The 2nd edition of the newest race on the World Tour will see the World’s best sprinters take centre stage again in their bid for victory and bragging rights within the peloton.

It’s rare that so many big names line up in one place out side of the Tour de France to show who really is the best, so we will likely be treated to one of the sprints of the year at the end of the 228 kilometres into the heart of Copenhagen.

A local court in Germany has issued a ruling that could reshape the operation of search engines and artificial-intelligence-based chatbots worldwide. The Munich Regional Court preliminarily ruled that Google is liable for a series of false statements generated by its AI Overviews feature, requiring the company to prevent the dissemination of erroneous or inaccurate claims through its search engine.

The ruling stems from a case first reported by the Decoder, in which two publishers discovered that Google’s AI-generated summaries linked them, in certain searches, to questionable business practices, scams, and subscription-related frauds, without any basis for doing so.

Earlier this year, the affected companies sent the tech giant a cease-and-desist letter, according to the report. Google denied liability, arguing that its automatic summary feature warns users that the information may contain errors and should be independently verified.

The court’s analysis concluded that Google’s AI combined information corresponding to other companies that had been flagged for possible illicit practices with data from the plaintiffs, generating associations that did not appear in any of the sources linked by the search engine.

The authorities found that, unlike traditional search engines, which merely display lists of links with statements made by third parties, Google’s tool produced “independent, new, and substantial statements” based on a misinterpretation of information available on the internet.

According to the court, correcting misinformation is not the responsibility of third parties. Google is the only entity with the ability to modify the technology underpinning its AI-generated summaries and, therefore, “must be held accountable.” Furthermore, the court found that Google’s line of defense lacked merit, since the challenged summary “contains statements that do not appear at all in the search results.

A New (and Forceful) Interpretation of AI on the Web

The court’s interpretation of AI’s role in presenting search results could make this case a historic precedent. It finds a large tech company responsible for the influence of its most advanced developments on widely used platforms.

Until now, in most legal systems, search engines have been considered tools that merely facilitate access to content created by third parties and available on the web. This status has afforded them a certain level of protection when the published information is false, inaccurate, misleading, or even defamatory.

However, the German court held that this safeguard no longer applies when search engines incorporate generative AI systems. According to its reasoning, this technology is capable of producing nonexistent claims based on multiple sources and, consequently, the companies responsible for operating it must assume liability for the resulting content.

The judges also concluded that while Google encourages users to verify information due to the potential for hallucinations inherent in AI models, this warning does not absolve the content distributor of liability. Otherwise, they argued, victims of false statements would be virtually defenseless, since the original sources never made those statements and, therefore, could not be subject to legal action.

Likewise, the court held that results generated by an AI system cannot be protected under the principles of free speech, as they are the product of an algorithm designed, trained, and managed by a company, and not the expression of an individual opinion.

As a precautionary measure to prevent possible recurrence, the ruling required Google to remove a large portion of the statements deemed defamatory in this case, and to cover 80 percent of the legal costs arising from the proceedings.

A company spokesperson, quoted by Ars Technica, suggested that the decision could be appealed. “We invest deeply in the quality of AI Overviews to ensure that the overwhelming majority of responses provide accurate information, and they are designed to reflect the information that exists on the web,” the statement says. “We’re carefully reviewing this decision, which is not yet final.”

Spotify users can finally stop staring at that disco ball.

The music streaming service has quietly reverted its app icon back to the familiar green-and-black design, ending a month-long experiment that proved surprisingly unpopular with users.

The sparkly icon first appeared in May as part of Spotify’s 20th anniversary celebrations, replacing the standard logo with a shimmering disco ball effect. While Spotify likely intended it as a fun tribute to two decades of music streaming, many users weren’t exactly thrilled by the change.

In fact, the temporary redesign attracted a fair amount of criticism online. Some users complained that the icon looked messy on their home screens. Others said the reflective effect made it harder to spot among other apps. And, what was meant to resemble a disco ball reportedly looked more like a small dark blob on certain displays.

KPMG has pulled a report titled “Redefining excellence in the age of agentic AI“ after multiple organisations said the claims it made about their AI usage were either untrue or misleading. UBS, the UK’s National Health Service, Swiss Federal Railways, and Transport for London all told the Financial Times that the report’s descriptions of their AI deployments were wrong.

GPTZero, the AI detection firm, identified the inaccuracies and told the FT they stemmed from AI hallucinations. In other words, a professional services firm used AI to help write a report about AI, and the AI made things up about the companies it was supposedly analysing.

