Meta today released Muse Code, a terminal-based AI coding agent now in beta, alongside Muse Spark 1.2, a coding-focused update to its Muse Spark family of frontier models — a one-two punch that puts the company in direct competition with Anthropic’s Claude Code, OpenAI’s Codex, and the growing field of agentic coding harnesses that have rapidly become the primary way many professional developers ship software.
“Releasing Muse Code in beta today,” Meta co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a post on rival social network X (under his longtime handle @finkd). “It’s a terminal coding agent that takes on complete software engineering tasks across large repos: planning changes, writing code, validating the results.”
The launch marks Meta’s most serious entry yet into a category it has largely watched from the sidelines.
While Anthropic and OpenAI turned their coding agents into flagship products — and startups like Cursor built billion-dollar businesses on the workflow — Meta’s developer story long centered on Llama, the open-weight model family it gave away to the tune of more than a billion downloads.
Advertisement
Muse Code changes that in more ways than one: it’s a full harness, installable on macOS or Linux with a single curl command, co-trained with the model that powers it — and, like the Muse Spark models behind it, entirely proprietary.
However, Zuckerberg teased that open source may be in the cards for Muse Spark or perhaps another product entirely, in a reply to a question on X, saying “I’ll have more to share on that soon.”
Screenshot by VentureBeat
Developers and prospective users can install it now on their Terminal using the following one-line command — but be warned, if that’s you, you’ll need to log in with a Meta account and provide billing details first in order to begin: curl -fsSL https://dev.meta.ai/install.sh | bash
Advertisement
Persistent background agents and parallel worktrees
Muse Code’s headline architectural bet is what Meta calls async background agents.
Rather than spawning helper agents fresh for each task — the pattern most rival harnesses use — Muse Code keeps a set of specialized background agents alive for the entire session.
According to Meta’s blog post, these agents “remain active throughout each session, rather than being spawned for individual tasks, helping avoid redundant information gathering,” carrying out next steps on their own and choosing when to report back to the main agent.
The practical pitch is less latency and less babysitting: an agent that already knows the repository doesn’t have to re-explore it every time the developer asks for something new.
Advertisement
When a job is large enough, Muse Code fans out to separate sub-agents working in parallel, each in its own isolated git worktree, so the developer’s working copy is never touched.
“In testing we had it build six features for a game simultaneously with no collisions,” Zuckerberg wrote on X.
Worktree isolation and parallel sub-agents exist in competing tools, but Meta is leaning on the combination of persistence plus parallelism as its differentiator.
The second notable design choice is auditability. Every model call, tool run, approval, and edit is appended to a local event log before it executes — a single source of truth that Meta says makes the runtime “replay-exact and restart-safe.”
Advertisement
If Muse Code crashes 20 hours into a long-running task, it resumes precisely where it stopped, with no lost work and no re-prompting. For engineering leaders who have been burned by opaque agent runs, a complete local audit trail may prove to be the feature that matters most in enterprise evaluations.
Muse Code also ships with bundled “skills” that will look familiar to users of rival tools: /plan turns a task into an approval-gated plan, /grill stress-tests that plan until it holds up, and /goal drives the agent toward completion of a stated objective.
Muse Spark 1.2: co-trained with its own harness
Under the hood is Muse Spark 1.2, which Meta describes as a coding-focused update to Muse Spark 1.1 with “significantly scaled up training compute on coding tasks” and broader training environment diversity, improving code generation, complex debugging, and codebase understanding while maintaining general agentic capability.
The update lands squarely on the Muse family’s weakest flank. When the original Muse Spark debuted in April, it vaulted Meta back into the top five on frontier reasoning and vision benchmarks — but trailed on the agentic coding evaluations that matter most to this market, scoring 77.4 on SWE-Bench Verified against Claude Opus 4.6’s 80.8 and Gemini 3.1 Pro’s 80.6, and lagging well behind GPT-5.4 on GDPval’s measure of long-horizon work tasks.
Advertisement
Four months later, a coding-specialized checkpoint paired with a purpose-built harness reads as Meta’s direct answer to that gap.
Two training details stand out. First, Meta co-trained the model with Muse Code itself, using rejection-sampled harness trajectories and recipe optimizations for goals, context compaction, and sub-agents — meaning the model was explicitly tuned to perform best inside this particular tool. That mirrors an industry-wide shift away from treating models and harnesses as separable products.
Second, Meta used a self-improvement loop: Muse Spark 1.1 generated challenging coding environments and instruction-following templates, then graded candidate solutions against those requirements, producing a scalable training dataset for its successor. Meta credits the loop with making 1.2 measurably better at following complex instructions.
