Twenty-five years ago today I was woken up by a phone call from a close friend, who, like me, grew up in New York and, like me, was now living in California. She told me that something horrible had happened in New York and to turn on the TV. She said something about a plane flying into the World Trade Center, and I assumed it was a small Cessna or something that went horribly off-course. It was only once I turned on the TV news (and started searching the internet) that I began to comprehend what was happening.
I’m guessing there aren’t many Techdirt readers from back then still reading today, but after a few hours of staring blankly at the TV — scared by what had happened and already uneasy about what the world would do in response — I put up a post saying that I had nothing else to say and wouldn’t be posting (other than to link to some resources). The next day, I was already expressing concern about how the world would respond, and calling out the people rushing to play the blame game. I pointed to a quote from a New Yorker saying “we aren’t in a state of war, we’re in a state of mourning.” But it wasn’t difficult to see where things were heading. Late that night I warned (in a poorly written, rambling post) about how people blindly reacting via ignorance was going to lead to bad outcomes, and how mass surveillance of the internet was likely coming.
A few days later, I pointed to a satirical piece on a now defunct website, entitled: “Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics,” which can be found here in the Internet Archive. It does a great job of showing how basically everyone saw the attack as a chance to push forward their own existing political views:
Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.
Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.
That satirical take turned out to have been pretty prescient, right? The politics that won out almost immediately was the pure politics of fear from power-hungry politicians, many of whom squeezed 9/11 for every political desire they had already wished for regarding surveillance, control, and expanded governmental powers. They had plans ready to go in a drawer, and pointed to 9/11 as the reason they had to be enacted. And quick. And much of that is still with us, leading to a much greater cynicism and distrust in government.
Advertisement
That alone helped the grievance politics of MAGA succeed — though, as I’ll get to below, the Mamdani administration in NYC is demonstrating something that’s been sorely lacking for years: a politics that doesn’t need you to be afraid of anything and is built on real love for the place and its inhabitants.
Still, it was obvious from the day it happened that the attacks were going to set in motion a bunch of horrible ideas from the political class. The always thoughtful Radley Balko has a piece in the NY Times looking back at the past 25 years, and noting that almost every prediction made by those warning about how the political reaction would erode our civil liberties turned out to be true.
Civil libertariansquestioned these new powers’ connection to the 2001 attacks. Some provisions had long beenon the wish listsof federal law enforcement agencies, and it was not clear that the new powers would have prevented the attacks. They also cautioned that if history was any indication, the government would use the new powers primarilyfor routine law enforcement. They urged Americans to imagine those powers in the hands not of an altruistic and conscientious president, but one with little respect for norms, institutions or democratic principles.
The civil libertarians were mostly ignored, and as one new threat followed another — Iraq, ISIS, “lone wolves” — the president’s reach continued to grow. Across the Bush andObamaadministrations, the commander in chief was given, or simply took, new powers to prosecute, shut down and seize the assets of alleged terrorist groups and their supporters. With the arrival of armed drones, the president assumed the right to remotely assassinate anyone, anywhere outside U.S. borders, at any time, including American citizens.
And, as he notes, we’ve arrived at the worst-case scenario: a president handed every one of those powers by a frightened nation, abusing them at every opportunity. Many of us who warned about the PATRIOT Act and the surveillance apparatus it made possible were dismissed and ignored. When we pushed back on centralized monitor and control points of the internet, the “adults in charge” mocked us as “internet shut-ins.” But, as Balko points out, the internet shut-ins had a point. As he says, “welcome to the worst-case scenario” that lots of us were, in fact, worried about.
The piece is long and thorough, and we’re only scratching the surface here. But Balko draws a straight line from the entirely predictable overreaction of September 2001 to today: the media and the political class sold a narrative of fear, Congress handed over a sweeping set of powers without even the slightest concern for potential risks, and those powers have since curdled into one abuse after another.
Advertisement
If the ratcheting diminishmentof our libertiescame slowly and sometimes without much outcry under Presidents Bush,Obamaand Joe Biden, the consequences of all those years of expanded presidential power are plainly visible now. Mr. Trump is using every authority we have given the president since Sept. 11, 2001, and some we haven’t, in ways the civil libertarians had tried to warn us about at the start.
Mr.Trump has usedthe president’s post-9/11 “national emergency” loopholes more than any other president. He claimed the country faced an emergency caused by crime to justify sending National Guard troops to Washington, and he used a 1903 law concerning “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” to deploy them to Chicago, Portland, Ore., and Los Angeles. (He also sent active-duty Marines to Los Angeles.) It was the first time since the civil rights era that a president had sent troops over the objections of a state governor. When Mr. Trump tried to invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants to a notoriously inhumane prison in El Salvador, a federal judge asked for information about deportation flights and Mr. Trumpinvoked the State Secrets Privilege.
Mr. Trump has tried to categorize leftist activists, as well as advocacy and funding groups, as terrorism supporters in an effort to use antiterror tools to shut them down, despite no evidence that those groups have any ties to terrorism. The administration has called Americans protesting against the deployment of militarized ICE officers “domestic terrorists.” It has claimed that activities protected by the First Amendment, including criticizing, naming and recording ICE officers, are acts of terrorism.
Mr. Trump and his team are taking full advantage of the immunity granted by the courts. The administration’s summary executions of suspected drug smugglers in the Caribbean have been denounced by legal scholars as illegal under both domestic and international law, and as likely crimes against humanity. The strikes have not only continued; the administration celebrates them. Mr. Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, according to multiple reports, has openly encouraged immigration officers to use more violence and force more confrontation with protesters while regularlyreminding them of their “immunity,”evenafter the killing of Renee Goodin Minneapolis. After Ms. Good’s death the “border czar,” Tom Homan, went on Fox News to warn that “there’s still gonna be more bloodshed” unless ICE critics “shut their mouth,” a threat that’s likely a First Amendment violation in and of itself.
These are the abuses of post-9/11 powers we know about; there are almost certainly more that we don’t. The expanded surveillance authorities have such restrictive rules for disclosure that only a handful of people will know if they are being deployed against Americans. Mr. Trump’s handpicked prosecutors are going after the kinds of leaks that helped reveal abuses in prior administrations, which means more disclosure today is even less likely. And under Mr. Trump, the intelligence agencies have at times abandoned the post-Watergate practice of telling Congress what secret powers they are using.
