozomi Nakajima, Pedro Reynolds-Cuéllar, Caitrin Lynch, and Kate Darling from the RAI Institute, was presented at the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) in Edinburgh, Scotland.

New York public health provider NYC Health + Hospitals says a months-long data breach that allowed hackers to steal personal data, medical records, and fingerprints scans affects at least 1.8 million people.

NYCHHC is the largest public health system in the United States and provides healthcare to over a million New Yorkers, the majority of whom are uninsured or receive state healthcare benefits, such as Medicaid.

The healthcare system reported the number to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, making it one of the largest healthcare-related data breaches of the year so far. Healthcare organizations have been repeatedly targeted by financially motivated cybercriminals in recent years in efforts to steal their vast banks of highly sensitive patients’ personal, medical, and billing information.

In a data breach notice on its website, NYCHHC said that it detected a cyberattack on February 2 and secured its network. The hackers had access to its network from November 2025 until February 2026, during which the hackers copied files from its systems.

The healthcare system said hackers broke due to a breach at a third-party vendor, which it did not name.

NYCHHC said that the exposed data varies by individual and includes patients’ health insurance plan and policy information, medical information (e.g., diagnoses, medications, tests, and imagery), billing, claims, and payment information. Other government-issued identity documents, such as Social Security numbers, passports, and driver’s licenses, were also compromised.

The breach notice also says “precise geolocation data” was taken in the breach, suggesting that the user-uploaded photos of their identity documents may have also contained the exact location of where the document was captured.

The breach is particularly sensitive because hackers stole biometric information, including fingerprints and palm prints, which affected individuals have for life and cannot replace. NYCHHC did not provide an explanation for storing biometric data. Prospective NYCHHC employees are generally required to enroll their fingerprints for criminal records checks. It’s not yet known if patients’ biometrics were also taken.

NYCHHC’s website was briefly offline as of Monday morning. A spokesperson for NYCHHC did not immediately respond to an email from TechCrunch with questions about the cyberattack. TechCrunch asked, among other things, why it took the organization months to detect the breach, and if it has received any communication from the hackers, such as a demand for payment.

It’s not clear if NYCHHC can receive email at the time of the website outage.

The incident appears to be unrelated to the data breach at National Association on Drug Abuse Problems (NADAP) earlier this year, in which over 5,000 NYCHHC patients had information taken in the cyberattack.

In the FBI’s latest annual report on cybercrime covering 2025, healthcare remained a top target for ransomware attackers — criminals who break into databases, steal a copy of the data while scrambling the victim’s servers, and threaten to publish the stolen data if the victim does not pay the hackers. A ransomware attack on UnitedHealth-owned health tech giant Change Healthcare allowed Russian-linked hackers to steal the medical and billing information of more than 190 million Americans, believed to be the largest theft of U.S. medical data in history.

Elon Musk’s claim that he was mistreated by his OpenAI co-founders failed after nine California jurors returned a unanimous verdict that his lawsuits had been filed too late.

Musk accused Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, OpenAI, and Microsoft of “stealing a charity” by creating a for-profit affiliate of the frontier AI lab. Jurors, however, found that any harms that Musk may have suffered came before the deadline for filing his claims under the law.

While the trial delved deeply into the melodramatic history of OpenAI and featured testimony from leading figures in Silicon Valley, it ultimately turned on fairly narrow questions of the law. The trial focused on whether and when Altman and the other defendants had made and broken promises to Musk, but his case failed to convince jurors that he had a valid claim.

In particular, OpenAI had advanced a statute of limitations defense, which sought to prove that any harms Musk sought to litigate had taken place before 2021. (The specific date varied by the charge: before August 5, 2021, for the first count; August 5, 2022, for the second count; and November 14, 2021, for the third count.) Ultimately, the jury found that argument persuasive, which made for a short deliberation period.

“There was a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury’s finding, which is why I was prepared to dismiss on the spot,” Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said after the verdict was delivered.

The end of the case means that one major threat to OpenAI — a possible restructuring — is now off the table ahead of its reported IPO.

“It did not take [the jury] two hours to conclude … that Mr. Musk’s lawsuit is nothing more than an after-the-fact contrivance that bears no relationship to reality,” OpenAI’s lead attorney, Bill Savitt, said after the verdict. “They kicked it exactly where it belongs — just to the side. This lawsuit is a hypocritical attempt to sabotage a competitor.”

Microsoft, which Musk sued for aiding and abetting OpenAI’s alleged breach of charitable trust, welcomed the verdict. A spokesperson for the company said it “remained committed to our work with OpenAI to advance and scale AI for people and organizations around the world.”

The verdict came in the middle of a hearing to determine the potential damages to Musk if the verdict had gone the other way. While that discussion is moot for now, the judge appeared unconvinced by the analogy Musk’s lawyers drew between his charitable contributions and investments in a for-profit startup.