Meta published benchmark charts comparing Muse Spark 1.2 against other coding models on Terminal-Bench 2.1, DeepSWE 1.1, and an internal Meta coding benchmark, pointing readers to a separate methodology report for details — though the announcement text itself doesn’t tout any placements, an unusual reticence in a field where rivals trumpet leaderboard wins. The charts explain why: they show a strong but clear second place.
Advertisement
Meta Spark 1.2 benchmark comparison charts. Credit: Mark Zuckerberg/Meta
On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Muse Spark 1.2 running in Muse Code scored 82.9%, edging OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 Terra in Codex (81.8%) and xAI’s Grok 4.5 in Grok Build (81.6%) but trailing Anthropic’s Opus 5 at max effort in Claude Code, which leads at 86.7%.
On DeepSWE 1.1, Muse Spark 1.2 posted 59.3% — third, behind Opus 5 (65.0%) and GPT-5.6 Terra (64.8%). Most striking is Meta’s own internal coding benchmark, where Muse Spark 1.2’s 70.6% comfortably beats GPT-5.6 Terra (65.4%) and Gemini 3.6 Flash (63.9%) yet still sits nearly nine points behind Opus 5’s 79.4% — an unusually candid admission that even on the test Meta designed itself, Anthropic’s model wins. Indeed, Claude tops all three charts.
The generational gains are real, though: Muse Spark 1.2 improves on 1.1 by 6.7 points on Terminal-Bench and 6.3 on DeepSWE. One caveat buried in the chart labels — the 1.1 scores were recorded in the generic mini-swe-agent harness while 1.2 ran in Muse Code, so some of that jump belongs to the new harness rather than the new model.
Advertisement
The company’s most striking demonstration is a long-horizon case study: Meta pointed Muse Spark 1.2 at GPU kernel optimization and let it run for more than 1,000 tool calls over up to 24 hours on NVIDIA Hopper hardware.
Working in Triton and barred from simply wrapping existing third-party kernel libraries, the agent wrote, compiled, and profiled its way to what Meta calls “substantial improvements” over baseline implementations of KDA and MLA kernels — including genuinely non-obvious optimizations like re-centering gated cumulative decay at a chunk midpoint.
“It kept finding substantial improvements well beyond the initial exploration phase,” Zuckerberg wrote. Sustained improvement over a 24-hour autonomous run, if it holds up outside Meta’s demos, addresses one of the most persistent criticisms of coding agents: that they plateau or drift once past their initial burst of progress.
Your data for a discount?
The pricing structure may be the most consequential — and most scrutinized — part of the launch. Meta is offering Muse Spark 1.2 through its Meta Model API in two tiers.
Advertisement
The standard tier is priced at $1.25 per million input tokens and $4.25 per million output tokens (with cached input at $0.15), and Meta commits that prompts and completions on this tier are not used to train its models. There is no long-context premium, and rate limits run to 3,000 requests and 4 million tokens per minute, per team. It’s about mid-range price, compared to other leading AI models available over API.
The contributor tier is where Meta’s strategy diverges sharply from its rivals: $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens — roughly 12x and 21x cheaper than standard, respectively, with cached input at a near-free $0.002 — in exchange for explicit permission to use your prompts and completions to train future Meta models. It’s the cheapest available on the market, but you pay with your data — as described below.
This is the tier Zuckerberg is steering new users toward: “It’s easy and low-cost to get started,” he wrote. “Install Muse Code with one line and you can start on our contributor tier.”
In VentureBeat’s own testing on a Mac mini, the one-line installer worked as advertised — a 97 MB download and a sign-in — but the agent stopped short of running anything, reporting that no models were visible and that payment was “required to finish setting up your account.”
Advertisement
In other words, even the heavily discounted contributor tier requires a payment method on file before Muse Code will do any work: low-cost is accurate, but free is not.
Meta frames the contributor tier as lowering the barrier for prototyping and experimentation “where training on your data is acceptable.”
But it also means the default on-ramp for Muse Code sends developers’ code and prompts into Meta’s training pipeline — a tradeoff enterprises with proprietary codebases will need to consciously opt out of by moving to standard pricing.
The contributor tier also carries much tighter rate limits (60 requests per minute versus 3,000), a clear signal it’s aimed at individuals and small experiments rather than production workloads.
Advertisement
The approach is classically Meta: subsidize access, harvest data at scale, and use it to close the gap with the frontier. Zuckerberg made no secret of the ambition, calling Muse Spark 1.2 “our next step as we push toward frontier, with larger, more capable models on the way.”
However, for developers and enterprises who want or are required legally to keep their code secure, the tradeoff may not be one they’re willing or able to make.
No Llama in sight
What today’s announcement conspicuously lacks is any mention of open source — a striking omission from the company that spent three years positioning itself as the standard-bearer of open AI.
