It’s easy to assume that Robert Woo was defined by the accident that took away his ability to walk.
Certainly, the day of his accident—14 December 2007—was a turning point. Woo, an architect working on the new Goldman Sachs headquarters in New York City, hadn’t attended his company’s holiday party the night before, and that morning he was the only one in the trailer that served as the construction-site office. He was bent over his laptop when, 30 floors above, a crane’s nylon sling gave way, sending about 6 tonnes of steel plummeting toward the trailer. The roof collapsed, folding Woo in half and smashing his face into his laptop, which smashed through his desk.
“I was conscious throughout the whole ordeal,” Woo remembers. “It was an out-of-body experience. I could hear myself screaming in pain. I could hear the voices of the rescue workers. I heard one firefighter say, ‘Don’t worry, we’re getting to you.’” The rescue workers hauled him out of the rubble and got him to the emergency room in 18 minutes flat; with one lung crushed and the other punctured, he wouldn’t have lasted much longer. In those frantic early moments, a doctor told him that he might be paralyzed from the neck down for the rest of his life. He remembers asking the doctors to let him die.
Woo simply couldn’t imagine how a paralyzed version of himself could continue living his life. Then 39 years old, he worked long hours and jetted around the world to supervise the construction of skyscrapers. More important, he had two young boys, ages 6 months and 2 years. “I couldn’t see having a life while being paralyzed from the neck down, not being able to teach my boys how to play ball,” he recalls. “What kind of life would that be?”
Advertisement
Robert Woo walks inside the Wandercraft facility in New York City using the company’s latest self-balancing exoskeleton. Nicole Millman
But in a Manhattan showroom last May, Woo showed that he’s not defined by that accident, which left him paralyzed from the chest down, but with the use of his arms. Instead, he has defined himself by how he has responded to his injury, and the new life he built after it.
In the showroom, Woo transferred himself from his wheelchair to a 80-kilogram (176-pound) exoskeleton suit. After strapping himself in, he manipulated a joystick in his left hand to rise from a chair and then proceeded to walk across the room on robotic legs. Woo’s steps were short but smooth, and he clanked as he walked.
This exoskeleton, from the French company Wandercraft, is one of the first to let the user walk without arm braces or crutches, which most other models require to stabilize the user’s upper body. The battery-powered exoskeleton took care of both propulsion and balance; Woo just had to steer. The bulky apparatus had a backplate that extended above Woo’s head, a large padded collar, armrests, motorized legs, and footplates. Walking across the room, he appeared to be half man, half machine. On the other side of the showroom’s plate-glass window, on Park Avenue, a kid walking by with his family came to a dead halt on the sidewalk, staring with awe at the cyborg inside.
Advertisement
Robert Woo prepares to walk in a Wandercraft exoskeleton; the device’s controller enables him to stand up, initiate walk mode, and choose a direction. Bryan Anselm/Redux
The amazement on the boy’s face was reminiscent of Woo’s young sons’ reaction when they saw a photo of Woo trying out an early exoskeleton, back in 2011. “Their first comment was, ‘Oh, Daddy’s in an Iron Man suit,’” he remembers. Then they asked, “When are you going to start flying?” To which Woo replied, “Well, I’ve got to learn how to walk first.”
The title of exoskeleton superhero suits Woo. He’s as soft-spoken and mild-mannered as Clark Kent, with a smile that lights up his face. Yet the strength underneath is undeniable; he has built a new life out of sheer determination.
For 15 years, he’s been a test pilot, early adopter, and clinical-study subject for the most prominent exoskeletons under development around the world. He placed the first order for an exoskeleton that was approved for home use, and he learned what it was like to be Iron Man around the house. Throughout it all, he has given the companies detailed feedback drawn from both his architectural design skills and his user experience. He has shaped the technology from inside of it.
Saikat Pal, a researcher at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, in Newark, met Woo during clinical trials for Wandercraft’s first model. Like so many others in the field, Pal quickly recognized that Woo brought a lot to the table. “He’s a super-mega user of exoskeletons: very enthusiastic, very athletic,” Pal says. “He’s the perfect subject.”
