Tech

The Supreme Court is scared it’s going to break the internet

Published

4 hours ago

26 March 2026

The Supreme Court tossed out a billion-dollar verdict against an internet service provider (ISP) on Wednesday, in a closely watched case that could have severely damaged many Americans’ access to the internet if it had gone the other way.

Wednesday’s decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment is part of a broader pattern. It is one of a handful of recent Supreme Court cases that threatened to break the internet — or, at least, to fundamentally harm its ability to function as it has for decades. In each case, the justices took a cautious and libertarian approach. And they’ve often done so by lopsided margins. All nine justices joined the result in Cox, although Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized some of the nuances of Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion.

Some members of the Court have said explicitly that this wary approach stems from a fear that they do not understand the internet well enough to oversee it. As Justice Elena Kagan said in a 2022 oral argument, “we really don’t know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet.”

Thomas’s opinion in Cox does a fine job of articulating why this case could have upended millions of Americans’ ability to get online. The plaintiffs were major music companies who, in Thomas’s words, have “struggled to protect their copyrights in the age of online music sharing.” It is very easy to pirate copyrighted music online. And the music industry has fought online piracy with mixed success since the Napster Wars of the late 1990s.

Before bringing the Cox lawsuit, the music company plaintiffs used software that allowed them to “detect when copyrighted works are illegally uploaded or downloaded and trace the infringing activity to a particular IP address,” an identification number assigned to online devices. The software informed ISPs when a user at a particular IP address was potentially violating copyright law. After the music companies decided that Cox Communications, the primary defendant in Cox, was not doing enough to cut off these users’ internet access, they sued.

Two practical problems arose from this lawsuit. One is that, as Thomas writes, “many users can share a particular IP address” — such as in a household, coffee shop, hospital, or college dorm. Thus, if Cox had cut off a customer’s internet access whenever someone using that client’s IP address downloaded something illegally, it would also wind up shutting off internet access for dozens or even thousands of innocent people.

Imagine, for example, a high-rise college dormitory where just one student illegally downloads the latest Taylor Swift album. That student might share an IP address with everyone else in that building.

The other reason the Cox case could have fundamentally changed how people get online is that the monetary penalties for violating federal copyright law are often astronomical. Again, the plaintiffs in Cox won a billion-dollar verdict in the trial court. If these plaintiffs had prevailed in front of the Supreme Court, ISPs would likely have been forced into draconian crackdowns on any customer that allowed any internet users to pirate music online — because the costs of failing to do so would be catastrophic.

But that won’t happen. After Cox, college students, hospital patients, and hotel guests across the country can rest assured that they will not lose internet access just because someone down the hall illegally downloads “The Fate of Ophelia.” Thomas’s decision does not simply reject the music industry’s suit against Cox, it nukes it from orbit.

Cox, moreover, is the most recent of at least three decisions where the Court showed similarly broad skepticism of lawsuits or statutes seeking to regulate the internet.

The Supreme Court is an internet-based company’s best friend

The most striking thing about Thomas’s majority opinion in Cox is its breadth. Cox does not simply reject this one lawsuit, it cuts off a wide swath of copyright suits against internet service providers.

Thomas argues that, in order to prevail in Cox, the music industry plaintiffs would have needed to show that Cox “intended” for its customers to use its service for copyright infringement. To overcome this hurdle, the plaintiffs would have needed to show either that internet service providers “promoted and marketed their [service] as a tool to infringe copyrights” or that the only viable use of the internet is to illegally download copyrighted music.

Thomas also adds that the mere fact that Cox may have known that some of its users were illegally pirating copyrighted material is not enough to hold them liable for that activity.

As a legal matter, this very broad holding is dubious. As Sotomayor argues in a separate opinion, Congress enacted a law in 1998 which creates a safe harbor for some ISPs that are sued for copyright infringement by their customers. Under that 1998 law, the lawsuit fails if the ISP “adopted and reasonably implemented” a system to terminate repeat offenders of federal copyright law.

The fact that this safe harbor exists suggests that Congress believed that ISPs which do not comply with its terms may be sued. But Thomas’s opinion cuts off many lawsuits against defendants who do not comply with the safe harbor provision.

Still, while lawyers can quibble about whether Thomas or Sotomayor have the best reading of federal law, Thomas’s opinion was joined by a total of seven justices. And it is consistent with the Court’s previous decisions seeking to protect the internet from lawsuits and statutes that could undermine its ability to function.

In Twitter v. Taamneh (2023), a unanimous Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit seeking to hold social media companies liable for overseas terrorist activity. Twitter arose out of a federal law permitting suits against anyone “who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance” to certain acts of “international terrorism.” The plaintiffs in Twitter claimed that social media companies were liable for an ISIS attack that killed 39 people in Istanbul, because ISIS used those companies’ platforms to post recruitment videos and other content.

Thomas also wrote the majority opinion in Twitter, and his opinion in that case mirrors the Cox decision’s view that internet companies generally should not be held responsible for bad actors who use their products. “Ordinary merchants,” Thomas wrote in Twitter, typically should not “become liable for any misuse of their goods and services, no matter how attenuated their relationship with the wrongdoer.”

Indeed, several key justices are so protective of the internet — or, at least, so cautious about interfering with it — that they’ve taken a libertarian approach to internet companies even when their own political party wants to control online discourse.

In Moody v. Netchoice (2024) the Court considered two state laws, one from Texas and one from Florida, that sought to force social media companies to publish conservative and Republican voices that those companies had allegedly banned or otherwise suppressed. As Texas’s Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said of his state’s law, it was enacted to stop a supposedly “dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas.”

Both laws were blatantly unconstitutional. The First Amendment does not permit the government to force Twitter or Facebook to unban someone for the same reason the government cannot force a newspaper to publish op-eds disagreeing with its regular columnists. As the Court held in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974), media outlets have an absolute right to determine “the choice of material” that they publish.