From the original LLaMA’s debut in February 2023 — whose weights famously leaked onto 4chan within weeks, inadvertently kickstarting the movement to run capable models on consumer hardware — through Llama 2’s commercially usable license, the coding-specialized Code Llama, and the 405-billion-parameter Llama 3.1, which Zuckerberg launched in July 2024 with a manifesto titled “Open Source AI Is the Path Forward,” Meta’s entire pitch to developers was that frontier-class weights should be free to download, self-host, and fine-tune.
Advertisement
The strategy worked: by early 2026, the Llama family had been downloaded roughly 1.2 billion times, averaging about a million downloads a day, with self-hosting offering enterprises cost reductions VentureBeat has previously reported at as much as 88% versus proprietary API providers.
Then came the unraveling. Llama 4 debuted in April 2025 to mixed reviews and, eventually, admissions that its benchmark results had been fudged — while Chinese open-weight rivals from DeepSeek, Alibaba, and Zhipu AI surged to account for some 41% of downloads on Hugging Face by late 2025, eroding Llama’s claim to leadership of the very movement it started. The rocky rollout spurred Zuckerberg’s summer 2025 overhaul of Meta’s AI operations into Meta Superintelligence Labs (MSL), with Scale AI co-founder Alexandr Wang recruited as chief AI officer.
Asked directly at the time whether Llama development would continue, a Meta spokesperson told VentureBeat only that “our current Llama models will continue to be available as open source” — pointedly silent on future ones.
With Muse Code, Meta lands closest to the posture of Anthropic — whose Claude Code remains proprietary — while the company that once argued open source was the path forward now asks developers to pay per token for a model they cannot inspect, or to subsidize that access with their own data.
Seen in that light, the contributor tier reads as the successor to the Llama strategy itself: the ecosystem flywheel is no longer free weights in exchange for mindshare, but cheap tokens in exchange for training data.
Advertisement
But Zuck’s reply on X — asked directly by AI developer Luckey Farady, “Will Muse Code be open source?” he responded “I’ll have more to share on that soon” — does keep hope alive that Meta will return to the open source AI ballgame.
Why it matters
Terminal coding agents have become the fastest-growing surface in enterprise AI, and until today the category has effectively been a two-horse race between Anthropic and OpenAI, with Google and a crowd of startups in pursuit.
Meta’s entry brings a genuinely different architecture (persistent background agents, an append-only local event log), a credible long-horizon demo, and an aggressive pricing wedge.
The open questions are the ones benchmarks charts can’t answer: whether Muse Spark 1.2 actually matches Claude and GPT-class models on real-world repositories, whether developers trust Meta with their code, and whether the contributor tier’s discount is enough to make them stop asking. Muse Code is available in beta today; Muse Spark 1.2 is live in the Meta Model API with expanded global access.
For decades now, companies like Michelin have been teasing us with futuristic-looking automobile tires that don’t use air. Instead, they use a polymer mesh of sorts which maintains the same pressure on the travel surface that a pneumatic tire does, with much less maintenance than their pneumatic counterparts. At least, in theory. There’s a reason that these tires live in the same mythical realm that Half Life 3 and the modern affordable Volkswagen do, and [Berm Peak] decided to discover those reasons for himself.
Of course, [Berm Peak] isn’t building these for his daily driver, an electric pickup truck featured in previous videos of his. He’s putting these on his mountain bike instead, a challenging environment for a tire like this in its own right. When mountain biking at the level he does, punctures and flats can become a real nuisance on the trail, so he set about experimenting with these designs with the 3D printer to see if he could make something rivaling pneumatic technology. After a few design iterations he settled on a TPU-based version with a compliant S-shaped spacing between the tread and wheel. The tire printed in sections that are installed by joining them together on the bike rim with a separate 3D printed rim interface.
At the end of this process [Berm Peak] ends up with a surprisingly capable tire that mostly holds up to his extreme off-road testing, an impressive feat for something 3D printed in his shop. Presumably a company specializing in bicycle tires could build something even more capable, but it turns out that a different technology has already solved all of the problems that airless tires solve. Mountain bikers today almost exclusively ride on tires with sealant, so punctures and flats are essentially a solved problem. But the neon-green airless tires were still a fun project for [Berm Peak] and quite the head-turner out on the bike trails.
New Apple silicon rarely gets discounted this quickly, since Apple tends to hold firm on pricing for months after a launch, which makes catching the M5 Pro £110 cheaper within its first sale window feel like unusually good timing.
Advertisement
That timing matters more once you look at what’s actually inside, since the M5 chip pairs a faster CPU with a more powerful GPU and a 16-core Neural Engine, meaning quicker exports, smoother multitasking across heavy apps and Apple Intelligence features that respond instantly rather than lag.
Our tech expert Jessica Gorringe compared the Pro against the new MacBook Air M5 and found it pulling ahead in exactly the areas that matter for heavier work, with a sharper Liquid Retina XDR display, a longer claimed battery life and noticeably more ports.