Advertisement
By pushing the technology forward, Woo has paved the way for thousands of people with spinal cord injuries as well as other forms of paralysis, who are now benefiting from exoskeletons in rehab clinics and in their homes. “Our bionics program at Mount Sinai started with Robert Woo,” says Angela Riccobono, the director of rehabilitation neuropsychology at Mount Sinai Hospital, in New York City, where Woo became an outpatient after his accident. “We have a plaque that dedicates our bionics program to him.”
Robert Woo walks down a sidewalk in New York City in 2015 using a ReWalk exoskeleton, one of the first exoskeletons designed for use outside the rehab clinic. Eliza Strickland
It’s a fitting tribute. Woo’s post-accident life has been marked by victories, frustrations, deep love, and one devastating loss, and yet he has continued to devote himself to bionics. And while his vision for exoskeletons hasn’t changed, experience has reshaped what he expects from them in his lifetime.
Long before Woo ever stood up in a robotic suit, he had developed the habits of mind that would later make him an unusually perceptive test pilot.
Advertisement
Woo has always been a builder, a tinkerer, a fixer. Growing up in the suburbs of Toronto, he put together model kits of battleships and airplanes without looking at the instructions. “I just put things together the way I thought it would work out,” he says. He trained as an architect and in 2000 joined the Toronto-based firm Adamson Associates Architects, a job that soon had him traveling to Europe and Asia to work on corporate high-rises.
Adamson specializes in taking the stunning designs of visionary architects and turning them into practical buildings with elevators and bathrooms. “Most of the design architects don’t really have a clue about how to build buildings,” Woo says. He liked solving those problems; he liked reconciling beautiful designs with the stubborn reality of construction. That talent for understanding a structure from the inside and spotting the flaws would prove essential later.
After his accident, Woo had two major surgeries to stabilize his crushed spine, which required surgeons to cut through muscles and nerves that connected to his arms. For two months, he couldn’t feel or move his arms; there was a chance he never would again. Only when sensation began creeping back into his fingertips did he allow himself to imagine a different future. If he wasn’t paralyzed from the neck down, he thought, maybe more of his body could be brought back online. “My focus was to walk again,” he says.
Woo was discharged in March 2008 and went back to his New York City apartment. He was still bedridden and required around-the-clock care. He doesn’t much like to talk about this next part: By May, his then-wife had moved back to Canada and filed for divorce, asking for full custody of their two children. Woo remembers her saying, “I can’t look after three babies, and one of them for life.”
Advertisement
It was a dark time. Riccobono of Mount Sinai, who met Woo shortly after he became an outpatient there in 2008, recalls the despondent look on his face the first time they talked. “I wasn’t sure that he wasn’t going to take his life, to be honest,” she says. “He felt like he had nothing to live for.”
Angela Riccobono of Mount Sinai Hospital (left) credits Woo with jump-starting the hospital’s bionics program; a plaque in the department of rehabilitation medicine recognizes his role.
Yet Woo harbors no animosity toward his ex-wife. “If we hadn’t separated and gone through the custody hearing, I don’t think I would have gotten this far,” he says. To win partial custody of his children, Woo had to become independent. He had to get off narcotic pain medications, regain strength, and learn how to navigate life in a wheelchair. He had to show that he no longer needed constant nursing, and that he could take care of both himself and his boys.
There were milestones: learning how to get back into his wheelchair after a fall, learning to drive a car with hand controls, learning to manage his body as it was, not as it had been. The biggest change came when he reconnected with his high school sweetheart, a vivacious woman named Vivian Springer. She was then dividing her time between Toronto and New York City, and she had a son who was almost the same age as Woo’s two boys. Springer had worked in a nursing home and knew how to change the sheets without getting him out of bed; she was currently working in human resources and knew how to deal with insurance companies. “You wouldn’t believe how much stress it lifted off of me,” Woo says. Over time, they became a family.
Robert Woo’s wife, Vivian, was trained in how to operate the device he used at home. His sons, Tristan (left) and Adrien, grew up watching their dad test exoskeletons. Left: Lifeward; Right: Robert Woo
Once Woo had that foundation in place, Riccobono witnessed a profound change. “He went from focusing on ‘what I can’t do anymore’ to ‘What’s still possible? What can I do with what I have?’” At Mount Sinai, Woo remembers asking his doctor Kristjan Ragnarsson, who was then chairman of the department of rehabilitation medicine, if he would ever walk again. “His response was, ‘Yes, you can walk again,’” Woo remembers, “‘but not the way you used to walk.’”
