• Lithium deposits identified across Appalachia could supply hundreds of years of imports
• Domestic discoveries across multiple states point to expanding lithium exploration efforts
• Extraction capacity remains the biggest challenge despite large confirmed resource estimates

Lithium buried beneath parts of the Appalachian region could supply the United States with hundreds of years of material essential for batteries, electronics, and large-scale energy storage systems.

New estimates from the United States Geological Survey point to roughly 2.3 million metric tons of lithium oxide located in pegmatite formations spread across areas of the eastern United States.

Apple is keen for there to be a sequel to “F1: The Movie,” SVP Eddy Cue said, as the company hopes to increase its involvement with the motorsport in the future.

Apple has multiple connections to Formula 1, with it being the official broadcaster of the sport in the United States. It’s also behind the Brad Pitt vehicle “F1: The Movie,” which is also Apple TV’s most-watched movie.

With those successes in hand, Apple is planning for there to be more to both sides of the story.

Speaking to the press at the Miami Grand Prix on May 1, Apple SVP of Services Eddy Cue talked about both the real-life and fictional versions of Formula One.

On the movie, Cue said “I hope and expect there will be one,” reports Reuters.

Cue’s hope is well-founded, since it earned over $600 million at the box office, based on an estimated production cost of around $200 million. In February, producer Jerry Bruckheimer said that work is being carried out on a sequel.

The CEO of Formula 1, Stefano Domenicali, told reporters in February that a sequel wouldn’t happen in 2026, but strongly hinted at it being on the horizon.

Even so, there has yet to be any official confirmation that one will actually be produced.

Growing F1

Apple’s existing coverage of F1 in the United States has been well received, with Cue very happy at how it’s gone so far. However, he says Apple wants to do more to grow its presence.

He acknowledges that F1 doesn’t get licensed on a global basis, but that isn’t hurting Apple’s intentions. Cue says he hopes Apple can grow into other areas and markets with its streaming coverage.

Starting in the United States is a “huge market” for Apple, and building within it is “definitely the right way” to progress, says Cue. “And then of course, it would be great to expand it.”

Earlier in April, Cue said that 30% of people watching F1 are using the multiview function.

When it comes to the transition of CEO from Tim Cook to John Ternus, Cue believes it will only make Apple’s relationship with F1 even stronger.

Ternus drives a Porsche and is an amateur racer, Cue explained, adding “He would actually be here this weekend but he’s at Laguna Seca.” Cue believes that Ternus would end up being at more races than Cook, and that he’s a “huge, huge fan of F1.”

Microsoft Defender is detecting legitimate DigiCert root certificates as Trojan:Win32/Cerdigent.A!dha, resulting in widespread false-positive alerts, and in some cases, removing certificates from Windows.

According to cybersecurity expert Florian Roth, the issue first appeared after Microsoft added the detections to a Defender signature update on April 30th.

Today, administrators worldwide began reporting that DigiCert root certificate entries were flagged as malware and, on affected systems, removed from the Windows trust store.

According to a Reddit post about the false positives, the detected certificates are:

• 0563B8630D62D75ABBC8AB1E4BDFB5A899B24D43
• DDFB16CD4931C973A2037D3FC83A4D7D775D05E4

On impacted systems, these certificates were removed from the AuthRoot store under this Registry key:

HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\SystemCertificates\AuthRoot\Certificates\

These false positives have led to concern among Windows users, with some thinking their devices were infected and reinstalling the operating system to be safe.

Microsoft has reportedly fixed the detections in Security Intelligence update version 1.449.430.0, and the most recent update is now 1.449.431.0.

Other reports on Reddit indicate that the fix also restores previously removed certificates on affected systems.

The new Microsoft Defender updates will automatically install, and Windows users can manually force an update by going into Windows Security > Virus and threat protection > Protection updates and clicking on Check for Updates.

Possibly linked to a recent DigiCert breach

The false positives occur shortly after a disclosed DigiCert security incident that enabled threat actors to obtain valid code-signing certificates used to sign malware.