That XDR display hits up to 1,600 nits at its peak, runs an adaptive refresh rate up to 120Hz through ProMotion and covers the full P3 colour range, which makes editing photos or watching HDR content look noticeably richer than on a standard panel.
Advertisement
Apple also rates this MacBook Pro for up to 24 hours of video streaming, which in real terms means it can realistically get you through a full working day or a long-haul flight without you needing to go looking for an outlet.
That same confidence about staying unplugged carries over to the port selection, with three Thunderbolt 4 ports, an HDMI output and an SDXC card slot meaning fewer dongles cluttering your desk when you’re actually trying to get work done.
Day to day, Apple Intelligence runs natively on that same chip to help with writing and everyday tasks, backed by privacy protections Apple says keep your data off limits to everyone, including itself, while Touch ID and FileVault handle the security side in the background.
Apple rarely lets its newest hardware sit on sale for long, so anyone weighing up whether the extra ports and display actually justify the Pro price tag now has a much shorter list of reasons to keep waiting.
But if you pick up the wrong tool or a ceiling fan that doesn’t fit your space, Home Depot has a generous return policy for most items, but if you’re a regular customer, take note — the store recently changed the rules for a few products. If you enjoy scaring trick or treaters with fake skeletons at Halloween or decking the halls at Christmas, be aware that any holiday decor purchased at Home Depot must now be returned within 30 days. It also cannot be used, and you must have a proof of purchase.
The home improvement store offers an even shorter return window for some items, allowing only seven days for air conditioners, dehumidifiers, and gas generators. Effective July 2026, Home Depot added pumps, portable evaporation products, and portable heaters to its seven-day return policy. Again, they must be unused and have proof of purchase. For many products, the store’s typical 90-day return policy remains in place.
Advertisement
Why did Home Depot shorten the return policy for some items?
Adam McCullough/Shutterstock
While the home improvement store didn’t issue any official statement on the updated return policies, they are likely intended to stop shoppers from abusing these policies or using products for scams. Some shoppers may attempt to buy an item, use it for a short period, and then return it for a full refund. This is most common with seasonal decor, high-value items or tools with a specific use that you may only need for one job.
If you’re worried about the return window for a specific item, check Home Depot’s return policy online. The store maintains that “most merchandise” falls under its 90-day return window, provided you have a receipt or other proof of purchase. However, the store also has 30-day, seven-day, and even 48-hour windows for specific items. Major appliances, for example, have only a two-day return window, while the store offers 30 days for consumers to return furniture and consumer electronics. Most plants can be returned within 90 days.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, customers who have a Home Depot consumer credit card, the Pro Xtra credit card, or a commercial account with the store. Purchases made with those cards have a year-long return window, unless they fall under those shorter return windows listed on Home Depot’s website!
Longtime Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares a report from Electrek: Waymo co-CEO Dmitri Dolgov laid out the clearest technical case yet for why cameras alone can’t take a self-driving system to full autonomy, arguing that “weak sensing” hits a safety ceiling long before it reaches superhuman performance. […] Dolgov made the comments in a talk at Y Combinator’s Startup School, walking through the lessons Waymo has learned building its driver over close to two decades. He put the sensor question on the table plainly: “there’s been a long-standing debate about what kind of sensors do you actually need for autonomous driving.”
His answer draws the line that camera-only advocates tend to skip right past. “Humans of course can drive with just eyes, so there’s that proof of existence,” he said. “If the goal were to just approximately match human performance or to build an assist product, that’s a very reasonable way to go.” Then the catch. If you’re targeting full autonomy and strongly superhuman performance, he said, “you find that weak sensing just leads to a safety curve that flattens out way too early.” Dolgov said that cameras, lidar, and radar are complementary rather than redundant: “These different sensing modalities, they’re not backups to each other,” and combining them produces a view “vastly superior to what you get with any one sensor.” He said multiple sensor types also protect against physical failures, such as a leaf or branch blocking a camera, while helping Waymo climb the “exponential ladder of nines” required for fully driverless safety.
Dolgov warned that camera-only systems may improve quickly before plateauing “way before the performance that is required by your product.” He also pushed back on the cost argument against lidar, calling it “a number that has a fairly short shelf life” as hardware costs continue to fall.
If we asked you what tools a cowboy in the Wild West needed most, you’d probably say their spurs, their saddle, their Stetson hat, and perhaps the lasso. You’d be right, too, but just as our modern misconceptions about cowboys give us a historically warped view of how they really were, spurs and saddles aren’t the whole story. Cowboys during the Wild West — roughly the latter half of the 19th century — relied on a lot more than just the stereotypical accouterments of their mythologized career. Some of the tools they relied on weren’t always for the reasons you’re thinking — and of course, there’s a lot of interesting history behind each and every one that’s worth digging into.