Advertisement
First Steps in an Exoskeleton
As soon as he had regained use of his hands, Woo had started googling, looking for anything that could get him back on his feet. He tried rehab equipment like the Lokomat, which used a harness suspended above a treadmill to enable users to walk. But at the time, it required three physical therapists: one to move each leg and one to control the machine. It was a far cry from the independent strides he dreamed of.
Several years in, he learned about two companies that had built something radically different: exoskeleton suits for people with spinal cord injuries. These prototypes had motors at the knees and the hips to move the legs, with the user stabilizing their upper body with arm braces. Woo desperately wanted to try one, although the technology was still experimental and far from regulatory approval. So he took the idea to Ragnarsson, asking if Mount Sinai could bring an exoskeleton into its rehab clinic for a test drive. Ragnarsson, who’s now retired, remembers the request well. “He certainly gave us the kick in the behind to get going with the technology,” he says.
Robert Woo tries out an early exoskeleton from Ekso Bionics at Mount Sinai Hospital, where he first began testing the technology. Mario Tama/Getty Images
Ragnarsson had seen decades of failed attempts to get paraplegics upright, including “inflatable garments made of the same material the astronauts used when they went to the moon,” he says. All those devices had proved too tiring for the user; in contrast, the battery-powered exoskeletons promised to do most of the work. And he knew one of the founders of Ekso Bionics, a Berkeley, Calif.–based company that had built exoskeletons for the military. In 2011, Ekso brought its new clinical prototype to Mount Sinai.
The day came for Woo’s first walk. “I was excited, and I was also scared, because I hadn’t stood up for almost five years,” he remembers. “Standing up for the first time was like floating, because I couldn’t feel my feet.” In that first Ekso model, Woo didn’t control when he stepped forward; instead, he shifted his weight in preparation, and then a physical therapist used a remote control to trigger the step. Woo walked slowly across the room, using a walker to stabilize his upper body, his steps a symphony of clunks and creaks and whirs. He found it mentally and physically exhausting, but the effort felt like progress.
Advertisement
Robert Woo stands using an exoskeleton and embraces his wife, Vivian. Woo says that exoskeleton use has both physical and psychological benefits. Mt. Sinai
Riccobono was there for those first steps, with tears running down her face. “I remembered how he looked the day I first met him, so defeated,” she says. “To see him rise from the chair, to see him rise to a standing position, to see how tall he was, to see him take those first steps—it was beautiful.” Ragnarsson saw clear benefits to the technology. “Any type of walking is good physiologically,” he says. “And it’s a tremendous boost psychologically to stand up and look someone in the eye.” Woo remembers hugging his partner, Springer, and for the first time not worrying about running over her toes with his wheelchair. I first met Woo a few days later, during his third session with the Ekso at Mount Sinai.
Ann Spungen (left), a researcher at a Veterans Affairs hospital, led early clinical trials of exoskeletons. Her research focused on the medical benefits of exoskeleton use. Robert Woo
Later that same year, at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital in the Bronx, Woo got to try a prototype of the world’s other leading exoskeleton: the ReWalk, from the Israeli company of the same name (since renamed Lifeward). VA researchers, led by Ann Spungen, were keen to determine if exoskeleton use had real medical value for veterans with spinal cord injuries. Woo was part of that clinical trial, for which he had more than 70 walking sessions, and he’s since been in many others. But he remembers the first VA trial with the most gratitude. “Dr. Spungen’s first exoskeleton clinical trial really turned things around for me,” he says.
Over the course of the trial’s nine intense months, Woo says he saw noticeable improvements to many facets of his health. “By the end of the trial, I eliminated about three-quarters of my medication intake,” he says, including narcotic pain pills and medication for muscle spasms. He grew fitter, with less body fat, more muscle mass, and lower cholesterol. His circulation improved, he says, causing scrapes and cuts to heal more quickly, and his digestion improved too. The results Woo experienced have generally been borne out in research studies at the VA and elsewhere—exoskeletons aren’t just good for the mind, they’re good for the body.
Advertisement
Improving Exoskeletons From the Inside
During the VA trial, Woo began to think of exoskeletons not as miraculous machines, but as works in progress.