After Moody reached the Supreme Court, however, the justices uncovered a procedural flaw in the plaintiffs’ case that should have required them to send the case back down to the lower courts without weighing in on whether the two state laws are constitutional. Yet, while the Court did send the case back down, it did so with a very pointed warning that the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which had backed Texas’s law, “was wrong.”

Six justices, including three Republicans, joined a majority opinion leaving no doubt that the Texas and Florida laws violate the First Amendment. They protected the sanctity of the internet, even when it was procedurally improper for them to do so.

This Supreme Court isn’t normally so protective of institutions

One reason why the Court’s hands-off-the-internet approach in Cox, Twitter, and Moody is so remarkable is that the Supreme Court’s current majority rarely shows such restraint in other cases, at least when those cases have high partisan or ideological stakes.

In two recent decisions — Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) and Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026) — for example, the Court’s Republican majority imposed onerous new burdens on public schools, which appear to be designed to prevent those schools from teaching a pro-LGBTQ viewpoint to students whose parents find gay or trans people objectionable. I’ve previously explained why public schools will struggle to comply with Mahmoud and Mirabelli, and why many might find compliance impossible. Neither opinion showed even a hint of the caution that the Court displayed in Cox and similar cases.

Similarly, in Medina v. Planned Parenthood (2025), the Court handed down a decision that is likely to render much of federal Medicaid law unenforceable. If taken seriously, Medina overrules decades of Supreme Court decisions shaping the rights of about 76 million Medicaid patients, including a decision the Court handed down as recently as 2023 — though it remains to be seen if the Court’s Republican majority will apply Medina’s new rule in a case that doesn’t involve an abortion provider.

The Court’s Republican majority, in other words, is rarely cautious. And it is often willing to throw important American institutions such as the public school system or the US health care system into turmoil, especially in highly ideological cases.

But this Court does appear to hold the internet in the same high regard that it holds religious conservatives and opponents of abortion. And that means that the internet is one institution that these justices will protect.

Source link

Tech

Can A $40 Knockoff DeWalt Chainsaw Beat The $130 Original? This Test Found Out

Published

3 minutes ago

26 March 2026

NewsAdmin

A range of brands make cordless pruning saws, and they’re potentially a very handy addition to your arsenal of outdoor tools. Much like its long-standing rivals Milwaukee and Makita, DeWalt makes a pruning saw that has been copied by knockoff brands that use the same interchangeable batteries as the real thing. A test by Project Farm put all of these saws to the test to see how they performed in a variety of situations, and surprisingly, the knockoff versions of some big-name tools performed impressively well, with the knockoff DeWalt saw not far behind its legitimate counterpart.

In a test that timed how long each saw took to cut through 2×8 lumber, the knockoff DeWalt couldn’t match the real DeWalt saw, with the former taking 5.72 seconds while the latter took just 2.87 seconds. However, the knockoff still outperformed a genuine Makita saw, which took 5.93 seconds to make the same cut.

Another test was designed to see how much downward force each saw could take without stalling. The knockoff DeWalt stalled at 10 pounds, and the real DeWalt stalled at 21 pounds, comfortably beating its counterfeit counterpart. However, Ryobi and Craftsman’s saws both outperformed the real DeWalt, hitting over 30 pounds of downward force before stalling, while the Milwaukee saw that Project Farm tested hit 94 pounds and still didn’t stall, making it the winner by a large margin.

In one key area, the knockoff DeWalt beat the real thing

In terms of pure performance, the real DeWalt ranked mostly above its knockoff counterpart, but in efficiency, the knockoff claimed a surprise victory. Project Farm calculated the runtime per amp-hour of each saw, and the real DeWalt managed 1.38 minutes, the second worst of the test group. Meanwhile, the knockoff DeWalt could run for 1.72 minutes with the same amount of power.

The knockoff could also make significantly more cuts through a hardwood log per amp hour, achieving 10.4 cuts compared to the real DeWalt’s 8.1 cuts. However, both were far behind the best in class, with the Milwaukee saw delivering 41.5 cuts per amp hour. Kobalt took the second-place spot with 31.7 cuts per amp hour. Project Farm’s final combined ranking saw the knockoff DeWalt finish only one place behind the legitimate DeWalt saw, although both were roundly beaten by rivals from Milwaukee, Kobalt, and Ryobi. That might seem surprising considering the major price difference between the two.

However, despite their close ranking in the test, you still probably shouldn’t buy knockoff DeWalt tools. Their lack of warranty and inconsistent production standards can potentially mean you end up spending more money in the long run, and in some cases, knockoffs may even pose a safety risk. Buyers looking for the best-performing pruning chainsaw would be better off considering a rival tool from another major chainsaw brand, or coughing up the cash for the real DeWalt saw, even if it isn’t the best in class.

Source link

Tech

The consequential AI work that actually moves the needle for enterprises

Published

16 minutes ago

26 March 2026

NewsAdmin

Presented by OutSystems

After two years of flashy AI demos, rushed agent prototypes, and breathless predictions, enterprise technology leaders are striking a more pragmatic tone in 2026. In a recent webinar hosted by OutSystems, a panel of software executives and enterprise practitioners made the case that the most consequential AI work happening now is focused on the practical matters of governance, orchestration, and iteration, along with integrating agents into the systems they’ve spent decades building.

Enterprise leaders are increasingly focused on fundamentals. The priority is using new AI technologies

to accelerate productivity, improve delivery, and produce measurable business results.

Three elements shape this work:

The move from AI agent prototypes to agentic systems that deliver measurable ROI in production
The growing role of enterprise platforms in governing, orchestrating, and scaling AI agents safely
The rise of the generalist developer and enterprise architect as the most valuable technical profiles in an era of AI-generated code

Against this backdrop, the panel discussed governance frameworks, the economics of enterprise AI, and the limits of large language models without orchestration. The conversation ultimately turned to how leading organizations are building multi-agent systems grounded in existing enterprise data and workflows.