We want to take a very brief look at Wild West-era tech that would have played an important role in a cowboy’s life, even if only indirectly. Some of the most groundbreaking innovations in human history came about during the westward-moving American frontier. Thus, America’s beloved cattle drivers came to rely on them in some fashion. Let’s take a look at these five items in particular.
Advertisement
The Telegraph
John Kobal Foundation/Getty Images
Throughout history, humans did think up some quick, long-distance communication methods, like semaphores. The telegraph took that to the next level. The electric telegraph, as we know it, sent its first official message in 1844. For the first time in history, a message could travel the miles at virtually the speed of light. You can still send a telegram today if you really want to.
Since the American West was so vast, so far from the eastern seat of government, and still expanding, the telegraph closed the distance, in a sense. Updated prices, standardized time zones, train schedules, it could all be sent much faster than even the Pony Express. Since cowboys worked primarily as cattle drivers directing cattle to railway depots, from whence they’d go east to the slaughterhouses, the telegrams were the superior means of communication over these vast distances; the telegraph affected supply chains of all kinds, like cotton and textiles, in some cases completely upheaving how they’d functioned previously. The telegraph might transmit the price of beef and coordinate the rail, and thus would have been a pivotal — even if unspoken — technological advancement underpinning a cowboy’s career.
Aside from that, the telegraph would have helped a cowboy in other ways. News, for example. News could arrive as it happened, so cowboys no longer had to wait on riders or word of mouth. They also had the ability to wire money orders via Western Union as early as 1870.
Advertisement
Canning
Archive Photos/Getty Images
Nowadays we don’t think twice about canned food. It’s so commonplace and dull that it doesn’t even merit a conversation, but it’s hard to overstate just how big of a technological advance this was in the 19th century. Food spoils quickly, so before canning — heating food and sealing it in an airtight container — there were massive constraints on how and where food could be stored, how it was transported, and how long you could safely eat it. After canning, long journeys halfway around the globe without frequent stops for provisions became possible. It changed how people fed their families, how wars were fought, and unsurprisingly, how cowboys lived.
Canned food quickly became available in the American West, for obvious reasons. Cowboys might have enjoyed meat, fish, vegetables, and fruit thanks to it while out on cattle drives far from anywhere that would sell it fresh. They often ate from chuck wagons, white-topped wagons carrying enough to feed everyone on the trail (via NCSU). Some of the brands you’re most familiar with (Campbell’s Soup, for one) started out in the late 19th century. It’s entirely possible a cowboy over 100 years ago was enjoying the tomato soup that you now take for granted as part of your emergency supply in the pantry.
Advertisement
Granted, not all their food was canned, and it wasn’t sacrosanct; during that period, there were times when poorly done canning led to rotten food and consequently, a public mistrust of the process.
Advertisement
Metallic cartridges for firearms
Thanakorn Laowongkhot/Getty Images
Guns loaded with bullets in brass cartridges have been the norm for over a century. Prior to that, a trained soldier needed a full minute to breech-load a musket with a paper cartridge and a single shot. Battles up to and including the American Civil War (a war already deploying submarines) were fought in lines of men standing in open fields while they shot, reloaded, and shot. All of that changed in the mid-19th century with the proliferation of metallic cartridges. Aside from being faster to reload, metallic cartridges made guns safer to shoot and kept powder dry for longer (via American Rifleman).
For one, if cowboys were attacked on the trail, it usually was an ambush, likely necessitating a gun that can load and fire quickly. The term “vigilante” originates from that time since law enforcement was scarce in the regions where cowboys might have worked. Dangers on the trail included predators, cattle thieves (better known as rustlers), and in some cases Native American tribes, so a cowboy armed himself for self-defense and to protect his boss’ herds (via NCSU). Further, cowboys were on long cattle trails that pitted them against wet weather, so paper cartridges wouldn’t be ideal.
The irony is that cowboys did need guns, but not for the reasons you’d suspect. The reality was cowboys shooting an attacking bear, or rustlers knowing there wasn’t a lawman for miles who’d punish the crime.
Advertisement
Repeating rifles (and revolvers)
Deepblue4you/Getty Images
Alongside metallic cartridges, guns made significant strides around the same time. Guns went from single-shot affairs to weapons that a person could shoot and reload in quick succession, particularly repeater rifles and revolvers. Gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson and Winchester became household names at this time. As such, a cowboy might have access to a Winchester 1873 or a Colt 1873 (known as the Colt Single Action Army), a repeating rifle and revolver, respectively (via Lamar University Press).
Coupled with metallic cartridges, the benefits are clear: cowboys had guns they could shoot and reload quickly. As previously stated, a cowboy faced several threats where a firearm would be essential. However, there’s a lot more nuance to cowboys and guns than most may realize. For one, these early repeating weapons were finicky. Misfires could happen, and generally speaking, gunshot injuries were more often accidental than not.