Pierre Asselin (right), a biomedical engineer, worked with Robert Woo during clinical trials of exoskeletons. He says Woo was always pushing the limits of the technology. Robert Woo
Pierre Asselin, the biomedical engineer coordinating the VA’s study, watched participants respond very differently to the equipment. “These devices are not the equivalent of walking—you’re tired after walking a mile,” he says. He notes that later models of both the Ekso and ReWalk enabled users to initiate each step through software that recognized when they shifted their weight. Asselin adds that the cognitive load is “like learning to drive a manual transmission car, where at first you’re really struggling to coordinate the clutch and the brake.” Woo picked it up immediately, he remembers.
Robert Woo uses an exoskeleton to reach items in a kitchen cabinet during a test of the device’s utility for everyday tasks. Eliza Strickland
Woo became an invaluable partner, Asselin says. “When we first started with the devices, there was no training manual. We developed all of that through collaboration with Robert and other participants.” Woo pushed the limits of the technology, Asselin says, whether it was seeing how many steps he could take on one battery charge or simulating a failure mode. “He’d say, ‘What happens if I was to fall? What would be the approach to getting up?’”
Woo approached the ReWalk the way he had approached buildings in his previous life: He looked inside the structure and found the weak points. An early model left some users with leg abrasions where the straps rubbed—a small injury for most people, but a serious risk for someone who can’t feel a wound forming. Woo suggested better padding and stronger abdominal supports to redistribute the load. He also hated the heavy backpack that carried the battery and computer, so one afternoon he grabbed an old pack, cut off the straps, and rebuilt it into a compact hip-mounted pouch. Then he snapped photos and sent them to the company. The next model arrived with a fanny pack.
Advertisement
Robert Woo sent detailed design sketches as part of his feedback to exoskeleton engineers. Robert Woo
Sometimes his fixes were more ambitious. One Ekso unit that he used at Mount Sinai kept shutting down after 30 minutes. Woo felt the hip motors and found them hot to the touch. “I said, ‘Can I remove these? I’m going to make a really quick fix, okay? Give me a drill and I’ll put a couple of holes in it,” he recalls telling the therapists, proposing to create a DIY heat sink. He wasn’t allowed to modify the prototype, but a year later the company introduced improved cooling around the hip motors. “There is a Robert Woo design on this device,” one therapist told him.
Eythor Bender, who was then the CEO of Ekso, called Woo to thank him for his feedback and invite him to spend a week at Ekso’s headquarters. “There was no lack of engineering power in that building,” says Bender. “But sometimes when you work with engineers, they overlook important things.” Bender says Woo brought both design skills and lived experience to his weeklong residency. “He told the engineers, ‘Guys, this has to be something that people actually like to wear.’”
Ekso Bionics CEO Eythor Bender and Mount Sinai physician Kristjan Ragnarsson were both on hand for Woo’s early trials of the Ekso device. Ragnarsson says he saw physical and psychological benefits of exoskeleton use. Robert Woo
The longer Woo tested, the further ahead he started thinking. With motors only at the hips and knees, every exoskeleton still required crutches. Add powered ankles, he told the Ekso and ReWalk teams, and the suits could balance themselves, freeing the user’s hands. But Woo was ahead of his time. “They said they weren’t going to do that. They weren’t going to change their whole platform,” he remembers. Years later, though, hands-free exoskeletons like those from Wandercraft would emerge built around exactly that principle.
When the Exoskeleton Came Home
By the mid-2010s, Woo had pushed the technology as far as he could in clinics. What he wanted now was to use an exoskeleton at home.
Advertisement
That milestone came after ReWalk’s exoskeleton became the first to win FDA approval for home use in 2014. ReWalk engineers still remember Woo’s help on the final tests for that personal-use model. It was the end of May in 2015, recalls David Hexner, the company’s vice president of research and development. “He said, ‘Guys, this is great. I’m going to buy it.’”
Woo was the first customer to buy an exoskeleton to bring home, paying US $80,000 out of pocket. His insurance wouldn’t cover the cost, but he was able to make the purchase in part because of a legal settlement after his accident. The home-use model came with a requirement that the user have at least one companion who was fully trained in operating the device. In Woo’s case, that meant that Springer learned to suit him up, realign his balance, and help him if he fell.