“A malware incident targeted a customer support team member. Upon detection, the threat vector was contained,” explains the DigiCert incident report.

“Our subsequent investigation found that the threat actor was able to procure initialization codes for a limited number of code signing certificates, few of which were then used to sign malware.”

“The identified certificates were revoked within 24 hours of discovery and the revocation date set to their date of issuance. As a precautionary measure, pending orders within the window of interest were cancelled. Additional details will be provided in our full incident report.”

According to DigiCert’s incident report, attackers targeted the company’s support staff in early April by creating support messages containing a malicious ZIP file disguised as a screenshot.

After multiple blocked attempts, one support analyst’s device was eventually compromised, followed by a second system that went undetected for a time due to an endpoint protection “sensor gap.”

Using access to the breached support environment, the hacker used a feature in DigiCert’s internal support portal that allowed support staff to view customer accounts from the customer’s perspective.

While limited in scope, this access exposed “initialization codes” to previously approved, but undelivered, EV code-signing certificate orders.

“Possession of an initialization code, combined with an approved order, is sufficient to obtain the resulting certificate (see Contributing Factors discussion below),” explained DigiCert.

“Since the threat actor was able to obtain these two pieces of information for a finite set of approved orders, they were able to obtain EV Code Signing certificates across a set of customer accounts and CAs.”

DigiCert says it revoked 60 code-signing certificates, including 27 linked to a “Zhong Stealer” malware campaign.

“11 were identified in certificate problem reports provided to DigiCert by community members linking the certificates to malware, and 16 were identified during our own investigation,” explained DigiCert.

Zhong Stealer malware campaign

This aligns with earlier reports from security researchers who had observed newly issued DigiCert EV certificates used in malware campaigns and reported them to DigiCert.

Researchers, including Squiblydoo, MalwareHunterTeam, and g0njxa, reported that certificates issued to well-known companies such as Lenovo, Kingston, Shuttle Inc, and Palit Microsystems were being used to sign malware.

“What do Lenovo, Kingston, Shuttle Inc, and Palit Microsystems have in common?,” posted Squiblydoo on X.

“EV Certificates from these companies were issued and used by a Chinese crime group, #GoldenEyeDog (#APT-Q-27)!”

The malware in this campaign is named “Zhong Stealer,” though analysis indicates it may be more like a remote access trojan (RAT) than an infostealer.

The researcher says the malware was distributed through the following attacks:

• Phishing emails deliver a fake image or screenshot
• A first-stage executable that displays a decoy image
• Retrieval of a second-stage payload from cloud storage such as AWS
• Use of signed binaries and loaders, including components tied to legitimate vendors

After DigiCert disclosed the incident, the researchers said the incident report explains how the certificates used in these malware campaigns were obtained.

While Microsoft has not confirmed that the Defender detections are a result of the DigiCert incident, the timing and focus on DigiCert-related certificates suggest a possible connection.

However, it should be noted that the certificates flagged by Microsoft Defender are root certificates in the Windows trust store and do not match the revoked DigiCert code-signing certificates used to sign malware.

BleepingComputer contacted Microsoft with questions about the campaign, including whether it was tied to DigiCert’s breach.

AI chained four zero-days into one exploit that bypassed both renderer and OS sandboxes. A wave of new exploits is coming.

At the Autonomous Validation Summit (May 12 & 14), see how autonomous, context-rich validation finds what’s exploitable, proves controls hold, and closes the remediation loop.

Claim Your Spot

Flip-phones are not only a fun way to get a hit of nostalgia, but they’re quickly becoming seriously useful everyday smartphones too.

Motorola has reinvented its iconic Razr flip-phone and recently introduced the Razr 70 series, which is headlined by the premium Razr 70 Ultra. But how does it measure up to Samsung’s own Galaxy Z Flip 7?

While we haven’t reviewed the Razr 70 Ultra just yet, we’ve compared its specs to the Z Flip 7 and highlighted the key differences between the clamshell flip phones below. Keep reading to decide which handset is likely to suit you best. Alternatively, we’ve also compared the Motorola Razr 70 Ultra vs 70 Plus vs 70, so you can see the entire collection side-by-side.