Then there’s the less spoken-of side to the Wild West: gun control. Gun violence wasn’t as rampant as many believe, but people at the time were still fed up with it. In some cases, cowboy gangs were the main aggressors. Cities like Tombstone enacted strict laws on ownership and open carrying, in response (via Smithsonian). If you’re imagining a Hollywood movie where a cowboy struts into town with a six-shooter bouncing on his hip, the reality is more likely that he’d make a beeline to the local officer and surrender it for the duration of his stay. If he didn’t, he might spend his last moments looking down that officer’s barrel.
Advertisement
Railroads
Ilbusca/Getty Images
Locomotive engines rose to prominence in the 19th century, changing everything as the telegraph did. Now, heavy cargo could be taken long distances relatively quickly, safely, and reliably, and the average person had access to cheaper goods from faraway places. Beef was one of these things. The demand for beef from growing cities in the east could be sated with the immense herds of longhorns in the sprawling west. All that was needed was cowboys to drive herds (numbering in the thousands) between mountains, across plains and rivers, to their cattle cars. Cowboys took long routes such as the famous Chisholm Trail to guide cattle safely from pastures to the rail, with all the environmental, animal, and human dangers that entailed.
Cow towns (or cattle towns) arose as a direct result of this, to service tired cowboys at the end of their route (via Kansas Historical Society). These cow towns epitomized the Wild West idea of a town we all have in our heads: hoof-churned streets, roisterous saloons, and violent clashes between the law and armed men. Even once the cows stopped coming, many of these towns found new sources of prosperity.
The train made a lucrative business out of bringing beef to places that didn’t have much. That business needed burly men who could be trusted to get a horde of stubborn animals from point A to B safely. So even though many cowboys probably rarely — if ever — set foot on a train, many of them would have had no employment without it.
A Canadian man pleaded guilty today to his role in accessing company accounts at cloud storage provider Snowflake and stealing data from at least 165 organizations in a scheme to extort millions of dollars from victims.
26-year-old Connor Riley Moucka, also known as Alexander Moucka and Waifu, was arrested on October 30, 2024, for stealing data of hundreds of millions of individuals from companies using Snowflake’s storage service.
Between February and October 2024, Moucka and John Erin Binns, also indicted for these attacks, accessed Snowflake accounts not protected by multi-factor authentication (MFA) using logins stolen via infostealer malware.
Without MFA enabled, the threat actor needed only the correct usernames and passwords to log into customer accounts.
According to court documents, the unauthorized access was used to identify valuable information (e.g., organization name, user roles, IP addresses) in cloud storage instances using custom software.
Advertisement
Moucka and Binn tried to extort multiple companies after stealing terabytes of data from their Snowflake tenant environments and obtained at least $2.5 million in bitcoin from at least three victims.
The following information was stolen from the breached accounts:
Call and text history records (non-content)
Banking and financial information
Payroll records
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration numbers
Driver’s license numbers
Passport numbers
Social Security numbers
Other personally identifiable information (PII)
They also advertised on various hacker forums to sell the information for fiat currency or cryptocurrency, and Moucka obtained at least $ 495,000 this way.
In a press release today, the U.S. Department of Justice says that “in at least one instance, Moucka re-extorted a victim with threats of further disclosure of the victim’s stolen data.”
“Moucka used the stolen data of a government officer and members of a then-former government officer’s immediate family in this re-extortion attempt.”
Advertisement
The DoJ says that victim companies suffered more than $9.5 million in losses and more than 100 million individuals have been affected by the Snowflake attacks.
Moucka pleaded guilty to four counts of the indictment (computer fraud, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and a related conspiracy) and is scheduled for sentencing on October 27.
He faces a maximum sentence of 32 years in prison.
Advertisement
At the time of the attacks, Binns resided in Turkey, where he was arrested. A local court approved an extradition request from U.S. prosecutors but it was contested.
Maksim Silnikau, the creator and administrator of the Ransom Cartel ransomware operation, was sentenced to 16 years in prison for his role in ransomware attacks against at least 18 companies worldwide.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced today that the 40-year-old Belarusian national was sentenced for conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft.
The DOJ says Silnikau had been active on Russian-speaking cybercrime forums since at least 2005 and used the aliases “J.P. Morgan,” “xxx,” and “lansky.”
He was also a member of the Direct Connection cybercrime website between 2011 and 2016, when the site was shut down following the arrest of its administrator.
According to court documents, Silnikau began developing the Ransom Cartel ransomware operation in May 2021 and recruited other cybercriminals through underground forums to participate in attacks.
Advertisement
He supplied members with information and tools used in the intrusions, including stolen credentials for compromised computers and software designed to encrypt victims’ computers.