On delivery day, two SUVs drove up to a hotel down the street from Woo’s condo in the Toronto area. The technicians hauled two huge boxes into a hotel room and assembled his personal exoskeleton. They took Woo’s measurements, made adjustments, checked the software. This latest version could be controlled by either weight shifting or tapping commands on a smartwatch, and Woo had the app ready. He tested out everything in the hotel room, signed off, and then the technicians drove his robot legs to his home.
That was the start of his golden period with the ReWalk—similar to the excitement many people experience with a new piece of exercise equipment. “I used it every day for a few hours, and then I started logging how many steps I’d done,” Woo says. “My last count was probably just slightly over a million steps,” he says, with half of those steps taken in his home unit and half in training programs and clinical trials.
Advertisement
The ReWalk was the first exoskeleton available for use outside the clinic. Robert Woo’s ReWalk arrived in two large boxes. ReWalk engineers assembled it in a hotel room, and Woo tried it out in the hallway before taking it home. Robert Woo
Tristan, Woo’s eldest son, remembers doing laps with his dad in the condo’s underground parking garage while his dad was training for a 5-kilometer race in New York City. Tristan admits that he had previously been embarrassed about his dad, but training for the race shifted something for him. “I was so used to not wanting to tell people that my dad was in a wheelchair, but then I shared his passion for the training,” he says. “When people would come up to us, I’d tell them about it.”
The ReWalk could turn ordinary moments into small engineering projects. On weekends, Woo would take his boys to the golf course behind their condo and bring a baseball. He had rigged two holsters to the sides of the suit so he could stash a crutch and stand on three points (two legs and one arm) while he pitched or caught. Throw, switch crutches, catch. On the day of his accident, he never thought such a scene would be possible. But with the exoskeleton, it became just another design problem to solve. “It’s a little more work. It’s not perfect,” he says. “But in the end, you still get to do what you want to do—which is play ball with your sons.”
Tristan, now a college student, says he didn’t realize at the time how hard his dad worked to make those mundane activities possible. “Reflecting on it now,” he says, “he has shaped almost every element of my life, and he definitely is my hero.”
But even during that golden stretch, the ReWalk had a way of asserting its limits. Every so often it would freeze mid-stride and require a reboot—a small technical hiccup in theory, but a serious problem when there’s a person strapped inside. Once, when he was walking on his own in the parking garage (without his mandated companion), the suit glitched and went into “graceful collapse” mode, lowering him to a seated position on the ground. Woo had to ask security to bring his wheelchair and a dolly.
Advertisement
He had imagined the exoskeleton would be most useful in the kitchen. Woo loves to cook, and he had pictured himself standing at the stove, looking down into pots, and moving easily between counter and sink. The reality, he found out, was more complicated. “It’s actually very time-consuming and troublesome” to cook in an exoskeleton, he says.
Preparing a meal meant first rolling through the kitchen in his wheelchair to gather every ingredient and utensil, then transferring himself into the ReWalk and moving himself into position at the counter, stopping at just the right moment. “That’s when I fell once,” Woo says. “I collided with the counter and then lost my balance and fell backward.” If all went well, he’d lean either on one crutch or the counter to keep his balance while he worked. But if he’d forgotten to grab the vinegar from the cabinet, he’d have to go into walk mode, crutch over to it, and figure out how to carry the bottle back to his workstation.
Sitting unused in Robert Woo’s home, his ReWalk exoskeleton reflects both the promise and the limits of early devices. Robert Woo
Gradually, he stopped trying. The suit, which he’d once worn every day, spent more time sitting idle in the hallway; like so many abandoned treadmills and stationary bikes, it gathered dust. Part of the reason was the exoskeleton’s practical limitations, but part of it was a shocking development: In 2024, Vivian was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer. She died in November of that year, at the age of 54.
Woo was scheduled to begin a new round of clinical trials for the Wandercraft home-use exoskeleton that month. In the aftermath of Vivian’s death, he postponed his sessions and questioned whether he would ever go back. “At the time, I thought, ‘What’s the point?’” he remembers.
Advertisement
He did go back, though. “He just rolled up, right into my office,” says Mount Sinai’s Riccobono. “He still had Vivian’s box of ashes on his lap. That’s how fresh it was.” Woo brought the box into a meeting of spinal cord injury patients and shared the story of losing the love of his life. And he told them that he heard his wife’s voice in his head every day, telling him to get back to work. Once again, he was figuring out how to move forward with what he had.