Agents in the real world

Enabling agents to work in production across the enterprise is best accomplished with a unified platform that handles development, iteration, and deployment. And that’swhere capabilities like the Agent Workbench in the OutSystems platform matter, said Rajkiran Vajreshwari, senior manager of app development at Thermo Fisher Scientific. It provides the infrastructure to learn, iterate, and govern agents at scale.

His team at Thermo Fisher has moved away from single-task AI assistants in customer service to building a coordinated team of specialized agents using the workbench. When a support case arrives, a triage assistant classifies the request and dynamically routes it to the right specialist agent, whether that’s an intent and priority agent, a product context agent, a troubleshooting agent, or a compliance agent.

“We don’t have to think about what will work and how. It’s all pre-built,” he explained. “Each agent has a narrow role and clear guardrails. They stay accurate and auditable.”

Governing the risks of shadow AI

A new category of risk emerges when AI makes it possible for anyone in a company to generate production-level code without IT oversight. Basically, this is ungoverned shadow AI. These homegrown products are prone to hallucinations, data leakage, policy violations, model drift, and agents taking actions that were never formally approved.

To get ahead of the risk, leading organizations need to do three things, said Luis Blando, CPTO of OutSystems.

“Give users guardrails. They’re going to use AI whether you like it or not. Companies that seem to be getting ahead are using AI to govern AI across their full portfolio,” he explained. “That is the difference between shadow AI chaos and enterprise-grade scale.”

Eric Kavanagh, CEO of The Bloor Group, noted that governance requires a layered set of disciplines that includes securing data, monitoring models for drift, and making deliberate choices about where AI connects to existing business processes.

“Companies don’t have to be manually creating these controls,” he added. “A lot of those guardrails and levers are baked in to platforms like OutSystems.”

Why the real orchestration challenge is models vs. platforms

Much of the early excitement around enterprise AI focused on selecting the right large language model. Now the harder challenge, and far more durable source of value, is orchestration. This includes routing tasks, coordinating workflows, governing execution, and integrating AI into existing enterprise systems.

Scott Finkle, VP of development at McConkey Auction Group, noted that LLMs, however impressive, are pieces of complex workflows, not final solutions. Organizations should be ready to hot-swap between Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude, and whatever emerges next without having to rebuild the agentic system around it.

A platform with orchestration capabilities makes that possible. It manages the lifecycle, provides visibility, and ensures processes execute reliably, even as AI handles the reasoning layer on top.

“The AI and the models change, the workflows can change, but the orchestration remains the same,” Finkle said. “That’s how we’re going to extract value out of AI.”

The economics of enterprise AI investing

Security, compliance, governance, and platform-level AI capabilities will all command greater investment in 2026, particularly as AI moves into core workflows like finance and supply chain. Enterprises should favor incremental wins rather than expect big, immediate gains.

“We’re focusing on base hits,” Finkle said. “The way it counts is by getting something into production and having it make an impact. Big investments in pilot projects that don’t make it into production don’t save any money. It’s not going to happen overnight, but over time I think we’ll see tremendous savings.”

There’s still a split in how enterprises are approaching AI transformation. Some start from scratch and reimagine every process. Others, especially those with billions of dollars in existing infrastructure depreciating in-house, want AI to integrate with their systems. They want agentic systems to reuse data, APIs, and proven processes while speeding up delivery. The agent platform approach serves both camps, but particularly the latter. Organizations can deploy agents where they add clear value while preserving the integrity of established, deterministic workflows.

The rise of the enterprise architect and the generalist developer

As AI accelerates code generation, bottlenecks in software delivery are dissolving. In its place is a premium on systems thinking. This is the ability to understand the broader enterprise architecture, decompose complex business problems, and reason about how AI integrates with existing infrastructure. Kavanagh pointed to enterprise architects specifically as the professionals best positioned to capitalize on this moment.

“We’re entering a very interesting age of the generalist,” he explained. “The better you know your enterprise architecture and your business architecture and how those things align, the better off you’re going to be. ”

“The result is faster delivery with fewer interruptions and fewer bugs,” Kavanaugh said. “You can focus on the non-repetitive tasks. It’s a benefit to the developer, to the business, and to the whole IT organization.”

Catch the entire webinar here.

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

Source link

Tech

Blossom Health raises $20 million to put AI copilots alongside psychiatrists

Published

43 minutes ago

26 March 2026

NewsAdmin

Blossom Health, a New York-based telepsychiatry startup founded in 2024, has raised $20 million in combined seed and Series A funding to scale an AI-powered platform that pairs psychiatrists with clinical copilots and automated administrative support. The round was led by Headline, whose co-founder and managing partner Mathias Schilling is joining the company’s board. Village Global and TA Ventures returned from earlier rounds, with Operator Partners and Correlation Ventures joining as new institutional backers alongside angel investors including founders from General Catalyst, Flatiron Health, Sword Health, and Zip.

The company, founded by CEO John Zhao, is built around a specific premise: that the bottleneck in psychiatric care is not a shortage of clinical knowledge but a shortage of time. Psychiatrists in the United States spend roughly half their working hours on non-clinical tasks, including documentation, billing, insurance authorisation, and scheduling. Blossom’s platform automates much of this through a network of AI agents that handle billing, reception, care coordination, and medical scribing, while a separate set of clinical copilots assist with symptom evaluation, diagnosis refinement, and medication selection during patient encounters.

The scale of the problem

The psychiatric workforce shortage in the United States is severe and worsening. More than 122 million Americans live in federally designated mental health professional shortage areas, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration. The national psychiatrist-to-population ratio stands at one provider for every 5,058 residents. Roughly 60 per cent of practising psychiatrists are 55 or older, meaning a significant portion of the existing workforce will retire within the next decade. Wait times for an initial psychiatric appointment range from three weeks to six months depending on location, and in many rural counties there are no psychiatrists at all.