The report was published in October 2025 and has now been removed from KPMG’s websites. A spokesperson said the firm is conducting its own investigation. “We expect all our people to follow our guidelines on the responsible use of AI, including human oversight to validate content and verify independent sources,” the spokesperson said.

KPMG is not the first professional services firm to get caught. Last month, EY withdrew a report on loyalty rewards programmes that appeared to include fake footnotes and AI hallucinations. South Africa withdrew its entire national AI policy after at least six of its 67 academic citations were found to be AI-generated fabrications.

The pattern is consistent: organisations use AI to produce authoritative-looking content, skip the verification step, and publish claims that turn out to be fictional. The KPMG case is particularly embarrassing because the report was specifically about AI adoption, meaning the subject matter should have made the authors more careful about AI-generated errors, not less.

For KPMG’s clients, the incident raises a harder question. If the firm’s public-facing thought leadership uses AI without adequate human review, what level of oversight applies to the work it delivers under contract? KPMG partnered with Anthropic earlier this year to deploy Claude across all 276,000 staff. The partnership is designed to embed AI into advisory, audit, and tax work. The pulled report is a preview of what happens when that embedding outpaces the verification.

RJ Scaringe got his PhD from MIT studying internal combustion engines. Then he founded a company to make them obsolete. In 2009, fresh out of grad school, he launched what would become Rivian. The company spent nearly a decade in stealth mode before arriving at the 2018 LA Auto Show with two electric rides nobody had seen coming.

The road, however, hasn’t been easy. Rivian lost $3.6 billion in 2025, and has burned through nearly $25 billion in the past eight years. It has spent more money over the same period than almost every other pure EV maker. Rivian’s IPO was the largest worldwide in 2021, and one of the largest in US history, within days valuing the company at over $100 billion. Its stock has dropped from a high of $130 to around $16. Since the R1 went on sale in 2021, Rivian has sold 175,000 cars. In the same time, Tesla has sold 8 million.

But in 2024, Volkswagen Group committed up to $5.8 billion to co-develop software and electrical architecture technology with Rivian in a huge joint venture. This year, Uber announced it will invest up to $1.25 billion in Rivian to build and deploy up to 50,000 fully autonomous robotaxis.

Regardless, the company needs its new R2 SUV to work. Not just sell, but sell in large numbers.

I sat down with Scaringe for a candid, wide-ranging discussion on what happens if the R2 fails, why the R1 launched with dead-end tech, how to compete with China, the Cybertruck’s failure, and the virtue of buttons inside cars. But we started on easier ground: his thoughts on the most polarizing EV of 2026. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)

RJ Scaringe, CEO of Rivian Automotive, apparently hoping to be better off-road than an R2.

Courtesy of Rivian

JEREMY WHITE: What do you think about Ferrari’s Luce?

RJ SCARINGE: The way Jony [Ive] and Marc [Newson] approach design is incredibly intentional, so there’s not a decision on that car that’s unintentional. Through that lens, you have to like look at it in a different light. It’s definitely different than what people were expecting.

Do you like the Luce, though?

Would I buy it? I don’t own a Ferrari. There are things about it I really like. Parts of the interior are just phenomenal, like how beautifully well executed the haptics, the switches, the buttons are. You can see Jony’s fingerprints all over it.

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

Need some help with today’s Mini Crossword? Read on for all the answers. And if you could use some hints and guidance for daily solving, check out our Mini Crossword tips.

If you’re looking for today’s Wordle, Connections, Connections: Sports Edition and Strands answers, you can visit CNET’s NYT puzzle hints page.

Read more: Tips and Tricks for Solving The New York Times Mini Crossword

Let’s get to those Mini Crossword clues and answers.

Mini across clues and answers

1A clue: Energy in one’s step
Answer: PEP

4A clue: S, for a tee
Answer: SMALL

6A clue: Philosophical idea of “What goes around comes back around”
Answer: KARMA

7A clue: “Oh, you wanna go! Let’s go!”
Answer: ITSON

8A clue: What do Alexander the Great and Winnie the Pooh have in common?
Answer: THE

Mini down clues and answers

1D clue: Break down grammatically
Answer: PARSE

2D clue: Favorite Muppet of little kids
Answer: ELMO

3D clue: Blueprint
Answer: PLAN

4D clue: Short comedic sketch
Answer: SKIT

5D clue: 70-minute section of the SAT
Answer: MATH

SOFTWARE

Plus, Raspberry Pi edition finally catches up

MX Linux 25.2 is here, now with kernel 7.0 if you choose – although the Raspberry Pi edition still needs some work.