How Close Are We to Everyday Exoskeletons?
In the Wandercraft showroom last May, Woo steered toward the door to the street, technicians flanking him like spotters. The slope down to the sidewalk was barely an inch high, but everyone tensed. He shifted his weight and took a step forward. The suit halted automatically. He tried again—step, stop; step, stop—as the suit kept detecting the slight decline and a safety feature kicked in. The Wandercraft isn’t yet rated for slopes of more than 2 percent, and even the gentle pitch of Park Avenue was enough to trigger its safeguards. When he finally reached the sidewalk, Woo broke into a grin. A man in the back seat of a stopped Uber leaned out his window, filming.
During testing of the Wandercraft exoskeleton, straps caused an abrasion on Robert Woo’s leg, which he documented as part of his feedback to the company. Robert Woo
Woo had recently completed seven sessions with the Wandercraft at the VA hospital and had been impressed overall. But at the showroom, he rolled up his pants leg to reveal an abrasion on his shin, the result of a strap that had worn away a patch of skin during a long walking session. He would later send Wandercraft a nine-page assessment with photos and a technology wish list, asking the company to work on things like padding, variable walking speeds, and deeper squats.
Wandercraft’s engineers relish that kind of user feedback, says CEO Matthieu Masselin. Exoskeletons are a far more difficult engineering problem than humanoid robots, he explains. “You basically have two systems of equal importance. You know about the robot—it’s fully quantified and measured. But you don’t know what the person is doing, and how the person is moving within the device.”
Advertisement
Since Woo began testing exoskeletons 15 years ago, both the technology and the market have made strides. ReWalk and Ekso won FDA clearance for clinical use in the 2010s, and both now sell home-use versions. The companies have sold thousands of exoskeletons to rehab clinics and personal users, and they see room for growth; in the United States alone, about 300,000 people live with spinal cord injuries, and millions more have mobility impairments from stroke, multiple sclerosis, or other conditions. The VA began supplying devices to eligible veterans in 2015, and Medicare recently established a system for reimbursement, a move that private insurers are beginning to follow. What was once experimental is slowly becoming established.
Researchers who test the devices say the technology still has significant limits. Pal, of the New Jersey Institute of Technology, mentions battery life, dexterity, and reliability as ongoing challenges. But, he says with a laugh, “Our bodies have evolved over many millions of years—these machines will need a bit more time.” Pal hopes the companies will keep pushing the technological frontier. “My lifetime goal is to see the day when someone like Robert Woo can wake up in the morning, put this device on, and then live an ordinary life.”
For Woo, the real question about the self-balancing Wandercraft was: Could he cook with it? In the VA hospital’s home mockup, he tried it out in the kitchen, stepping sideways to retrieve items from cabinets and squatting to grab something from the fridge’s lower shelf. For the first time in years, he could work at a counter without leaning on crutches. “The self-standing exoskeleton changes everything,” he says. He imagines a user placing a Thanksgiving turkey on a tray attached to the suit and walking it into the dining room.
Back in the showroom, Woo finishes the demo and brings the suit to a seated position before transferring back to his wheelchair. After so many years of testing prototypes, he’s now realistic about the technology’s timeline. A truly all-day exoskeleton—the kind you live in, the kind that replaces a wheelchair—may be a decade or more away. “It may not be for me,” he says. But that’s no longer the point. He’s thinking about young people who are newly injured, who are lying in hospital beds and trying to imagine how their lives can continue. “This will give them hope.”
The devices in question include the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7, Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7, and Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge — all firmly at the top end of Samsung’s lineup. But the increases won’t hit every version. Instead, Samsung appears to be targeting only higher storage tiers. The base 256GB models will remain unchanged.
According to the report, 512GB variants could rise by around 100,000 won (roughly $65), while the 1TB version of the Fold 7 may jump by nearly 200,000 won (~$130). It’s not a dramatic spike on paper, but it’s still a noticeable bump for devices that are already pushing premium price territory.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Keeping entry-level models at the same price feels deliberate. On one hand, it softens the blow for buyers who just want the basics. On the other, it conveniently preserves those eye-catching “starting from” prices, even if most upgrades now cost more.