Silnikau also operated an affiliate website that allowed members of the ransomware operation to manage attacks, communicate with each other, negotiate ransom demands, and distribute revenue shares after a ransom was paid.
Between 2021 and 2023, Ransom Cartel affiliates attacked at least 18 companies worldwide, including organizations in California, New York, Nebraska, and countries outside the United States.
During the attacks, the threat actors stole corporate data and demanded payments in exchange for decryption keys or promises that the stolen information would not be publicly leaked.
Advertisement
Federal prosecutors said the ransomware operation attempted to extort at least $5.2 million from its victims.
The United States identified more than $6.7 million in losses suffered by 18 known victims, although prosecutors said the total was likely higher because some victims had not reported their attacks.
In one August 2022 attack, Ransom Cartel reportedly disrupted the operations at a medical technology startup developing robotic surgical technology for two months. In May 2023, the gang also attacked infrastructure used by a group of law firms, causing business disruptions lasting from several days to multiple months.
One law firm paid a ransom worth $125,000 after being disrupted for nearly a month, while another suspended operations for almost a month before paying a $300,000 ransom.
Advertisement
Prosecutors said the combined losses associated with those attacks reached approximately $2.2 million.
However, the lack of some of REvil’s obfuscation features led researchers to believe that it may have been created by a former core member of the operation who did not have access to the complete source code.
Silnikau reportedly held a central role in the ransomware-as-a-service operation, recruiting affiliates, working with initial access brokers who supplied access to compromised corporate networks, communicating with victims, and handling ransom payments.
Advertisement
He also transmitted ransom payments through cryptocurrency mixers to make it harder for law enforcement to trace the funds.
Silnikau was initially arrested in Spain on July 18, 2023, as part of an international law enforcement operation. However, he fled while awaiting extradition to the United States and was later captured while attempting to return to Belarus.
“The defendant fled Spanish authorities while awaiting extradition to the United States and was apprehended while trying to cross from Poland to his native Belarus,” prosecutors said in their sentencing filing.
Silnikau ultimately consented to extradition and was sent from Poland to the United States to face prosecution in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Advertisement
Security teams log 54% of successful attacks and alert on just 14%. The rest move through your environment unseen.
The Picus whitepaper shows how breach and attack simulation tests your SIEM and EDR rules so threats stop slipping by detection.
Counterfeit goods are becoming increasingly sophisticated, forcing brands to rely on expensive authentication systems that often require specialized scanners or proprietary hardware. Researchers now believe a smartphone could do much of that work instead. A team has developed a new printing system that creates responsive anti-counterfeit labels that are more durable, easier to mass-produce, and can be verified using nothing more than a phone. The research was published in the International Journal of Materials and Product Technology.
At first glance, the technology looks like another incremental improvement in product security. In reality, it addresses one of the biggest limitations of anti-counterfeit systems today: accessibility. If authentication only works with expensive equipment, it becomes difficult to deploy at scale. By enabling smartphone-based verification, the technology could make counterfeit detection practical for manufacturers, retailers, and even consumers.
A smarter label that reacts to light and temperature
The new system combines three technologies into a single printable label. Researchers developed temperature- and light-responsive microcapsules, paired them with a UV ink formulated for high-speed printing, and created a portable smartphone-based detection system capable of verifying authenticity. The microcapsules contain functional materials that react to environmental conditions, producing optical signatures that are difficult to replicate using conventional printing methods.
Representative ImageUnsplash
Durability was another design priority. According to the researchers, nanotechnology-based linkers strengthen the polymer capsules, allowing the labels to remain stable under heat and humidity. The ink contains no volatile organic solvents, making it compatible with both screen and inkjet printing while remaining suitable for large-scale manufacturing. Even after repeated cold-storage testing, the labels retained more than 83% color fastness, suggesting they could withstand demanding supply chains.
Verification happens through a smartphone. A portable detector measures how light interacts with the printed label, and a machine-learning model then analyzes the captured data to determine whether the product is genuine. During testing, the system achieved nearly 97.5% accuracy, even when distinguishing between authentic labels and convincing counterfeits.
Advertisement
Why smartphone verification could matter
Counterfeit products affect industries ranging from luxury goods and pharmaceuticals to electronics and food packaging. While companies continue investing in holograms, QR codes, and RFID-based security features, many of those systems either add cost or require dedicated verification hardware.
Representative ImageUnsplash
A smartphone-compatible authentication system changes that equation. Because nearly every supply chain participant already carries a smartphone, the barrier to verifying products becomes dramatically lower. That could make authentication faster at warehouses, easier for retailers, and potentially accessible to consumers checking a product before making a purchase.
The researchers believe the technology could eventually be used across multiple packaging industries, though commercial deployment will depend on manufacturers integrating the printing process into existing production lines. If that happens, the next generation of anti-counterfeit labels may not rely on increasingly complex security features alone. Instead, they may simply rely on the device already sitting in your pocket.