The whole thing is worth reading, and it’s a good reminder of why we’ve spent so much of the last two and a half decades calling out these issues, and warning about further government control and intrusion into platforms and attacks on our privacy. It’s why we were concerned about draconian command-and-control copyright laws fifteen years ago just as much as we’re concerned about age verification laws today.
They’re all tools for control and surveillance, built to shrink what the public can do and expand what the government can get away with. And every single one of them was sold to the American public based on fear.
But there’s an important thing to understand about a ratchet built entirely out of fear: it only turns as long as people stay afraid. Which brings me back around to New York City. This past week there has been an entirely ridiculous and fabricated culture war-driven dispute regarding whether or not NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani should attend NYC’s commemorations of 9/11. There is no fathomable reason for him not to attend other than rank ignorance and bigotry against him for being Muslim.
For all the fuss and fear — much of it driven by a former NYC mayor who spent many years (including while mayor) leading by spreading fear across the city — the whole spectacle is the post-9/11 playbook running one more time, just scaled down: declare an out-group, never quite say that they did wrong, and insist that “they” are inherently opposed to “us.”
Advertisement
But also, Mamdani is running a fundamentally different kind of politics than the one 9/11 left us with. He has quite high approval ratings, in part because he is governing from a position of love for New York City and all its residents and visitors, rather than one of fear. This is what we saw during his campaign, when he did things like run a massive, fun, and educational scavenger hunt across NYC. But campaigning like that is one thing; carrying it into an actual administration is quite another — and somehow he’s done it.
Over and over again Mamdani has focused on what’s amazing about NYC and the ways he can and is improving it on a daily basis, from the little things to the big things. After years and years of expecting politicians to try to scare you into supporting them with “only I can protect you” rhetoric, it’s astounding to be reminded of what politics of love and community can actually be like. Sometimes it looks like this:
Parents, what would you do with four hours of child-free time? We launched a Parents’ Night Out program with NYC Parks to give NYC parents a little time back for themselves, because we’re committed to making it easier to raise a family in the greatest city in the world.
People come to New York City from all over the world to experience Broadway. The kids who grow up here should be able to do the same.We’re partnering with TDF to give away over 2,000 free Broadway tickets to NYC High School students at on.nyc.gov/broadway. Break a leg, high schoolers!
You can argue Mamdani is a once-in-a-generation political talent, and that what works for him won’t work for everyone. Fine. But plenty of what he’s doing is entirely replicable, and the rest of the political class should be taking notes. He clearly loves New York City and the people there, and still believes in ways to make it better, not through fearmongering and hate, but through putting in the hard work of actually listening to people and helping them with real problems. It’s also a reminder of what good government can look like.
Twenty-five years ago this morning, I had two fears: what had just happened in NY and DC, and what the world was going to do about it. The second one was the one that stuck. Over the past twenty-five years, that fear has helped write dangerous laws, many of which are still on the books, and drive more and more division in our society. And where we’re at now is that a uniquely dangerous president has all those tools at his disposal, and is using them to anger and divide us further.
NYC’s mayor can’t repeal those laws. He can’t stop a president hell-bent on rancid politics of hate and fear. But that ratchet only ever turned because enough Americans were scared enough to let it, and because no one was offering them anything else as an alternative. This week, in the very city that was the primary target that morning, the guy running the city isn’t telling anyone to be afraid of anything. He’s showing up, doing the work, and reminding us of what’s good.
Advertisement
Twenty-five years is a long time to be told that’s naive.
May the next twenty-five years be more the politics of community building and hope, over the politics of fear and division.
Ultra-level features and a few design tweaks highlight the updates.
Billy Steele for Engadget
RATING : 8.4 / 10
Pros
Extremely comfortable
Improved audio and ANC performance
Cons
Battery life is unchanged
Design is still all business
We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.
Advertisement
When I think about Bose headphones, the iconic QuietComfort line immediately comes to mind. No, not the more recent Ultra version with all of today’s bells and whistles. I’m talking about the business-traveler-chic models that popularized active noise cancellation (ANC). They were never going to win any design contests, but you could rely on them to give you some relief on a flight while also offering decent audio quality.
The company rebranded these to the QuietComfort Headphones a few years back, and now Bose returns with the second-generation version. This time, there are some modest design changes, although the understated look is still intact. What’s more, the second-gen QC Headphones borrow features from the pricier QuietComfort Ultra Headphones which enhance both audio and ANC overall.
Advertisement
What’s new on the second-generation QuietComfort Headphones?
Billy Steele for Engadget
While this new version undoubtedly fits the aesthetic of the regular QuietComfort line, Bose made two notable design changes. First, there’s an updated headband that slides smoothly to adjust. Next, the company refined the shape of the earcups while installing improved ear pads for better cushioning. In a third change, a decidedly less exciting one, Bose relocated the power/Bluetooth pairing switch from the outside of the right ear cup to the bottom edge of the left ear cup. This doesn’t really impact the experience, but it does give the headphones a cleaner look on both sides.
In terms of features, Bose brought Immersive Audio to the regular QuietComfort Headphones for the first time. This is the company’s take on spatial audio that doesn’t rely on specially created content. Instead, the tool upscales any movies, shows or music as needed for enhanced listening. Before now, Immersive Audio was exclusive to the Ultra line of QuietComfort Headphones. Plus, Bose’s Cinema Mode, which enhances dialogue without constraining the wide soundstage of Immersive Audio, is on the second-gen QC Headphones too.
The company’s CustomTune feature is also a new addition, a tool that calibrates audio and noise cancellation to the acoustic properties of your ears. It’s like room calibration for a soundbar, but for your headphones. And if you’re into lossless audio, you can listen with a cable over USB-C at up to 24-bit/48kHz. What’s more, the headphones can be charged while you’re using them with a cable. If you’ll recall, the previous QuietComfort Headphones still had a 3.5mm port for wired use. Bose ditched that on this new version as the only wired connectivity is over USB-C — for both charging and listening. For in-flight entertainment systems, there’s a USB-C to 3.5mm cable in the box, or you could opt for a $30 accessory like the AirFly for wireless use.