This gap has created a market. US digital health startups raised $14.2 billion in 2025, the highest total since 2022, with AI-powered companies accounting for 54 per cent of that funding. Within mental health specifically, Talkiatry, an in-network telepsychiatry platform, raised $210 million in February 2026. Spring Health, which uses AI for personalised treatment recommendations, is valued at $3.3 billion. Ambient clinical scribes, the category of AI that automatically generates notes from patient conversations, produced $600 million in revenue last year alone.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

Blossom is small by comparison. The company says its tools are used by hundreds of clinicians treating more than 10,000 patients across multiple US states. Most patients are seen within 48 hours, with many receiving same-day appointments. Blossom accepts all major commercial insurers, including Optum UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, Cigna Evernorth, and Blue Cross Blue Shield, with average copays of around $22.

Copilot, not replacement

The “copilot” framing is deliberate and important. Blossom is not building a therapy chatbot. Its AI tools sit alongside licensed psychiatrists during clinical encounters, surfacing relevant information, helping evaluate symptoms against diagnostic criteria, and suggesting medication adjustments based on the patient’s history and current presentation. The psychiatrist retains clinical authority over every decision.

Between appointments, the platform uses AI agents to maintain contact with patients through text-based check-ins on sleep, mood, medication adherence, and other indicators. Fortune reported that in the case of postpartum depression, for example, the system follows up with conversational prompts that surface warning signs and prepare information for clinicians ahead of the next visit. This approach converts what has traditionally been episodic care, where a patient sees a psychiatrist for 15 minutes every few months and is otherwise unsupported, into something closer to continuous monitoring.

The clinical claims are plausible but early. Blossom says it has demonstrated the ability to stabilise mental health conditions and prevent progression toward more intensive care, but the company has not published peer-reviewed clinical evidence. At 10,000 patients, the dataset is meaningful for a company this young but far too small to draw population-level conclusions about clinical efficacy.

The Cerebral cautionary tale

Any startup operating at the intersection of AI, telepsychiatry, and controlled substance prescribing inherits the reputational burden of what came before. Cerebral, the telemental health company that raised $300 million at a $4.8 billion valuation in 2022, became the subject of a Department of Justice investigation into its prescribing practices for controlled substances and paid a $7 million settlement to the Federal Trade Commission over allegations of misleading cancellation policies and data sharing. The company’s rapid growth, which prioritised patient volume over clinical rigour, damaged trust across the sector.

Blossom’s architecture is different in important ways. It works through licensed psychiatrists rather than nurse practitioners prescribing independently, and its AI tools are positioned as decision support rather than decision-makers. But the fundamental tension remains: scaling psychiatric care through technology requires maintaining clinical quality at volumes that a traditional practice model was never designed to handle. The AI copilot must be good enough to genuinely assist clinicians without introducing errors that a time-pressed psychiatrist might not catch, particularly in medication selection, where psychiatric pharmacology is notoriously complex and highly individual.

The $20 million will fund expansion into additional US states, new insurance partnerships, clinician recruitment, and continued research and development. For a company founded less than two years ago, treating over 10,000 patients with in-network insurance coverage is a notable operational achievement. Whether the clinical copilot meaningfully improves outcomes, or simply makes it faster to deliver care at the same quality, is the question the next round of funding will need to answer.

Source link

Tech

Engineering courses for Ireland’s students and professionals

Published

56 minutes ago

26 March 2026

NewsAdmin

Anyone looking for a new opportunity in the engineering space should consider one of the following courses as part of their upskilling process.

While it is an innovative, exciting and dynamic sector, the STEM space and the careers that exist within it demand consistent and up-to-date training in order to ensure professionals are operating at their peak. Upskilling is an essential element of engineering careers and with that in mind, the following courses could be an ideal way for you to stay in the know and ahead of the game.

Coursera

For those looking for an introductory course to be undertaken flexibly, IBM via Coursera is running a free Introduction to Software Engineering programme. It consists of six modules, is aimed at beginners and can be managed at the learners’ own pace. It also comes with a certificate upon completion of the course.

Also available via Coursera, with free online enrollment, is a 12-week introduction to Systems Engineering Specialisation, offered by the University of Colorado, Boulder. The beginner-level programme can be accessed in eight different languages and aims to teach the fundamentals, methods, practices and processes of industry-standard systems engineering.

Coursera also offers a range of courses designed for more advanced learners. For example, a Microsoft AI & ML Engineering Professional Certificate. The free six-month programme aims to prepare students and professionals for a career in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Coursera itself also has a free four-week Deep Learning Engineering Specialisation course for advanced students.

Further Education and PLC

For students based in Louth, looking to earn their level five qualifications, there is a Further Education and PLC, level five QQI course in Engineering Technology. The programme is said to equip learners with the skills and knowledge needed to gain employment, access apprenticeship programmes and progress to further study in universities and institutes of technology. Successful graduates will have the opportunity to find employment in areas such as engineering machine operations, civil engineering, electrical engineering and advanced manufacturing, alongside others.

In Dunboyne, Meath there is a year-long level five Engineering Technology course open to prospective students looking towards future education. It is a pre-university engineering course designed to to prepare the student for work in the field of engineering via entry into a third-level institution. Students who graduate from this course can pursue further study at degree level and will be well placed to gain apprenticeships in the many different engineering sectors through Generation Apprenticeship Ireland. There are a range of level five opportunities available nationwide, so be sure to find one that is convenient.

South East Technological University

South East Technological University (SETU) has dozens of opportunities for engineering students and professionals, to fit a range of lifestyles and ambitions. Courses for those looking for their bachelor’s degree include standard four-year programmes in areas such as agricultural systems engineering, electronic engineering, aerospace engineering and automation engineering, among others.

For more established students, there are also several one-year master’s degrees, such as the Master of Science in Engineering Research and Innovation and Master of Science in Sustainable Energy Engineering. Different courses will have unique requirements, commitments and prices, so make sure to read up on your chosen course first.