Otherwise, our list of the best foldables and best smartphones reveal our current favourites on the market.

Specs comparison table

	Motorola Razr 70 Ultra	Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7
Battery	5000mAh	4300mAh
Chip	Snapdragon 8 Elite	Exynos 2500
Internal Camera	50MP	10MP
External Display	4-inches	4.1-inches
Inner Display	6.96-inches	6.9-inches
Operating System	Android 16	Android 16
Rear Cameras	50 + 50MP	50 + 12MP
UK RRP	£1199.99	$1499.99
US RRP	$1099.99	$1099.99

Advertisement

Price and Availability

The Motorola Razr 70 Ultra is the priciest of its series, with a starting RRP of £1199.99 / €1399.99. At the time of writing, the handset will be available for pre-order in the US from May 14 ahead of its official launch on May 21, with an RRP of $1499.99.

The Galaxy Z Flip 7 is readily available to buy now, and has an official RRP of £1049/$1099.99, However, as the phone is nearly a year old, it is possible to find the handset with a decent price cut.

SQUIRREL_PLAYLIST_10207784

Advertisement

Motorola Razr 70 Ultra runs on Snapdragon 8 Elite

Motorola has opted to fit the Razr 70 Ultra with Qualcomm’s 2025 Snapdragon 8 Elite, rather than the newer Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5. This is somewhat understandable, as the Razr 70 Ultra isn’t necessarily a productivity handset, so doesn’t necessarily need the oomph of the newer processor. 

It’s a similar situation with the Galaxy Z Flip 7, with Samsung kitting the foldable with its own Exynos 2500 chip, rather than Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy which is found in the Z Fold 7. Even so, we don’t think you’re likely to notice that much of a difference in real-world use, as the Z Flip 7 feels fast and responsive for most uses-cases, without any noticeable slowdown or overheating. 

Advertisement

Sure, Exynos 2500 doesn’t achieve the same high benchmark scores as phones running on Snapdragon 8 Elite, but it’s still a solid processor that performs well. 

Otherwise, although we haven’t reviewed the phone just yet, Motorola promises that the Razr 70 Ultra is the “most powerful Razr” ever. It actually uses the same chip as its predecessor, the Razr 60 Ultra, which we concluded offered a solid performance across everything from casual uses to even casual gaming too. 

Advertisement

We’ll have to wait until we review the Razr 70 Ultra to see how it really performs in everyday use.

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 will see Android updates until 2032

One of the most appealing features of the Galaxy Z Flip 7 is that Samsung promises it will see Android and security updates right up to July 2032 – taking the handset to Android 23. Considering the Z Flip 7 is upwards of £/$1000, this makes the cost seem like more of an investment, as you won’t necessarily need to buy a new phone in the next six years. 

Unfortunately, the Razr 70 Ultra doesn’t quite boast the same promise. While the Razr 70 Ultra will see five years of security updates, it’s only promised three years of Android OS updates. That will take the phone up to Android 19.

Advertisement

Motorola Razr 70 Ultra has a larger battery

With a 5000mAh cell, the Razr 70 Ultra boasts a considerably larger battery capacity than the Z Flip 7. In fact, Motorola states that this is the largest battery found among flip phones. With this in mind, we expect the handset to offer a pretty generous all-day battery life, but we’ll have to wait until we review the 70 Ultra to confirm this.

Advertisement

Although at 4300mAh, the Z Flip 7’s battery is considerably smaller, we should disclaim that we never struggled with its efficiency. During our testing, we found the phone comfortably saw us through a day’s worth of use before needing to be topped up.

Speaking of topping up, the Razr 70 Ultra does benefit from faster charging speeds than the Z Flip, with support for 68W wired and 30W wireless speeds. In comparison, the Z Flip 7 supports a pretty measly 25W wired and 15W wireless.

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 has a larger cover display

At 4.1-inches, the Z Flip 7 has a slightly larger cover display than the Razr 70 Ultra’s four-inch alternative. However, there are a few caveats to keep in mind.