The company also improved ANC performance on this new model with the addition of ActiveSense. This feature automatically applies noise cancellation when the headphones detect sudden spikes of noise if you’re using Aware (transparency) mode. Bose says ActiveSense now responds more naturally to those brief periods of disruption before returning to ambient sound mode. The company also explains that the ANC system on the second-gen QC Headphones can better compensate for changes in the ear cup seal due to glasses. And last but not least, you can disable ANC entirely in the Bose app this time around.
Advertisement
What’s good about these headphones?
Billy Steele for Engadget
I’ll get to audio and ANC performance in a minute, but I must first applaud Bose for refining the QC Headphones without raising the price. This second-gen version costs $359, same as the previous installment did when it debuted. At a time where almost everything is more expensive, I’d expect any headphone company to raise prices on new models by at least $50, but that didn’t happen here. Plus, this price tag gives Bose fans a compelling alternative to the $449 second-gen QuietComfort Ultra headphones that costs significantly less.
ANC has long been the trademark feature of the QuietComfort lineup, and that doesn’t change here. These headphones continue Bose’s strong track record for effective noise cancellation with this model does well against constant noise sources (like fans) in addition to respectably lowering the volume on human voices (on TV and IRL). The second-gen QC Headphones don’t completely silence a chatty neighbor, but they consistently reduce the distraction.
While I concede the second-gen QuietComfort Ultra Headphones are Bose’s best option in terms of pure sound quality, this regular model is no slouch. The tuning is balanced, providing adequate low-end thump when a song demands it — like Nine Inch Noize’s “Vessel.” Even without Immersive Audio active, these QuietComfort Headphones provide plenty of fine detail in the texture and grit of the synthesizers on that track. Switch over to Basement’s WIRED and you get the same level of clarity and nuance in the band’s alt-grunge songs, particularly in the guitars. And it’s no surprise that more mellow genres sound great here. Billy Strings’ “Bluewater Breakdown” is embedded with all of the string-instrument subtleties that a lot of headphones don’t offer.
When I first took the new QC Headphones out of the case, I was immediately struck by how lightweight they are. Compared to the current Ultra headphones, this model is about 34 grams lighter, which makes a huge difference in comfort. I could tell the difference as soon as I put them on, and the disparity only increased the longer I wore both sets. Plus, the soft ear pads are both pillowy and sturdy enough that you can’t feel the edges of the ear cups. Lastly, the clamping pressure of the headband is adequate for respectable ANC performance without becoming a burden on my large head.
Advertisement
What’s not so good about the new QuietComfort Headphones?
Billy Steele for Engadget
If you didn’t like the design of the regular QuietComfort Headphones line before now, I highly doubt Bose did enough to change your mind. These are still the less-polished option compared to the pricier, shinier QC Ultra Headphones. I can appreciate fans of this model prefer it that way, and the company offers a dark pink and two green color variants if you need a splash of personality.
My only real complaint with the new QC Headphones is that battery life remains the same as the previous model. You get 24 hours of ANC use on a charge, which should be enough for multiple days, but the QC Ultra Headphones last 30 hours. I would’ve liked to see at least a modest bump in longevity here to go along with the feature additions and other improvements.
Advertisement
Wrap-up
After all these years, the QuietComfort line still lives up to its name. The second-generation QuietComfort Headphones are an all-around upgrade over the 2023 version, a compelling option that costs less than the QuietComfort Ultra Headphones (second-gen). I would’ve loved to see the upgrades extend to longer battery life, but if that’s my only gripe, the company did well. And if a few more hours of use would’ve come with a higher price, I can be happy with what’s here.
The regular QuietComfort Headphones remain a perfectly suitable, highly comfortable option that’s adept at noise cancellation and provides above average sound quality. That all combines to bolster Bose’s decades-long run of consistent performance, a source of reliability that isn’t likely to disappoint customers anytime soon.
AI is already changing how people find and buy things online, comparing prices, narrowing down options, doing in seconds what used to take an afternoon of tabs open.
An AI agent could find a flight that fits your schedule, for example. Giving it permission to actually buy the ticket is a more complicated problem.
That is because most payment systems were built around people. Someone enters their card details, signs into an account, clicks approve. If software is going to complete more tasks on their own, they will also need a way to pay without stopping to ask permission every time.
There are signs this could become a much bigger part of how software works. Gartner expects agentic AI to be built into 33% of enterprise software applications by 2028, up from less than 1% in 2024. McKinsey estimates that AI agents could mediate between $3 trillion and $5 trillion in global consumer commerce by 2030.
Advertisement
How those agents actually pay is now becoming its own technology problem. Mastercard, Coinbase, and blockchain networks, including XDC, are among those trying to solve it.
When software needs to buy something
Mastercard is preparing for the same possibility. When it launched Agent Pay for Machines in June, the company described a future in which agents could continuously buy services from each other, including payments worth fractions of a cent.
That is where XDC AI also comes in: by providing AI agents with the capability to find and pay for digital services on demand, rather relying on traditional human checkout flows, the platform allows software to programmatically handle micro-transactions in real time.
“Every internet transaction so far has assumed a person is on the other end of it,” said Atul Khekade, co-founder of XDC Network. “AI Agents are breaking that assumption completely. If software is going to act on our behalf, it needs a way to pay for what it needs without waiting for someone to approve it every time.”
Advertisement
Credit: XDC AI
A user can give an agent access to a wallet and set a limit on how much it is allowed to spend. When the agent needs data from a paid API to finish the task, it can make the request and pay for it in USDC, with XDC covering the gas fee, so the agent does not also need to hold XDC to make the payment.
XDC Tech, the US institutional arm of XDC Network, has also integrated with Bridge, a Stripe company, helping to connect those onchain payments with more traditional financial infrastructure by giving developers access to infrastructure for moving between fiat currencies and stablecoins.
An agent researching a market could need information from several paid data sources. Another might need access to a particular API or a small amount of computing power to finish a task. Instead of someone setting up a new account or subscription every time, the agent could find the service and pay only for what it needs.
An old part of the web finds a new use
XDC is building this on x402, an open protocol developed by Coinbase. That resurrects HTTP 402, an old web status code meaning “Payment Required” that has existed for years without becoming widely used. An agent requests a paid API, the server responds with a price instead of the data, and the agent’s wallet pays automatically, no login, no card number, no human in the loop. XDC has built that flow into its own marketplace, where an agent can find an API, pay per use in USDC, and stay within whatever limit its owner set.