Udemy

Educational platform Udemy has a free Engineering Mechanics Fundamentals to Proficiency course, which can be undertaken at the learners convenience online. The programme is aimed at beginners, covers a range of topics such as foundational mechanics and principles and will require an understanding of basic maths and physics. Udemy has dozens of free and paid options, to suit a variety of budgets and lifestyles, including, The Complete Full Stack AI Engineering Bootcamp, Site Reliability Engineering and The Complete Mechanical Engineering Course, which claims to offer 12 courses in one.

Whether you are a complete novice, an enthusiast, a graduate or an established professional, there is really no incorrect way to engage with learning, provided you have a clear idea of what it is you hope to achieve from the experience. So make sure to do your research, identify your weaknesses and shop around for the course or learning materials that match your ambitions and available resources.

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.

Source link

Tech

Vizio TVs Now Require Walmart Accounts For Smart Features

Published

1 hour ago

26 March 2026

NewsAdmin

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Prospective Vizio TV buyers should know there’s a good chance the set won’t work properly without a Walmart account. In an attempt to better serve advertisers, Walmart, which bought Vizio in December 2024, announced this week that select newly purchased Vizio TVs now require a Walmart account for setup and accessing smart TV features. Since 2024, Vizio TVs have required a Vizio account, which a Vizio OS website says is necessary for accessing “exclusive offers, subscription management, and tailored support.” Accounts are also central to Vizio’s business, which is largely driven by ads and tracking tied to its OS.

A Walmart spokesperson confirmed to Ars Technica that Walmart accounts will be mandatory on “select new Vizio OS TVs” for owners to complete onboarding and to use smart TV features. The representative added: “Customers who already have an existing Vizio account are being given the option to merge their Vizio account with their Walmart account. Customers with an existing Vizio account can opt out by deleting their Vizio account.” The representative wouldn’t confirm which TV models are affected. Walmart’s representative said the Walmart account integration is “designed to respect consumer choice and privacy, with data used in aggregated, permissioned, and compliant ways” but didn’t specify how.

Source link

Tech

Washington state needs a ‘coherent’ story to compete in AI, leaders agree

Published

1 hour ago

26 March 2026

NewsAdmin

The Washington Technology Industry Association held its Tech in Focus roundtable on March 25, 2026, in Seattle. Credit: Ken Yeung

Washington state may have everything it needs to become a global AI hub. The problem is, it hasn’t figured out how to say so, and its political and tech leaders agree it’s time they got to work on it.

On Wednesday, the Washington Technology Industry Association (WTIA) convened a roundtable of civic and industry leaders from throughout the Seattle region to ask a pointed question: What will it actually take for Washington state to stop playing catch-up with Silicon Valley and start leading?

At the center of the debate was the nonprofit’s latest white paper, “Seattle’s AI Advantage: The Path to Global Leadership.”

In it, the author and futurist Alex Lightman argues the Emerald City holds six distinct advantages over rival tech hubs: abundance of clean energy, a backyard full of hyperscalers like Microsoft and Amazon, an acceptance of using AI to continuously improve AI and software, access to quantum computing, the ability to run large-scale simulations cheaply, and a growing foothold in space technology.

These assets, he contends, are what position Seattle to become a top-five U.S. city economically, comparable to a G7 economy with a $1 trillion GDP.

Yet while WTIA’s white paper largely shows that the city has incredible potential, the lobbying group emphasizes that it is a roadmap. The real challenge is to figure out what happens next. Once the talking is done, who’s going to organize the effort to transform the state?

“I think one of the most important things we can do is start telling this story,” said Randa Minkarah, WTIA chief operations executive, referring to Washington’s need to establish itself as a leading, responsible AI and advanced technology region. “How do we get that out there that changes people’s point of view?”

Once that narrative takes hold, it can create momentum—”a storytelling flywheel” that spreads best practices and lessons across communities and organizations, Minkarah added.

Washington’s struggle to tell a coherent AI story isn’t caused by a single issue, but rather by a host of issues. Rachel Smith, president of the Washington Roundtable, pointed to a three-way misalignment between federal priorities and dollars, state priorities and dollars, and what is actually happening on the ground in communities.

“When those things are all misaligned, it feels like we spend a whole lot of money and we don’t get a whole lot out of it,” she said.

Smith called for a broader strategy focused on economic competitiveness and tax reform. This is a topic of debate after state lawmakers approved a new income tax on high earners this month. One investor in the audience underscored the issue, noting that some of the people writing checks in Washington’s tech ecosystem have moved their residences out of state.

Beau Perschbacher, senior policy advisor for Governor Bob Ferguson, participated in the WTIA roundtable discussion on how to make Washington a global AI state. Credit: Ken Yeung

There’s also the failure to make AI’s benefits accessible to everyday Washingtonians, as indigenous communities and local residents feel excluded. And compounding the issue is the lack of strategic alignment, as Washington has pared back its economic development strategy. That’s not what community leaders want—they want Olympia to take the lead.

“That is a place where the state having a direction on the AI industry, where we want to go, would be super helpful,” Canedo remarked. Beau Perschbacher, Governor Bob Ferguson’s Senior Policy Advisor for Economic Development, didn’t disagree.

So what actually needs to happen?

Panelists didn’t hold back when asked what Washington’s leaders must do in the next 24 months: Joe Nguyen, a former Washington State senator and CEO of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, wants more risk-takers—businesses willing to be first movers in adopting AI within their industries and then evangelize what’s possible.

Jesse Canedo, chief economic development officer for the City of Bellevue, hopes operators can execute on the white paper’s vision.

“Seattle as a region does a lot of great visioning,” he said. “It needs a lot of operationalizing of the big, bold ideas…Housing, people, and energy are the three big things that we can operationalize very quickly out of this vision.”

Not everyone agreed on the path forward.