Firstly, we found the Z Flip 7’s cover display to be more cumbersome to use and much less optimised than Motorola’s efforts. There are only a few pre-selected apps that you can launch on the outer screen and to enable others, you’ll need to download Multistar or other workarounds, which isn’t particularly ideal. Plus, its keyboard isn’t as easy to use as Gboard either.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Instead, more apps are optimised by default on the Razr 70 Ultra’s cover display, and the keyboard is much easier to type on when you don’t want to open up the handset. It’s also worth pointing out that the 70 Ultra’s cover screen sports many of the same specs as the 60 Ultra, and you can learn more about the differences between the two in our dedicated Razr 70 Ultra vs 60 Ultra guide.

Motorola Razr 70 Ultra has three 50MP cameras

Although both handsets have a total of three cameras, including two rear and one internal lens, they differ with their exact resolutions. Like its predecessor, the Galaxy Z Flip 7 is fitted with a 50MP main and a 12MP ultrawide at its rear, while its internal camera is 10MP. Generally, we found the hardware is able to take great shots in most lighting conditions, though our best camera phones have options better suited to keen photographers.

In comparison, the Razr 70 Ultra is equipped with three 50MP lenses, including a main and ultrawide/macro combination at the rear and one internal. Motorola has also introduced new shooting modes to the entire Razr 70 series, including Camcorder Rotate to Zoom which uses AI to automatically identify and zoom in on a subject. This mode leans into Motorola’s nostalgia, as you have to hold the phone like a camcorder.

Early Verdict

If you’re keen to try out a flip-phone, then the Motorola Razr 70 Ultra and Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 are two great options. If you’re looking for a more usable cover display, plenty of nostalgic features and a mighty batter, then the Razr 70 Ultra seems like a brilliant option. However, if you want a phone that’ll see Android updates for many years, the Galaxy Z Flip 7 is hard to beat.

Advertisement

Advertisement

We’ll be sure to update this versus once we review the Motorola Razr 70 Ultra.

A new study examines how large language models perform in a variety of medical contexts, including real emergency room cases — where at least one model seemed to be more accurate than human doctors.

The study was published this week in Science and comes from a research team led by physicians and computer scientists at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The researchers said they conducted a variety of experiments to measure how OpenAI’s models compared to human physicians.

In one experiment, researchers focused on 76 patients who came into the Beth Israel emergency room, comparing the diagnoses offered by two attending physicians to those generated by OpenAI’s o1 and 4o models. These diagnoses were assessed by two other attending physicians, who did not know which ones came from humans and which came from AI.

“At each diagnostic touchpoint, o1 either performed nominally better than or on par with the two attending physicians and 4o,” the study said, adding that the differences “were especially pronounced at the first diagnostic touchpoint (initial ER triage), where there is the least information available about the patient and the most urgency to make the correct decision.”

In Harvard Medical School’s press release about the study, the researchers emphasized that they did not “pre-process the data at all” — the AI models were presented with the same information that was available in the electronic medical records at the time of each diagnosis. 

With that information, the o1 model managed to offer “the exact or very close diagnosis” in 67% of triage cases, compared to one physician who had the exact or close diagnosis 55% of the time, and to the other who hit the mark 50% of the time.

“We tested the AI model against virtually every benchmark, and it eclipsed both prior models and our physician baselines,” said Arjun Manrai, who heads an AI lab at Harvard Medical School and is one of the study’s lead authors, in the press release.

To be clear, the study didn’t claim that AI is ready to make real life-or-death decisions in the emergency room. Instead, it said the findings show an “urgent need for prospective trials to evaluate these technologies in real-world patient care settings.”

The researchers also noted that they only studied how models performed when provided with text-based information, and that “existing studies suggest that current foundation models are more limited in reasoning over nontext inputs.”

Adam Rodman, a Beth Israel doctor who’s also one of the study’s lead authors, warned the Guardian that there’s “no formal framework right now for accountability” around AI diagnoses, and that patients still “want humans to guide them through life or death decisions [and] to guide them through challenging treatment decisions”.