Adoption is still early, but x402 is beginning to attract some large names. The Linux Foundation now oversees the x402 Foundation, which has 40 members including Mastercard, Visa, Stripe, American Express, Google, AWS and Circle. That does not mean x402 has become a mainstream payment rail, but it gives the protocol considerably more institutional backing than it had when Coinbase first introduced it.
Advertisement
That is a major reason why the infrastructure work matters more than the headlines right now. Fully autonomous shopping is still limited, and AI is much further along at helping people compare options than at completing purchases on its own. But the direction is clear, and XDC is betting that when agents do start paying their own way, they will need rails built for machine speed rather than human checkout, cents instead of dollars, and thousands of transactions instead of one.
The gap between x402’s onchain activity and its ecosystem valuation is a reminder that infrastructure and adoption rarely move at the same pace. What is being built is real, the settlement rails, the wallet permissions, and integrations with players like Bridge, but the volume moving through them today is still a fraction of what the numbers around this space suggest.
For now, AI remains far better at helping people decide what to buy than at completing the purchase itself. That is where the real contest is playing out. Card networks are wagering that trust and identity, the problem they have spent decades solving for humans, will matter just as much for machines.
Networks built for stablecoin settlement, XDC among them, are wagering the opposite: that speed and near-zero fees will define this market once agents start transacting at scale. In the end, the better approach will probably come down to the use case. But what is certain is that the infrastructure decisions being made now, by companies like Mastercard and XDC, will shape how autonomous commerce actually works once it arrives.
Whitehall has scattered science, AI, and digital government across a thicket of competing ministerial portfolios
OPINION “Where do we put digital government? You know, all those billions we spend on consultants and legacy systems?”
Advertisement
“Oh, that! Put it with sports and tourism. And something we’re calling ‘place’.”
It might be a fictional conversation between a SpAd* and a mandarin**, but in reality, the outcome is more or less the same. With the arrival of Andy Burnham as UK prime minister came a shake-up of responsibilities in Whitehall, leaving responsibility for science, technology, and government tech scattered across several departments and eliminating the dedicated technology ministerial role.
Shortly after the changes were announced in July, Dame Chi Onwurah, chair of the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, wrote to the government asking for an explanation. The government had yet to confirm what the new roles and responsibilities meant in practice, and there was no news on ministerial portfolios, she said.
Now a joint letter from the ministers leading three departments attempts to answer Onwurah’s questions. It brings clarity only by laying bare the government’s confused thinking and lack of credibility.
Advertisement
Take space, for example. The letter says BIST aims to “support companies from breakthrough ideas and research excellence through to commercialization, scaling and exporting, and to fortify the UK’s global leadership in this space.” When it comes to literal space, however, responsibility falls to Baroness Lloyd of Effra.
A law and history graduate, Lloyd worked in Tony Blair’s policy unit before becoming his deputy chief of staff. She will fit responsibility for the UK’s public and private space sectors between her cyber, regulatory reform, corporate governance, and Insolvency Service duties. She will work across two departments: the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (BIST) and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).
We’re sure the role will afford plenty of time to help oversee the £7.8 billion of cross-government spending brought together under the new space strategy intended to cover orbital collision warnings, low Earth orbit communications, military intelligence, launch capabilities, and space science.
The question is, where did technology go? Isn’t space related to technology? Technology was in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. But that T is now Trade. The D that stood for Department in DSIT is gone; in DCMS, it stands for Digital. (The DWP and DHSC still keep their D for Department, for those wishing to understand that no rules apply here.)
Advertisement
But what is digital? It underpins everything. “The technologies shaping our economy are also transforming how people create, communicate, learn, participate and access public services. By expanding DCMS’s remit to include responsibility for tech sector oversight and digital, including: digital skills, digital infrastructure and connectivity, cyber security, and the delivery of a modern digital government, we are enabling DCMS to lead the transformation of public services while strengthening and growing the digital, cyber and information foundations on which our economy and society depend.”
OK, but why is the technology sector separated from science? If digital underpins everything, then it is also worryingly vague. Is it really closer to culture and media? A photographer might want to use Photoshop, but they don’t need to know how the software works.
The development of computer hardware and software has gone hand in hand with wider research. The World Wide Web and DeepMind both came out of university projects, not to mention one of the early modern computers, the Manchester Mark 1, developed at the University of Manchester with input from WWII code breaker Alan Turing.
To further muddy the waters, Kanishka Narayan was appointed Minister of State for AI, a joint Cabinet Office and BIST role that comes with Cabinet attendance.
Advertisement
Responsibility for science and technology is now spread across four departments. Chris McDonald, Minister of State for Science, Innovation and Investment, works jointly across BIST and the Department of Health and Social Care. Science sits with business and trade, but digital sits with “creative industries” and sport. Digital government – which has been in three departments over two years – gets a junior minister in the DCMS. Stephanie Peacock is expected to perform that role along with responsibility for sport, tourism, and place (which is not defined in the letter or elsewhere). It is questionable whether she will get the backing needed to confront big tech suppliers repeatedly feasting on government spending while other ministers court those same companies for investment. Her public announcements so far have focused more on Blackpool staycations and the Commonwealth Games than digital government.
In their letter, the three ministers said the changes were necessary because “the UK stands at a critical juncture where unprecedented global changes demand that we secure our position as a world leader in AI, science and technology. In this context, we cannot see science and technology as an isolated issue, limited to one department. Instead it is a major priority that cuts across the whole of government and is vital to the UK’s future economic prosperity.”
But the government’s answer has been to break up the former technology department and scatter its responsibilities among portfolios where they will struggle for attention. As for tech in the public sector, we might hope the government will stop getting beaten up by suppliers, but we will be waiting a long time. ®
* Special Advisor in the British civil service ** slang term for a senior UK civil servant
Andela collected data from 47,101 technical job postings from Fortune 500 companies and 2,026 skill descriptions.
New research from global talent platform Andela has found that in a working landscape being transformed daily by AI, organisations are failing to update their job descriptions and titles in line with changes.
Andela’s ‘Emerging Skills Research’ collected data from 47,101 technical job postings from Fortune 500 companies and 2,026 skill descriptions.