Alvin Graylin, a fellow at Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, argued that Washington should position itself as a global hub for open-source AI rather than following Silicon Valley’s closed-model, big-spending approach.

He pointed to Chinese labs producing near-equivalent models at a fraction of the cost, and said Washington could tap into millions of open-source developers worldwide rather than competing for a few thousand elite researchers at big labs.

Futurist Alex Lightman discusses his WTIA-commissioned whitepaper on Seattle’s AI advantage. Credit: Ken Yeung

Lightman, the white paper’s author, was skeptical. He noted that Microsoft made Netscape’s browser irrelevant by giving its own browser away, then made trillions selling everything around it. Open source has a ceiling, he argued, and it wouldn’t get Seattle to a trillion-dollar economy.

Separately, Perschbacher wants more federal funding to come to the state, and to improve community outreach to bring more people along as partners.

Can these leaders take all of their ideas and turn them into action? At the very least, the WTIA secured two pledges: The Washington Roundtable and the Seattle Metro Chamber both said they would work with the Governor’s office to shape a statewide economic development strategy, and Perschbacher committed to leading a federal funding working group.

Others joining the conversation included Alicia Teel, deputy director of Seattle’s Office of Economic Development. In addition to Minkarah, representing WTIA were Vice President of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Nick Ellingson, Chair of the Advanced Technologies Cluster Arry Yu, and Director of Industry and Community Relations Terrance Stevenson.

Source link

Tech

Next-gen AI breakthrough promises chatbots that can read the room better

Published

2 hours ago

26 March 2026

NewsAdmin

Have you ever asked a chatbot something and felt like it completely missed your point? You say something with a bit of nuance, and the AI misses the subtlety entirely. That is exactly the problem researchers are trying to solve.

Even though the emotional connection with AI can feel deeper than human conversation for many users, most AI systems today still treat a sentence as a single block of sentiment. If you mix praise and criticism, the nuance often gets lost.

The research, by Zhifeng Yuan and Jin Yuan, introduces a model that can break down a sentence and understand how you feel about each part, instead of generalizing everything into one response.

How this system helps AI read your intent better

Think about a sentence like, “The food was great, but the service was terrible.” A typical AI chatbot might struggle because the sentence has both positive and negative emotions.

The proposed model looks at each part of the sentence separately and connects each emotion to the right subject. It relies on an ‘emotional keywords attention network’ to do that.

In simple terms, it teaches AI to focus on words that carry strong emotions, such as “great” or “terrible.” These words guide the system toward understanding what matters most in the sentence.

The model then links those emotional cues to a specific aspect. It learns that “great” applies to food, while “terrible” applies to service. This process, known as aspect-level sentiment analysis, makes responses far more precise.

It also uses attention mechanisms to understand context, so it does not rely on keywords alone. It can figure out how different parts of a sentence connect. Researchers say this method performs better than existing models on standard benchmarks.

This approach can make AI chatbots feel more human

If adopted widely, this could change how AI responds in real-world situations. Chatbots could handle nuanced feedback more effectively instead of defaulting to generic replies. Customer support systems could pinpoint exactly what went wrong and respond with greater accuracy.

While concerns grow around AI chatbots mirroring human personality traits a little too well, one thing is clear. AI is here to stay, and if it is going to be part of everyday conversations, it needs to get better at reading the room.

Source link

Tech

HP wants your next work PC to be an AI assistant

Published

2 hours ago

26 March 2026

NewsAdmin

With the rapid rise of autonomous agents like OpenClaw and Anthropic’s Claude Work, along with the wide range of opinions about their impact on the future of work, it is not surprising to see renewed interest in workplace PCs. Add to that Intel’s recent release of commercial vPro versions of…
Read Entire Article
Source link

Tech

Amazon's Big Spring Sale delivers Apple deals from $14.99

Published

2 hours ago

26 March 2026

NewsAdmin

Day 2 of Amazon’s Big Spring Sale offers deals on new M5 Pro and M5 Max MacBook Pros, along with blowout savings on Apple Watches, iPhones, and more.

Pink graphic reading Big Spring Sale and Save big March 25-31 beside a tall stack of Amazon shipping boxes with smile logos and orange tape

Save up to 40 percent on Apple gear during the Big Spring Sale – Image credit: Amazon

Day 2 of Amazon’s weeklong sale is well underway, and we’ve rounded up the best deals on Apple hardware, including 2026 releases, along with accessories like MagSafe chargers and cables.
Shop Amazon’s Big Spring Sale
Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums

Source link

Tech

Marantz M1 Streaming Amplifier Review: Can This Compact All In One Replace Your Entire Hi-Fi System?

Published

2 hours ago

26 March 2026

NewsAdmin

Oh Marantz…what exactly are you playing at here?

Just when the sub $1,000 streaming amplifier category had turned into a predictable arms race of inputs, outputs, and firmware promises, along came the Marantz Model M1 with that unmistakable Marantz swagger that is now backed by HEOS multi-room integration and Dirac Live room correction to give it some real-world muscle. Sure, the WiiM Amp Ultra and Eversolo Play might dazzle you with more HDMI ports, coaxial inputs, and firmware update promises than a Tesla—but do they offer this much soul? Doubtful.

Here’s the part nobody in the industry really wants to say out loud. The future isn’t being decided in six-figure listening rooms with Italian racks and cables that cost more than your first car. It’s being decided in apartments, offices, and living rooms where people want one box, real performance, and no drama.

The question is whether the industry actually leans into that shift or keeps pretending the old model still scales. Brands like Fosi, WiiM, Bluesound, NAD, Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, and Cambridge Audio clearly see where the market is going. Others? Still chasing a shrinking pool of traditional audiophiles with very deep pockets and very finite patience.

Marantz, to its credit, is covering both ends of the spectrum. The Model M1 reflects where the market is heading, while the Model 10 represents its high-end ambitions; and it’s one of the better implementations of Class D amplification we’ve seen, even if the price puts it out of reach for most buyers. Between those two sits a full range of AVRs and stereo receivers that bridge the gap and make a lot more sense for how people actually build systems today.