MX Linux has been quietly turning into one of the Reg FOSS desk’s favorite distros for a few years now. It has a number of desirable attributes, and with version 25.2 released late last month, some of the slightly bumpier parts of the major upgrade to version 25 are getting smoothed out.

We looked at MX Linux 25 in November last year, and reported that one of the niftiest features in previous versions had been lost. In MX 23 and before, you could choose which init system the OS used every time it booted up: so, for instance, you could normally run with the classic sysvinit, but if you needed to install something which demanded systemd, you could temporarily boot up with systemd as the init, install your app, and then switch back. In our testing, we’ve found that some things require Agent P’s Swiss Army Knife of a “System and Service Manager” to install, but once they’re in place on your computer, they will run quite happily without it. Alternatively, if it’s something you only occasionally run, you can start up with systemd only when you need it.

The way that MX Linux did this no longer works on kernel 6.12 or above. So, in order to continue to offer a choice of inits at all, MX 25.0 made you choose at install time: either pick the systemd version, or the sysvinit version. (And if you wanted KDE Plasma, it was only available in systemd form.)

MX Linux 25.1 fixed that with a new, different, switchable-init system. However, that made upgrading from 23 to 25 tricky, and after we tried it, the OS still worked, but the handy suite of MX Tools didn’t. These aren’t essential, but they significantly facilitate common adjustments and tweaks such as installing extra external apps, switching repositories and mirrors, managing kernel versions, installing additional device drivers such as the eternally problematic Nvidia drivers, and much more. They’re one of the distro’s key advantages, and well worth having.

We dug out the machine in our test fleet, which runs MX, and tried the option in the installation program that installs over the top of an existing copy of MX. It worked fine, with some caveats: it’s not quite as capable as Ubuntu’s in-place reinstall, which spares your home directory while reinstalling the OS around it. MX simply overwrites the old OS; it doesn’t pick up any config from it – but it’s quicker and easier than custom partitioning. We had to re-enable our swap partition, and add a user account that matched the old one, but everything worked fine.

With the MX Tools, it was fast and easy to choose local repositories for updates, and reinstall some handy proprietary apps such as Google Chrome and Slack. The distro comes with Flatpak preinstalled, and we used that to install Gear Lever to make it easier to reinstall Panwriter.

The new MX Linux version 25.2 optionally includes the new kernel 7.0, from the Liquorix project that we looked at in 2022. For the Xfce edition, you can choose the normal edition, with a Debian kernel, or the AHS edition with the newer kernel. The KDE edition only comes in AHS form, and the lightweight Fluxbox edition for low-end kit only offers the Debian kernel.

There are any number of Debian and Ubuntu based remixes and meta-distributions out there, but MX Linux is perhaps the single most user-friendly distro we’ve seen that isn’t based on systemd. It’s fast, lightweight, and much easier to get configured and installed than Devuan, or even than Debian itself. It also has better tools for adjustment and customization than any member of the Ubuntu or Debian family, and rivals the best Arch Linux-based distros such as Garuda Linux.

As we reported from the Ubuntu Summit, Canonical is beginning a push into AI. Since then, the roadmap for Ubuntu 26.10 “Stonking Stingray” has been published, including what it calls a Context-aware desktop – powered by LLMs. Similar changes have already come to Linux Lite 8.0, which is based on Ubuntu 26.04. This too bundles a local LLM for all your error-filled artificial-plagiarism needs.

We suspect that such developments may yet drive a small exodus of Ubuntu users – and if you also want to get away from systemd at the same time, then MX Linux is an excellent place to start.

Bootnote: MX Linux on the Raspberry Pi

Finally, version 25.2 sees the Raspberry Pi respin updated to the new base OS. Until 25.2, the Pi version was still on MX version 22. As this rather outdated description says, this is a separate edition of MX Linux with Xfce, but built in part from the packages in the Raspberry Pi OS rather than directly from Debian – so it looks and works like MX, but is compatible with most Pis and most apps for PiOS. For instance, the Pi configuration commands, and EEPROM updater, work fine on MX on the Pi, but they don’t on (for instance) Alpine Linux.

We tried MX Linux 24.2 for the Raspberry Pi on both 4 GB and 8 GB Pi 5 machines and on a Pi 4, but it wouldn’t get past the splash screen for us – but the previous release worked very well, so once it’s received a little more TLC, this could turn out to be a good option for Pi users wanting a more configurable desktop OS. ®