A core finding of the research was the revelation that 53pc of AI job postings are asking for skills that don’t match the listed job title, highlighting a disconnect between organisations, recruiters and jobseekers.
Advertisement
“AI is changing tech workflows faster than ever and we need new ways to get ahead of those changes,” said Carrol Chang, Andela’s CEO.
“This groundbreaking research, based on our proprietary skills taxonomy updated for the AI world, provides a headlight, not a rear-view mirror.
“With it, companies will identify emerging roles and skills ahead of the market, enabling both enterprises and employees to be more strategic and successful.”
Rambling roles
Andela’s research found that among the roughly 1,832 postings targeting people with titles such as AI engineer and ML engineer, more than half of the required skills pulled from at least two different and established roles.
Advertisement
The report said: “For familiar titles like AI engineer, companies are seeking a different, unnamed role that includes skills such as LLM orchestration, autonomous agent and vector databases. Or, companies hire data scientists but then ask them to ship LLM agents.”
Reviewing job listings from Fortune 500 companies, Andela found that 23 ‘groups’ of skills kept appearing together, but without any official job title being attached. Eight of the groups appeared to suggest a brand new kind of job, 14 were found to be hybrids of old jobs with new skill expectations, and one was dropped due to a lack of confirmed data.
Two examples of ‘new jobs’ discovered are MLOps pipeline engineer, which combines parts of five existing job roles into one, and LLM application engineer, where someone builds apps using AI models that already exist, instead of building those models from scratch.
Andela found 6,758 job listings essentially asking for an LLM application engineer – they listed all the relevant skills, but the companies didn’t use that job title because it doesn’t officially exist yet. This shows companies need these skills faster than the job market has caught up with proper names for them, according to the research.
Advertisement
The report said: “The findings underscore the challenges companies face, driven by the unprecedented speed of change in the post-AI era, to accurately identify emerging skills, name them and attach them to job roles. Mismatches result in lost time, money and opportunity for both employer and employee.
“Job descriptions written for yesterday’s roles filter out the candidates companies actually need. Companies that fail to see emerging needs for human skills, especially as AI changes what it can do, will continually chase the wrong thing, and companies who hire today for yesterday’s roles will likely accrue ‘talent debt’ alongside technical debt.”
According to Cory Hymel, an author on the report and Andela’s head of research, gaps that widen the divide between what companies think they are hiring for and what the role truly requires are becoming structural liabilities.
As of now, there are a number of emerging tech roles as identified in the research, which include: MLOps pipeline engineer; LLM application engineer; FinOps reliability engineer; docs-as-code engineer; product front-end engineer; lakehouse analytics engineer, DevSecOps security engineer; and SecOps observability engineer.
Advertisement
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.
The Badkruka is IKEA’s newest affordable Bluetooth speaker
It has Spotify Tap integration and physical controls
You can pair multiple speakers together in a variety of setups
It seems IKEA is on a roll when it comes to cube-shaped, low-price Bluetooth speakers: following on from the Ikea Kallsup that we tested earlier this year, we now have the IKEA Badkruka, which is several times bigger and offers some extra features.
There’s no official announcement about the Badkruka just yet, so we’re relying on the product page on IKEA’s German website (via Notebookcheck) for all the details. It also shows up on the Swedish site, but not the US, UK, or Australia yet.
Measuring 16cm wide x 16cm deep x 17.5cm tall (that’s 6.3 inches x 6.3 inches x 6.9 inches), you can pick up the IKEA Badkruka in either black or pink. It’s built from ABS plastic and polycarbonate, and doesn’t look to be portable — there’s a power cord in the product photos and no mention of a rechargeable battery.
Latest Videos FromTechRadar
Advertisement
Along the top of the speaker we’ve got physical controls for playback and volume, and there’s also a Spotify Tap button, so with one button press you can carry on from where you left off on Spotify on another device.
Keep on pairing
You can use two of the speakers as a stereo pair (Image credit: IKEA)
IKEA doesn’t give us any technical specs in terms of audio capabilities here, but does say we can expect “powerful” and “balanced” sound that’s “ideal for gaming, streaming, or listening to music” (via Google Translate).
The product listing mentions that two speakers can be paired together for synced stereo sound, and the feature is shown off in one of the promotional images too. It also seems that additional speakers can be paired and synced too, if you buy a few — with the Kallsup, it’s possible to pair up to 100 of them.
There are three EQ settings on the speaker as well, so you can tweak the audio output to match your preferences and the types of tunes you listen to. It’s a decent set of features for an affordable Bluetooth speaker like this.
Sign up for breaking news, reviews, opinion, top tech deals, and more.
Speaking of price, it’s available for €50 from the German site. We don’t have official global pricing yet — fingers crossed that IKEA does roll this out more widely — but that works out as roughly $58 / £43 / AU$81.
Shipments rise with enterprise and government buyers joining the hyperscaler spending spree
While high memory costs have hurt PC shipments, the server market continues to grow as AI infrastructure spending spreads beyond hyperscalers to corporate and government buyers.
Advertisement
According to market intelligence firm IDC, the second quarter was a bumper one for the server sector, with vendor revenue reaching an all-time high of $166.3 billion. That was a 52 percent increase from the same period last year.
The picture for servers therefore differs from that for laptops and desktops. There, unit shipments have fallen as buyers are discouraged by higher prices, driven by shortages of memory components. Yet higher prices have helped larger vendors sustain their revenue.
In contrast, server shipments increased by 15.4 percent year-on-year in Q2, despite average selling prices being pushed up by elevated memory pricing and continued supply issues with other components. IDC said average selling prices increased across both GPU-accelerated and non-accelerated systems.
Average selling prices for GPU-accelerated servers rose by nearly 44 percent to $170,200, even as GPU unit shipments fell 10.8 percent year-on-year. For non-accelerated systems, average pricing was up by more than 33 percent to nearly $13,000.
Advertisement
AI infrastructure investment from hyperscalers and large cloud providers remains the largest source of demand, IDC observes. GPU-accelerated servers for the AI market made up nearly 53 percent of total revenue during Q2.
However, it also says that AI server adoption is broadening beyond the largest players into enterprise and government-directed deployments across a growing number of countries, a policy and capex-driven layer of demand that is largely insulated from near-term commercial budget cycles.