Marantz Model M1 Streaming Amplifier Front Angle — Marantz Model M1

Marantz Model M1 Features and Connectivity: Fewer Ports, More Purpose

The Marantz Model M1 is designed as a compact, all-in-one streaming amplifier that simplifies system building without stripping away capability. Rated at 100 watts per channel into 8 ohms with very low distortion, it has enough power to drive a wide range of bookshelf and smaller floorstanding speakers—within reason, of course.

The inclusion of a dedicated subwoofer output with adjustable crossover and ±15dB level trim adds real flexibility for 2.1 setups, allowing for proper integration rather than guesswork.

Unlike traditional integrated amplifiers that juggle analog and digital signal paths, the M1 operates as a digital-first platform. It supports high resolution PCM up to 24-bit/192 kHz and DSD playback, handling content from streaming services, network storage, or direct USB input with consistency. This approach keeps the signal path clean and controlled, which aligns with Marantz’s goal of delivering a more refined and stable sonic presentation rather than chasing raw specification extremes.

Marantz Model M1 Streaming Amplifier Rear — Marantz Model M1

Connectivity is focused but practical. Wireless options include Bluetooth, AirPlay 2, Qobuz Connect, TIDAL Connect, Spotify Connect, while HEOS provides the backbone for multi-room audio with support for up to 32 zones. HEOS also enables integration with home control systems such as Control4, URC, and Crestron, making the M1 viable in both simple and more complex installations.

It also works as a Roon player, although that requires an active Roon subscription and a Roon Core running on your network. The Core acts as the media server and can be hosted on a computer, NAS drive, or other compatible hardware.

For TV integration, HDMI eARC allows the M1 to function as a legitimate soundbar alternative with proper stereo imaging and significantly better amplification. Volume and power control can be handled directly through the TV remote, and the unit can be tucked out of sight without losing usability thanks to full app control and IR learning capability for third-party remotes.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

One limitation worth noting is the lack of a built-in phono stage. Vinyl playback requires either a turntable with a built-in preamp or an external phono stage connected to the analog input. It’s a deliberate omission that reinforces the M1’s digital-first identity, but one that analog-focused users will need to plan around.

Onboard Dolby Digital+ decoding supports the audio codecs commonly used by broadcast and streaming TV services, making the Model M1 a viable upgrade over a typical soundbar. Additional options include Dialogue Enhancer for clearer vocals and a Virtual mode that uses Dolby processing to create a more immersive sound field from stereo content.

The Model M1 can also be paired with additional units for multi-room or expanded system setups, and its compact chassis allows two units to fit side-by-side in a standard 19-inch equipment rack if needed.

Cooling is handled through passive thermal management, so there are no fans to introduce noise or potential failure points. Combined with threaded mounting points on the bottom panel, this allows the amplifier to be installed cleanly on a wall bracket or inside cabinetry without concerns about heat buildup.

The Model M1 measures 8-9/16 inches wide, 3-3/8 inches high, and 9-15/16 inches deep, weighs 4.84 pounds, and includes a 5-year warranty.

Marantz Model M1 Streaming Amplifier Rear Inputs

Building a System Around the Marantz Model M1

This is where things get practical. The goal here isn’t to be cheap, it’s to be smart. There’s a difference. Chasing the lowest price usually ends with compromises you can hear five minutes into your first album. The better play is finding speakers that won’t wreck your bank account, because let’s be honest, gas and electric bills are already doing a fine job of that, but still deliver real synergy with the M1 without forcing you into endless EQ tweaks.

That matters more than ever with a product like this. The Model M1 has the control and resolution to expose mismatches, but it’s also forgiving enough to reward a well-balanced pairing. You may not even need a subwoofer depending on your room size and speaker choice, which simplifies things even further. And now that Dirac Live room correction is part of the equation, you’ve got a tool that can actually address room issues that used to derail setups like this. Not a miracle cure, but a serious advantage if you use it properly.

I rotated through the DALI Kupid, Q Acoustics 3020c, Acoustic Energy AE100 MK2, and stepped up to the Wharfedale Diamond 12.3 and Q Acoustics 5040 floorstanders to see how far the M1 could stretch without things getting stupid.

The goal wasn’t to build some aspirational system that lives on a dealer floor. I kept the ceiling under $3,000 for a straightforward two-channel setup, and around $5,000 if you add a turntable or a compact subwoofer. Real-world money. Real-world rooms. The kind of systems people actually use in a den, living room, or bedroom without needing a second mortgage or a dedicated listening shrine.

For some people, the first question is obvious: can this small box actually drive medium to higher-sensitivity floorstanding speakers, or is that pushing it? The answer is yes—with some limits. It comes down to how loud you listen and how much space you’re trying to fill.

In my setup, both the Wharfedale Diamond 12.3 and Q Acoustics 5040 proved to be very workable pairings, but placement matters. These aren’t speakers you shove against a wall and forget about. They need roughly 2 to 3 feet of space behind them and at least 2 feet from the side walls to open up properly.

Give them that breathing room and they reward you with excellent imaging and a presentation that pulls away from the cabinets. The soundstage stretches wide, with a convincing sense of height, and both models do a very good job of disappearing when everything is dialed in correctly.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Darkness on the Edge of Town?

From a tonal perspective, the M1 leans slightly to the dark side of the Force, but not at the expense of clarity, speed, or overall presence. It’s not veiled or slow—it just carries more weight and density through the midrange and bass. Compared to something like the WiiM Ultra, the difference is obvious. The M1 delivers more texture and physicality, while the WiiM chases a bit more sparkle and top-end detail. The Marantz never comes across as thin or clinical.