“Your analysis seems to be devoid of connection to the underlying facts,” she told Dr. C. Paul Wazzan, the expert who came up with Musk’s estimate of OpenAI and Microsoft’s wrongful gains at his expense — some $78.8 billion to $135 billion.

In a tweet after the ruling, Musk appeared to take the procedural grounds of the dismissal as a moral victory. “There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!” Musk wrote. “I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America.”

Reached for comment by TechCrunch, Musk’s lead counsel, Marc Toberoff, said, “One word: Appeal.”

Stress on organisations to patch vulnerabilities a ‘major concern’ for NCSC’s Joseph Stephens.

The European Commission and several EU member states, including Ireland, are in talks with Anthropic over Mythos, as countries worldwide scramble to protect their vulnerable critical infrastructure from cyber risks.

“We’ve had direct contact with them,” the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC)’s director of resilience Joseph Stephens told SiliconRepublic.com, referring to Anthropic, whose European headquarters is based in Ireland.

“But we’re working through the European system because there’s more strength in having a coordinated approach.” Stephens was speaking to SiliconRepublic.com during the recent ZeroDayCon event in Dublin.

Mythos sent shockwaves through the industry following its limited launch to select big businesses more than a month ago. Anthropic’s move received much praise from experts, including from Stephens, who called on other frontier AI model providers to do the same.

Is control out of bounds?

Mythos’s development, Anthropic claims, was not intentional, but merely the result of a “downstream consequence of general improvements in code, reasoning and autonomy”.

And undoubtedly, states don’t wield much power when it comes to controlling technological advancements or managing how it is disseminated – at least initially.

The growing concern around AI-induced cybersecurity risks is by no means restricted to Mythos. Put together, these factors create a difficult environment for legislators as they attempt to catch up to new innovations in this space cropping up faster than ever before.

“We have to recognise what the Irish state can and cannot do,” Stephens said. “We can’t stop a company like Anthropic based in the US from releasing or not releasing a model.”

Mythos’s launch created such a ripple that the NCSC – for the first ever time – released a statement on a specific product release.

Meanwhile, nations worldwide, including the US, UK, Canada and Japan, were quick to invite Anthropic to discussions to potentially employ the model to bolster their critical infrastructure security.

However, governments and big businesses aside, start-ups and SMEs with limited resources to bolster their cybersecurity are particularly at risk.

“The major concern here right now is the stress that [Mythos] may place on organisations who are now going to have to patch all of their digital products and services,” Stephens said.

But ironic as it is, AI might come in handy for situations such as these.

Will the EU AI Act help?

Stephens called for a joint effort between states to come up with a common regulatory approach around such models.

“The AI Act allows us to ensure that products that come onto our marketplace are done in a secure and a safe way,” he said. “Europe has really pushed forward with the AI Act … [but] we can’t regulate our way out of it.”

The line between regulating and stifling innovation is one that the EU is arguably still in search of.

It is attempting to remedy some of this over-regulation by way of a simplified and consolidated set of rules. Earlier this month, the bloc adopted new provisional rules on the AI Act.

The AI Act applies to businesses that sell into the EU, or if the AI output is used in the EU. The landmark regulation attempts to balance managing the risks of this technology while letting the EU benefit from its potential.

According to law expert Dr TJ McIntyre, it is possible to regulate models such as Mythos with extraterritorial effect, but only if they are sold into the EU or if their outputs are sold into the region.

McIntyre is an associate professor in the Sutherland School of Law at University College Dublin.

“It’s not clear that the AI Act would apply if Mythos is geo-restricted for use outside the EU,” he explained.

However, the Act is “designed to address ‘offensive cyber capabilities, such as the ways in which vulnerability discovery, exploitation or operational use can be enabled’ as a type of systemic risk,” he said – so, “in theory”, the EU could take action under the AI Act.

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Publicis acquired Irish-founded e-commerce analytics business Profitero for €200m in 2022.

French communications giant Publicis Groupe has acquired US data company LiveRamp for $2.2bn in a major push towards agentic advertising services.

The California-based data platform allows cross-collaboration between thousands of publisher, technology and data partners. It enables data co-creation – a process by which companies can connect multiple data sources across partners in a secure environment.

The acquisition will allow the 1926-founded Publicis to access new opportunities in AI services and expand its addressable market, it said, adding that for LiveRamp, the deal marks additional investment, and the opportunity to scale and expand its capabilities.

The all-cash deal is based on an acquisition price of $38.50 per share, adding a near 30pc premium to LiveRamp shares’ closing price on 15 May, Publicis said. The transaction also includes acquired net cash of $379m.