“The notable shift in the server market this quarter is in who is now buying,” said Kuba Stolarski, IDC research vice president for Computing Platforms and Service Provider Infrastructure.
“Demand is broadening beyond the largest hyperscalers toward specialized cloud providers (or neoclouds), sovereign AI programs backed by public capital, and enterprises beginning to adopt agentic and inferencing workloads,” he added.
Advertisement
Non-x86 servers now account for 44.8 percent of all server market revenue, according to IDC. That share has fallen from the first quarter, when they made up nearly half the total, despite the actual revenue figure rising from $58.7 billion to $74.4 billion.
Another trend highlighted by IDC is that the big brands are starting to eat into the share of original design manufacturers (ODMs), the so-called white box server makers that have traditionally met the requirements of the hyperscalers.
While ODMs collectively still make up the lion’s share of server market revenue, this fell from over 60 percent last year to 53.9 percent in Q2. Leading the way is Dell Technologies, whose share rose from 7.7 percent a year ago to 13.4 percent. Supermicro is the second largest player, with 6.1 percent, followed by Lenovo on 5.1 percent, while HPE came fourth with 3.5 percent.
The United States remains the biggest server market, generating $112.2 billion in Q2, or 67.4 percent of global revenue. China generated $26.4 billion, while Asia-Pacific excluding China and Japan reached $10.9 billion. Western Europe generated $9.1 billion and Central and Eastern Europe $0.7 billion. ®
Las Vegas Raiders running back Ashton Jeanty, an investor in Nukleus and a spokesperson for the platform. (Nukleus Photo / Ben Miller)
Hector Rivas spent a decade building ThriftBooks into one of the country’s largest used-book sellers, before an unlikely second act: co-founding a sports agency representing NFL players.
That career change led him to the problem behind his newest startup, and to the Las Vegas Raiders running back who just invested in it.
Nukleus founder and CEO Hector Rivas. (LinkedIn Photo)
Nukleus, based in Issaquah, Wash., is building what Rivas calls an operating system for the business of sports. The idea is a single workspace for everyone in an athlete’s orbit: agent, lawyer, CPA, financial advisor, marketing team, and others. It lets them all work from the same contracts, deadlines and records, rather than each keeping a separate pile of emails and spreadsheets.
The idea came out of Rivas’s years at Disruptive Sports, the agency he co-founded in 2020 and left earlier this year.
Ashton Jeanty, who signed a four-year, $35.9 million rookie contract with the Raiders in 2025, has taken equity in the company and signed on to serve as its public face.
Nukleus has also named four strategic investors: Mat McBride, Microsoft’s executive vice president and CFO for commercial products and infrastructure; WaFd Bank President and CEO Brent Beardall; investor Skyler Nelson, previously of Vulcan Capital and its successor firm Cercano; and Dr. Brett Kindle of the Andrews Institute in Gulf Breeze, Fla.
Advertisement
The company has a team of 12 based out of its Issaquah office, plus a supporting engineering team in India. Most of the team is engineering.
Other executives include CTO Eric Ahlstrom, previously at Microsoft, Unity, Oracle and ESPN; chief creative officer Ben Miller, a former creative director at the University of Washington and CAA Sports; and CFO Matt Porter, who worked with Rivas at ThriftBooks, EcoGoodz and Disruptive.
Nukleus closed a pre-seed round from friends and family in 2025 and is raising again now. Rivas declined to disclose the amount raised by the company so far.
From books to football: Rivas was ThriftBooks’ first CEO, running the used-book seller for about a decade after it launched in 2003. Based in the Seattle area, the company grew during his tenure from a storage unit in Kirkland, Wash., to 10 distribution facilities in 10 states, by his account.
Advertisement
He went on to found EcoGoodz, a used-goods and overstock brokerage, and in 2020 co-founded Disruptive Sports Agency with agent Henry Organ.
Rivas, an NFLPA-certified contract advisor, worked the business side of the agency. He left earlier this year to build Nukleus full time.
The years inside the agency are what produced the idea.
Everyone in a player’s orbit was working off “their own version of the truth,” Rivas explained via email: the agent, the lawyer, the CPA, the financial advisor, the marketing team. The athlete, he said, “was the one absorbing the cost of that disconnect,” in slower decisions and deals that fell through the cracks.
Advertisement
The pitch in Las Vegas: Jeanty and Rivas knew each other from Rivas’s years at the sports agency, and Rivas said the running back had been tracking what he was building.
“Because Ashton and I already knew each other, and he’d been aware of what I was building, the conversation came together naturally,” Rivas said.
He flew to Las Vegas to walk Jeanty through the model, the team, and where the company was headed. Rivas said Jeanty’s equity reflects both money invested and his role promoting the platform.
In a statement, Jeanty described the job of running his own career.
Advertisement
“Coming into the NFL, you become a CEO, directing a team of agents, advisors, and marketers, whether you’re ready or not,” he said. “Nukleus is what finally gets them all on the same page, so I can actually run that team the way it should be run. That’s why I invested in it.”
Where things stand: The product is in a free beta with about 30 users, including athletes, agents, agencies, lawyers and marketing staff. Nukleus plans to charge $99 per user per month for a starter plan and $249 for a full-featured one, with custom enterprise pricing. Athletes join free.
Alongside contract storage, deadline tracking and a shared workspace, the company is building AI tools meant to answer questions about contract terms and league rules.
Others are working similar territory. Agent Live 360 sells software built specifically for sports agents, and Opendorse, which says it works with more than 1,000 sports agents, offers tools to negotiate, approve and track deals. Nukleus says it differs from narrower tools by serving everyone in an athlete’s orbit.
Advertisement
The bigger bet: The company is looking well past a single app.
“Long-term, I don’t see this as a tool athletes use, I see it as the infrastructure the entire business of sports runs on,” Rivas said. “Every athlete becomes the center of their own connected team, and every professional working with them, across every sport, at every level, operates on one shared system instead of a hundred disconnected ones.”
No matter how you feel about the iPhone Duo and its exorbitant $1,999 price, its existence proves that Apple has finally figured out how to make a foldable. And on a broader level, it also shows that Apple isn’t too proud to follow in the footsteps of Samsung and other Android phone makers. If that’s the case, I’m hoping Apple also isn’t afraid to copy Samsung’s smaller Z Flip phones, which flip down horizontally, and larger devices like Lenovo’s X1 Fold and ASUS’s ZenBook Fold 17. An “iPhone Flip” could potentially satisfy people demanding a new iPhone Mini, and a future foldable iPad Pro could truly differentiate that tablet from the increasingly capable iPad Air.