We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.
For people on the road, keeping all your devices charged can be challenging. Unless, of course, you have your own solar panel with you. There are plenty of compact solar panels from reputable manufacturers that you can plug directly into your mobile phones, cameras, fans, or laptops. But if you need a solar panel that can also work with your power tool system, you might want to take a look at Ryobi.
Advertisement
One of the brand’s many backpack-sized offerings, Ryobi now offers two foldable solar panels, one 14-watt ($79) and the other 21-watt ($99). When folded, both models measure 12.25 inches by 6.5 inches, which make them even more compact than a 13-inch MacBook Air. Both options share a lot of core features, such as USB-A and USB-C output ports, compatibility with Ryobi power sources, and multiple usage options. You can either lay them flat on the ground or hang them from something with their built-in loops.
Although they do have a few key differences. First and most obvious is that the 21-Watt model is slightly thicker when folded, since it has three panels instead of two. While it is half a pound heavier than the 14W, the 21W model is more efficient and Ryobi claims it can charge your phone about 30 minutes faster. Both are covered under Ryobi’s 3-Year Limited Warranty.
Advertisement
What do people have to say about the Ryobi foldable solar panels?
There aren’t many reviews yet for either unit, but early feedback has been generally positive. For the 14W model, it has a perfect 5-star rating on the Ryobi website, where one owner said that they used it more often than they thought they would. They praised its size and said, “I highly recommend this product to anyone who spends time outdoors!” On Home Depot, it has a slightly lower rating of 4.4 stars from 15 people.
As for the 21W model, it has a slightly higher rating of 4.9 stars from 7 people on the Ryobi website, but it does have a significantly lower rating on Home Depot, wherein it holds 3.8 stars from 43 reviewers. One reviewer noted that it does take some time to charge devices, but also highlighted how it worked for both their personal and professional needs. They said it was a great companion from the beach to the job site.
Another customer on the 14 watt model’s page mentioned that they bought and loved both. Apart from the thickness, they said both worked as expected. While they’re not as powerful as the 60W foldable solar panels, both seem to hit the mark for many users. Apart from charging your small electronic devices regularly, it’s also capable of charging your Ryobi 18V ONE+ power sources.
Advertisement
Compatible power sources
One popular option that Ryobi lists as compatible is the 18V ONE+ 150W Battery Power Source and Charger Kit. Priced at $129, this kit includes a 150-watt power source and charger, 2Ah battery, and dual-port wall plug. For output, it has a pair of USB-A ports and a 120V outlet, plus an external LED lamp. It’s also a product we’ve previously recommended to level up your fishing game. As of July 2026, more than 170 people have rated it an impressive 4.8 stars on average on the Ryobi website. On the other hand, it holds a 4.6-star average from 870 Home Depot customers.
Advertisement
If you want something that can power larger appliances, Ryobi also notes that it works with the 18V ONE+ 1,800W Power Station Kit. Retailing for $899, it can be quite the investment, but it does include a slew of practical features worth considering, since it can hold up to 8 batteries and even power full-sized fridges and television sets. On the Ryobi website, more than 20 people rated it 4.2 stars. On Home Depot, the unit itself has the same rating but from 260 people.
Both units are compatible with all 18V ONE+ batteries. When not used with the Ryobi solar panels, you can also power them via wall chargers and car adapters. Ryobi also sells different cables at different lengths between 4 inches to 10 inches that you can purchase.
Summer Apple Watch sales at Amazon and Walmart deliver discounts of up to $172 off SE 3, Series 11, and Ultra 3 styles.
Prices across Apple’s wearables line start at $219 this week, with standout offers being a $172 discount on the 42mm GPS + Cellular Apple Watch Series 11 at Walmart and a $100 markdown on the Apple Watch Ultra 3 at Amazon.
42mm Apple Watch Series 11 GPS (Aluminum Case, Sport Band): $299 ($100 off)
42mm Apple Watch Series 11 GPS + Cellular (Aluminum Case, Sport Band): $327 ($172 off)
46mm Apple Watch Series 11 discounts
46mm Apple Watch Series 11 GPS (Aluminum Case, Sport Band): $329 ($100 off)
46mm Apple Watch Series 11 GPS + Cellular (Aluminum Case, Sport Band): $429 ($100 off)
46mm Apple Watch Series 11 GPS + Cellular (Titanium Case, Milanese Loop): $699 ($100 off)
Apple Watch SE 3 savings
Apple Watch Ultra 3 markdowns
Several of the deals reflect the lowest prices seen in 30 days, with units in stock and eligible for expedited delivery through Amazon Prime or Walmart Plus. You can find even more price drops in our Apple Watch Price Guide, which is updated throughout the day.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login