The bigger question is whether this stays local. For now, the changes are expected to apply only in South Korea. However, there’s a growing pattern here. Samsung has already adjusted pricing on some mid-range devices recently, and with ongoing component pressures, particularly around AI-driven memory and storage demand, wider increases wouldn’t be a huge surprise.
If the hikes do expand globally, pricing likely won’t translate directly. Currency differences and regional strategies usually mean adjustments vary market to market, but the direction of travel is pretty clear.
Advertisement
For now, nothing is official, but if you’ve been eyeing Samsung’s top-tier phones, it might be worth keeping an eye on prices. They don’t look like they’re heading down anytime soon.
We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.
Smart screens and speakers have found a permanent place in many of our households, since they help with playing music, controlling smart plugs, setting reminders, and much more. The use cases are plenty, especially when paired with other smart home gadgets that solve everyday problems. Speaking of pairing your smart speaker with external devices, the Amazon Echo Dot — one of Amazon’s most affordable and popular smart speakers — sports Bluetooth connections, which means it can be paired with some cool Bluetooth gadgets for added functionality. You can, for example, can pair multiple Echo speakers for a stereo setup or even connect external speakers with a better sound output during a party. Apart from audio, though, there are several other ways that you can take advantage of the Echo Dot’s Bluetooth module.
A few smart home gadgets, like smart light bulbs, often need a hub to function. However, if the bulb has Bluetooth support, it can be connected to and controlled by an Echo Dot without an external hub, which makes it a handy option. Similarly, there are other such gadgets that can take advantage of the Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) protocol of the Echo Dot to establish a connection. Here are some of the best and most useful gadgets that we’ve found that can enhance your life and home. All you have to do is put your Echo Dot in pairing mode and connect the required device with the help of the Alexa app on your smartphone.
Advertisement
Bluetooth speakers
Nara_money/Shutterstock
While there are several handy uses for an Amazon Echo Dot speaker, arguably the most popular one is playing music. This is primarily because it’s so quick and simple to ask Alexa to play your favorite album or track without having to manually look for it on your phone. Convenience aside though, Echo devices are capable speakers by themselves, which means the sound output is loud and clear. However, the small form factor means that the bass can be lacking, and the sound may not be able to fill a large room. If you’re having a party with your friends, you might miss out on that extra oomph. This is where the Echo Dot’s ability to connect to an external speaker comes into play.
If you have a Bluetooth speaker lying around at home, all you have to do is put it in pairing mode, head to the Alexa app, and connect the speaker to your Echo Dot. This works with pretty much any Bluetooth speaker, right from budget options to large home theatre setups. As long as the speaker is connected to the Echo Dot, all its responses — not just the songs — will play via the speaker itself. That said, the Echo device will still use its onboard microphones to detect and register your voice queries. This is one of the simplest yet the most popular uses that we’re sure a lot of you will appreciate. In case you don’t already have a speaker, the Anker Soundcore 2, which retails for around $30, is a user-favorite with a rating of 4.5 from close to 150K reviews.
Advertisement
Smart bulbs
Rosshelen/Getty Images
The issue with a lot of good smart lighting solutions is that the installation process can be a headache — especially if they need a hub. Bluetooth smart bulbs are an easy fix, offering a plug-and-play solution. Modern Bluetooth bulbs from brands like Philips Hue or GE connect directly to your Echo Dot right out of the box, instead of requiring a central hub. This integration capability makes it an easy entry point into smart home automation. The biggest advantage of a system like this is that you can use bulbs and other smart home gadgets from multiple brands without worrying about compatibility.
Having a brand-agnostic solution helps avoid multiple issues. Once you invest in a Philips hub, for example, you may not be able to use bulbs from other brands with the same hub. This means you’re locked into the Philips ecosystem, unless you splurge on another hub from a different brand. Wi-Fi bulbs can already tackle this problem, but they can sometimes bog down your home network. Bluetooth bulbs, on the other hand, communicate locally with your Echo Dot. The feature set remains the same; you can set up daily routines so your lights slowly turn warmer in the evening, or shut down the entire house with a single phrase as you walk out the door. Additionally, you can connect as many bulbs via Bluetooth and operate the all individually. The Philips Hue 60W smart LED bulb, with its 4.7-star rating across more than 16,000 reviews, is a good starting point for under $50.