This all seems obvious, of course. Now that Apple has shown it can develop ultra-thin device connected by a sturdy hinge, it should be easier for the company to scale its designs smaller and larger. I’m just hoping it doesn’t take forever. After all, it took Apple nearly seven years to finally respond to the Galaxy Z Fold (which, admittedly, was practically a beta product for its first few generations). What better way for Apple’s new CEO, John Ternus, to follow up the iPhone Duo’s debut than with a smaller iPhone Flip next year? And given how both ASUS and Lenovo have been slow to improve their large foldable tablets, there’s room for Apple to truly innovate in that space.
Sam Rutherford for Engadget
What would an “iPhone Flip” look like? Apple wouldn’t have to stray far from the template laid out by Samsung and others. Take an iPhone 17, then imagine casually folding the top down, just like how we used to close older cellphones. Also like Samsung’s devices, an iPhone Flip would need a small external display to glance at notifications and handle basic tasks, like taking a selfie with its rear cameras.
Such a design wouldn’t be an exotic innovation for Apple. Small foldables have been around for six years now; they’ve been practically normalized. They typically cost half as much as large foldable smartphones (and in many cases even less). Anecdotally, I’ve also noticed many “normie” smartphone users toting the Z Flip or Moto Razr, whereas I rarely see the Z Fold being used by non-techies.
While Apple is rumored to be working on a major iPhone redesign for its 20th anniversary next year, I’m not sure a bezel-less screen with curved edges will really excite anyone. But an iPhone Flip that can easily slip into a pocket or small purse? I’ve been begging for that for years.
Advertisement
Sam Rutherford for Engadget
When it comes to a foldable iPad, Apple also has room to do far more than ASUS or Lenovo, both of which are stuck building for Windows. Based on what we’ve seen of the iPhone Duo, Apple has thought deeply about how to juggle apps and functionality across folding screens. As usual, it has the software edge. An iPad Fold could replicate the look of the iPhone Duo by having a smaller iPad Mini-sized screen up front, and a larger screen internally. But I could also see Apple forgoing the external display entirely for cost reasons. Personally, I’d want a device like this for its fullscreen tablet and folded, pseudo-laptop modes.
Sam Rutherford for Engadget
When fully opened, it could work just like any iPad today. But imagine folding it in half and using the top half as a laptop screen, while the bottom is reserved for a touchscreen keyboard with haptic feedback. Or you could use that folded formation to multitask: Play a YouTube video up top, while juggling between Slack and hand-written notes on the bottom half. I could also imagine having it stand up vertically while still folded in half, giving you taller windows for multi-tasking. Slap on a wireless keyboard, and it’s practically like having a super-light mini-desktop
Both ASUS and Lenovo relied on large 16.3-inch OLED screens for their foldable tablets, but I don’t think Apple needs to go that large. A 13-inch foldable iPad Pro would still be pretty useful when cut in half. A smaller 11-inch iPad Fold could be a great portable journal, similar to the unreleased Surface Neo. (And yes, it’s hilarious that Apple now has products using the Duo and Neo names, as if it was rubbing salt into Microsoft’s wounds.)
Figuring out the intricacies of a foldable iPad would likely take Apple years, and truthfully, there’s not a huge demand for something like that just yet. But Samsung has done much of the groundwork for delivering a potential iPhone Flip, Apple just has to follow that template.
Matt Oppenheimer, second from right, at his Dartmouth College Entrepreneur Hall of Fame induction ceremony in San Francisco on Thursday. The Remitly co-founder is joined by school friends and dignitaries, from left, Jeff Crowe, Andrea Reisman Johnson, Trevor Jensen, Maia Josebachvili, Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock, and Jamie Coughlin. (Photo courtesy of Matt Oppenheimer)
Nearly 25 years after enrolling at Dartmouth College to study psychology and embarking on a path that led him to co-found Seattle fintech giant Remitly, Matt Oppenheimer has been inducted into the Ivy League school’s Entrepreneur Hall of Fame.
The honor, presented Thursday night in San Francisco as part of Dartmouth’s annual Entrepreneurs Forum, comes seven months after Oppenheimer stepped down as Remitly’s long-time CEO to become chairman of the board.
Created by the Magnuson Center for Entrepreneurship, the Hall of Fame honors Dartmouth alumni who have made lasting positive impacts through their ventures. Oppenheimer joins a select group of honorees with Northwest ties — including Smartsheet co-founders Brent Frei and Mark Mader — and used his acceptance remarks to express deep gratitude to the admissions officers who took a chance on a kid from Boise, Idaho, with “OK grades” and “below average SAT scores.”
Speaking with GeekWire ahead of the event, Oppenheimer recalled how his early college years studying social psychology helped shape his understanding of business.
“I think a lot of business and entrepreneurship does come down to interpersonal dynamics,” Oppenheimer said. “I am a people person. But how do you find what I call career-market fit when it comes to really understanding and connecting with people? That’s ultimately my strength, but it was really hard to define earlier in my career.”
Advertisement
After graduating from Dartmouth in 2005, Oppenheimer earned an MBA from Harvard Business School and worked in Kenya for Barclays Bank, where seeing families hit with steep fees on cross-border money transfers inspired him to start Remitly in 2011.
He served as CEO for nearly 15 years, guiding the company through its 2021 NASDAQ IPO and building it into a fintech powerhouse serving over 9 million customers across more than 170 countries before transitioning to chairman in February.
In his acceptance speech on Thursday, Oppenheimer focused on a central philosophy he calls leading authentically through “towering strengths and shadows.”
“Each of us has a few towering strengths — things we are in the top 10% of the world at doing. Not good at. Towering,” he said. “And almost always, that tower casts a shadow. The same trait that makes you exceptional at one thing quietly makes you a liability at another. They aren’t two traits. They’re one trait, seen from two sides.”
Advertisement
Matt Oppenheimer was introduced in San Francisco on Thursday by his Dartmouth classmates, Maia Josebachvili, left, and Trevor Jensen, right. (Photo courtesy of Matt Oppenheimer)
He pointed to his own extreme tenacity as an example, noting how it helped him build Remitly through years of investor rejections and early product stumbles, but how it also had a darker side.