If you’re familiar with Audiolab’s integrated and streaming amps, this goes in the opposite direction. Audiolab tends to run cool, clean, and very controlled, sometimes to the point of feeling a little detached. The M1 adds body, more impact down low, and a sense of drive that makes music feel less polite. You do give up some resolution and edge definition in the bass compared to Audiolab, but the trade-off is a more engaging and substantial presentation.

That character really shows itself with electronic music. Deadmau5, Boards of Canada, Aphex Twin, Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream; the M1 hits harder and fills in the space between notes in a way that feels more physical. It’s less about precision and more about momentum. Think thick Crayola markers versus ultra-fine ink pens. The Audiolab and WiiM draw cleaner lines, but the Marantz isn’t afraid to color outside them, and for this kind of music, that’s exactly the right move.

Switching over to vocals, the M1 keeps that same tonal balance intact. Male vocals come through with solid texture and weight, sitting slightly forward without sounding pushed. There’s a fullness here that works well with most recordings, but the speaker pairing makes a noticeable difference. I preferred vocals through the Q Acoustics 5040 over the Wharfedale Diamond 12.3; the 5040 offers better resolution and cleaner lower midrange detail, which gives voices more definition without thinning them out.

Sam Cooke, Elvis, Nick Cave, Jason Isbell, and John Prine all came across smooth and grounded. For some listeners, that might tip a bit too far into “safe,” depending on the speaker. Nick Cave in particular benefited from the added weight, but I missed a bit of the edge and growl that defines his delivery. The M1 doesn’t strip away character, but it does round things off slightly.

Left to right: Acoustic Energy AE100 MK2, DALI Kupid, Q Acoustics 3020c bookshelf speakers

Bookshelf Speakers and the Marantz M1: Where Synergy Wins

The bookshelf choices here weren’t random. The DALI Kupid, Q Acoustics 3020c, and Acoustic Energy AE100 MK2 were picked with a specific goal in mind; maximize performance without turning the room into an equipment shrine. These are the kinds of speakers that can live on proper stands or sit cleanly on a credenza under a TV and still deliver a convincing, full-range experience.

To make that work, they had to check a few non-negotiable boxes: real presence, enough impact to carry both music and movie soundtracks, strong imaging, and a soundstage that doesn’t collapse the second you move off-axis. This isn’t about chasing perfection which isn’t realistic at this price point. it’s about building a system that actually works in a real room, with real constraints, and still sounds like you didn’t cut corners.

For a deeper look at all three, you can check out my shoot-out results, but the short version is that each brings something worthwhile to the table with the M1. The Q Acoustics 3020c is the most complete of the group, offering more output, a wider soundstage, and better overall resolution. The Acoustic Energy AE100 MK2 trades some of that refinement for greater low-end presence and a punchier upper bass and lower midrange, which gives it more weight with rock and electronic tracks.

The DALI Kupid is the most lively of the three, with a more energetic top end that adds air and sparkle without tipping into harshness. That’s not an accident; DALI has a long track record of getting tweeter design right, and it shows here. It’s open and engaging, but never brittle. That said, its U.S. pricing feels a bit ambitious given its size and low-end extension, especially when compared to how it’s positioned in other markets.

So what would I actually buy? Having lived with both pairs of floorstanders, along with the Q Acoustics 3020c and Acoustic Energy AE100 MK2, it’s a lot easier to sort through what works and what doesn’t. On the floorstanding side, I’d lean toward the Q Acoustics 5040—but with a clear condition. Keep them in a reasonably sized room. My den in New Jersey (16 x 13 x 9), the home office I’m converting (21 x 13 x 9), and my Florida setup (15 x 12 x 9) are all good examples of spaces where speakers like the 5040 or Wharfedale Diamond 12.3 make sense. They fill the room without overloading it with bass or turning placement into a constant battle.

On the bookshelf side, I tend to favor the DALI and Q Acoustics pairings for their balance of clarity, imaging, and overall ease of placement. They’re the safer choices if you want something that just works across music, TV, and movies. But if you’re after more low-end weight and a stronger push through the upper bass and lower mids, the Acoustic Energy AE100 MK2 is the sleeper here. It doesn’t get talked about enough. The pacing is excellent, it has real punch for its size, and it looks far more expensive than it has any right to.

But what about HEOS control? That’s going to matter more than anything for a lot of people. In my case, it’s pretty straightforward. I use TIDAL and Qobuz almost exclusively, so having access to TIDAL Connect and Qobuz integration is what I actually care about. Roon isn’t part of the equation anymore. I sold my Nucleus and haven’t looked back. With a 2TB drive on the network holding more than 1,900 CDs ripped to FLAC, I already have everything I need locally without adding another layer of software into the chain.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Before wrapping things up, I also tested the M1 with HDMI eARC across all three of my TVs in New Jersey using a QED cable. No drama. It locked in immediately with no handshake issues, and control worked exactly as expected. Movies and TV were an immediate upgrade. “Landman,” “The Madison” on Paramount+, and even NHL games all benefited from the added scale, clarity, and tonal weight. It’s not even a fair fight compared to internal TV speakers or most of the soundbars I’ve used. I’ll take a proper stereo soundstage and believable dynamics over fake surround tricks every time.

The Bottom Line

The Marantz Model M1 doesn’t try to outgun the competition on features—and that’s the point. It delivers a cohesive, full-bodied sound with real texture, strong midrange presence, and enough power to drive the kinds of speakers people actually use in real rooms. HEOS keeps everything connected, HDMI eARC works without the usual nonsense, and Dirac Live gives you a legitimate tool to deal with room issues instead of pretending they don’t exist.

What you don’t get is just as important. No phono stage, limited analog inputs, and it’s not chasing razor-sharp treble detail or lab-grade precision. This isn’t for someone building a shrine to separates. It’s for someone who wants a clean, compact system that sounds right and doesn’t require a manual and a weekend to figure out. At $1,000, it earns its keep—and then some.

Editors’ Choice in the Network Amplifier category for those who can swing the price and have similar speaker options.