The deal is expected to close before the end of the year, following which LiveRamp will continue to be led by its current CEO Scott Howe. Howe will report to Publicis CEO and chairperson Arthur Sadoun.

“LiveRamp joining Publicis Groupe is the latest demonstration of our commitment to investing in new talent and innovation, ahead of market shifts,” said Sadoun.

“By building the future of data co-creation, we’re empowering our clients to generate new, exclusive and proprietary data, to build the smartest, most differentiated AI agents on top of the leading large language models.

“It will be valuable for our clients’ business growth and a new addressable market for Publicis.”

The company expects a 7-8pc growth in net revenue for 2027 and 2028 as a result of the acquisition.

Earlier this year, Sadoun told the Financial Times that the company has invested around €14bn in data and technology over the past decade.

Early investment in AI tools has helped the company expand business at a time when the media and creative industries are shrinking, he said.

The LiveRamp acquisition follows a $4.4bn purchase of data specialist Epsilon in 2019 – the French advertising giant’s largest ever. In 2022, the company snapped up Irish-founded e-commerce analytics business Profitero for €200m.

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

At an event in New York this week, Volvo’s upcoming EX60 midsize electric SUV finally made its North American debut, opening US orders for the 2027 model at a starting price of $59,795 ($58,400 plus the requisite $1,395 destination fee) with up to 400 miles of range, depending on trim. 

At first blush, those numbers look pretty good for an EV positioned at the premium end of its highly competitive class. Yet recent events have left the automaker in an unenviable underdog position for its most important new launch.

When Volvo pulled the wraps off the EX60 at the global debut earlier this year, I called it “the most important model in [the brand’s] growing family of electric vehicles.” The EX60 slots into the midsize premium SUV segment — the single largest automotive battleground in America, EV or otherwise — and follows in the footsteps of the combustion-powered XC60, which has long been the brand’s volume backbone. 

Volvo’s EV rollout has been rougher than the brand would like to admit: The EX30 was discontinued in March after market headwinds and shifting political conditions made its US viability untenable, and the flagship EX90’s inaugural year was plagued with issues. 

I noted in January: “This feels like a make-or-break moment for the brand’s EV ambitions.” That assessment hasn’t changed. What has changed is that we now have the numbers, and they’re promising.

Up to 400 miles of range

The EX60 rides on Volvo’s new SPA3 platform, a dedicated electric architecture that introduces cell-to-body integration, next-generation in-house e-motors, megacasting and an 800-volt electrical system. That last point matters most at the charging station: The EX60 P6 rear-drive variant can add up to 155 miles in 10 minutes at a peak rate of 320 kilowatts, going from 10% to 80% in just 16 minutes. The AWD P10 and the P12 push that peak charging rate to 370 kilowatts. 

With the longest legs of the bunch, the P12 promises up to 400 miles of range — enough to drive from New York to Montreal without touching a charger, according to Volvo. The base P6 manages 307 miles, while the P10 AWD cruises for 322 miles. (Keep in mind, however, that all range and charging figures are estimates pending final EPA certification.)

Crucially, the EX60 is the first Volvo to ship with a native North American Charging Standard port, meaning that Tesla’s Supercharger network — with over 29,000 stations in North America — is accessible without an adapter. EX60 owners will still need a dongle to charge at roughly 13,000 to 17,000 public Combined Charging System ports across the US, but this remains a meaningful real-world advantage as the industry and infrastructure shift to NACS over the next few years.

Competitively priced

At launch, US buyers will have their choice of two powertrain options (P6 and P10 AWD) and two trim levels (Plus and Ultra) that dictate how well-equipped their EX60 will be. The entry P6 Plus comes in at $59,795 comes with Volvo’s Pilot Assist safety suite and a 21-speaker Bose system as standard. 

The P6 Ultra ($66,395) steps up to add ventilated Nappa leather seats and upholstery, a 28-speaker Bowers & Wilkins audio setup, an electrochromic panoramic roof and heated second-row booster seats integrated into the seat backs. Similarly equipped, but with more power and range, the P10 AWD Plus and Ultra open at $62,145 and $68,745, respectively. (All prices include the compulsory $1,395 destination fee.)

Pricing hasn’t been announced for the 670-horsepower EX60 P12 AWD — the most powerful variant and the range-leader — which will be configurable at a later date.

The sticker price is competitive. The BMW iX3 starts at $62,850, Audi’s Q6 e-tron at $65,795 and the upcoming electric Mercedes-Benz GLC is expected to start in the same ballpark. Volvo undercuts the competition meaningfully and goes toe-to-toe on range and charging speed. Whether that’s enough to claw back momentum after a stumbling start for the brand’s EV program is the real question.

The EX60 can be configured now at volvocars.com. First deliveries are expected later this year.