“That same tenacity can lock onto things that are unhealthy, or unchangeable, or both,” Oppenheimer shared, candidly discussing his personal experiences with OCD-related anxiety and depression. “This isn’t a character flaw sitting next to my strengths. It is the shadow of my greatest strength, from the same place. Which means it’s something to work with … harness the tower, manage the shadow … rather than something to be ashamed of.”
Seven months into his transition from operational CEO to board chairman, Oppenheimer says the shift has felt surprisingly comfortable. Free from managing daily execution, he now channels that same intensity into coaching current leaders and serving on corporate boards.
“I have so much trust in Sebastian [Gunningham], our CEO, and it’s super exciting to support him in a chair capacity,” Oppenheimer told GeekWire. “I get to share reflections on the journey, mentor, and coach. I didn’t know that would be the case, because you hear so many examples of founder-CEOs who transition and have a really hard time with it.”
That mentorship extends to Seattle’s broader startup community, where Oppenheimer is an active member of Foundations, a collective of local tech founders and AI leaders. When advising early stage entrepreneurs, he urges them to remain hyper-focused on solving a single, deep customer problem rather than spreading themselves thin.
And while AI has vastly accelerated product development, Oppenheimer notes that the core fundamentals of building a business haven’t changed.
“With fintech, you still have to build the trust, get the licensing, and build out the compliance infrastructure and banking relationships,” he said. “The actual building and deployment of product got a lot faster, but if you don’t have great judgment, you can go down the wrong path pretty quickly.”
Looking back 25 years later, Oppenheimer noted that the Dartmouth admissions officers who took a chance on him didn’t look past his test scores by accident — they told him years later that they were drawn to his personal qualities and humanity.
Advertisement
“Two strangers in an office in Hanover found my tower before I had any idea what it was, and then they handed me the place to build on it,” Oppenheimer said in his closing remarks. “That isn’t a debt. It’s a privilege. And the only sensible thing to do with a privilege is use it well.”
As AI platforms become part of daily workflows, attackers have found a new way in: the platforms themselves. The Huntress Security Operations Center (SOC) says the bigger day-to-day risk comes from threat actors abusing the AI features people already trust and rely on, rather than attacks on the AI companies or models themselves.
Over the past nine months, Huntress has tracked incidents in which attackers weaponized shareable AI content, public mini-apps, and sponsored search placement to target AI users and deliver malware.
Legitimate features, hijacked
Huntress has observed threat actors abuse a handful of real AI platform features, including:
Claude Artifacts: content Claude generates and displays in a chat preview pane, which users can publish and share via a public link.
Advertisement
claude.ai/share links: shareable URLs created when someone publishes a Claude conversation; these can surface in search engines when posted to crawlable spots like forums or social media.
ChatGPT and Grok conversations: shared, indexable conversations hosted on chatgpt.com and grok.com that can rank for troubleshooting searches.
Each of these sits inside a trust boundary. Users recognize the platform, the branding, and the surrounding content, so malicious instructions or downloads look legitimate. These campaigns often only run for hours or days before a provider pulls the content down, but that’s enough time to trick victims before getting caught.
Your files are encrypted, your operations are down, an attacker has named their price, and they’re waiting for you to respond. Do you pay? Do you negotiate? Do you even engage at all?
Choose your next move in a simulated ransomware incident, built from tactics Huntress has seen used against real businesses. You’ll see how ransomware operators behave when they think they’re in control, and what steps you can take for catching an attack before it becomes a negotiation.
In July, Huntress saw a campaign called FakeAgent hit more than 29 organizations. It started with a malicious Claude Artifact hosted on the real claude.ai domain.
Since public Artifacts are meant for lightweight demos and get minimal vetting from Anthropic beyond a generic disclaimer, attackers built a convincing fake Claude Desktop download page.
Victims searching Bing for the Claude desktop app landed on the fake page and clicked what looked like a legitimate download link. Instead, they were redirected to an external domain that delivered the SectopRAT malware.
Huntress reported the Artifact and Anthropic removed it by July 22, but incidents tied to the same redirect domain continued into August.
Advertisement
Figure 1: Claude Desktop/Cowork phishing page hosted as a Claude Artifact.
A fake install guide hiding in claude.ai/share
In a separate incident, a victim searching Google for “Claude on Mac” clicked a sponsored result that led to a claude.ai/share link posing as an Apple Support install guide. Because the page lived on Anthropic’s own domain, it carried none of the usual red flags: no lookalike URL, no certificate warning.
The fake guide instructed the victim to paste a curl command into Terminal, kicking off a six-stage chain that deployed the MacSync stealer. It harvested cookies, credentials, keychain secrets, Telegram sessions, and SSH and cloud keys.
Figure 2: The weaponized claude.ai shared conversation, badged as shared by Apple Support,
walking the victim through pasting a curl one-liner into Terminal.
AI poisoning via ChatGPT and Grok
A third pattern targets AI-generated troubleshooting advice itself. In December, a routine search for “clear disk space on macOS” surfaced high-ranking ChatGPT and Grok conversations that gave ClickFix-style instructions instead of real fixes.
Attackers had crafted the conversations, hit “share” to generate a public URL on the platform’s trusted domain, and used SEO poisoning to push the link to the top of Google’s results.
Because the links lived on real chatgpt.com and grok.com domains, victims trusted the advice and ran the suggested Terminal commands, which delivered the AMOS stealer.
Figure 3: Top search results and highly rated links via Google Search
What defenders should do
None of these attacks broke through the AI platform security. They exploited the trust users place in familiar brands and real domains.
Defenders should treat clipboard-driven execution and AI-assisted troubleshooting as security risks. Restrict script execution from the clipboard and enforce application allow-listing. Watch for new scheduled tasks and antivirus exclusion changes, and train users to spot ClickFix-style lures. Report suspicious AI-hosted content to the platform vendor quickly.
Advertisement
These campaigns tend to be short-lived, but fast reporting and layered controls can shrink the window attackers get to exploit them.
If you’re interested in this kind of tradecraft and exploring how attackers evolve their tactics, join our experts at Tradecraft Tuesday, where we break it all down every month.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login