Advertisement
Smart switches
PV productions/Shutterstock
If you’re looking for creative use cases for your old Amazon Echo, smart switches are a good investment. The Switchbot smart switch button is an excellent replacement for old appliances and gadgets that lack internet connectivity; stick it beneath a manual switch and suddenly you can control it with your smartphone or Amazon Alexa device. Lots of devices and appliances launched in recent years may have built-in smart functionality to turn them on and off remotely. However, an old coffee maker or air purifier may not have the feature, and that’s exactly where a device like the Switchbot smart switch comes in handy. Once you connect it via Bluetooth to your Echo Dot, you can turn an appliance on or off with just your voice.
This works well with push-button switches, but you can’t use a single Switchbot to operate a larger, more traditional switch like the kind that controls the lights in your house both on and off. If you want both functionalities, you will have to purchase two Switchbots and install them on either side of the switch. While the product description mentions that you need a hub to use the device with Alexa, it’s only applicable to older Echo devices that cannot behave like a Bluetooth hub. With over 28,000 reviews and a rating of 4.1 stars, users definitely seem to love the Switchbot smart button thanks to its ability to use older gadgets easier. There’s something to be said about having a fresh cup of coffee waiting for you right after stepping out of the shower in the morning, isn’t there?
Advertisement
Bluetooth turntables
Adventtr/Getty Images
For those who have a large collection of vinyl records from back in the day, a Bluetooth turntable is pretty much a must-have. If you have one lying around, you would be glad to know that you can easily connect it to your Echo Dot. Since a good number of Bluetooth turntables have built-in wireless transmitters, you can wirelessly use your Echo Dot as a speaker instead of relying on your turntable’s internal one. Thanks to this setup, you can place your turntable at a distance from the Echo Dot without running audio wires all through the room.
This is a pretty neat trick; while the Echo Dot is usually the brain sending audio out to other speakers, in this scenario, it acts as the wireless receiver instead. The Audio-Technica wireless turntable is an excellent option in case you don’t have one already and are looking to buy one. It is pricey at around $230, but it’s got a solid 4.6-star rating across more than 8,700 reviews. Apart from a turntable, pretty much any other audio device that has a built-in Bluetooth transmitter can be used with an Echo Dot as well, so don’t feel like you’re limited to just spinning records remotely.
Advertisement
How we picked these gadgets
Urbano Creativo/Shutterstock
The primary criteria for a gadget to make it to this list is the fact that it connects to an Echo Dot speaker purely via Bluetooth and not Wi-Fi. Hence, it’s vital to note that not all types of gadgets of a particular kind may work via Bluetooth. An example of this is that not all smart bulbs support Bluetooth Low Energy connectivity. That’s why we’ve included suggested products that support the technology at play here; the ones we do recommend all have a rating of at least 4.1 stars across thousands of reviews. Additionally, all Echo devices — including the Echo Dot — need to be first connected to a Wi-Fi network for their initial setup before they can be used to connect to Bluetooth devices. Therefore, all the gadgets have been recommended with the assumption that you have access to a Wi-Fi network and that your Echo device is set up.
Last week, the European Parliament voted to let a temporary exemption lapse that had allowed tech companies to scan their services for child sexual abuse material (CSAM) without running afoul of strict EU privacy regulations. Meanwhile, here in the US, West Virginia’s Attorney General continues to press forward with a lawsuit designed to force Apple to scan iCloud for CSAM, apparently oblivious to the fact that succeeding would hand defense attorneys the best gift they’ve ever received.
Two different jurisdictions. Two diametrically opposed approaches, both claiming to protect children, and both making it harder to actually do so.
I’ll be generous and assume people pushing both of these views genuinely think they’re doing what’s best for children. This is a genuinely complex topic with real, painful tradeoffs, and reasonable people can weigh them differently. What’s frustrating is watching policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic charge forward with approaches that seem driven more by vibes than by any serious engagement with how the current system actually works — or why it was built the way it was.
The European Parliament just voted against extending a temporary regulation that had exempted tech platforms from GDPR-style privacy rules when they voluntarily scanned for CSAM. This exemption had been in place (and repeatedly extended) for years while Parliament tried to negotiate a permanent framework. Those negotiations have been going on since November 2023 without resolution, and on Thursday MEPs decided they were done extending the stopgap.
Advertisement
To be clear, Parliament didn’t pass a law banning CSAM scanning. Companies can still technically scan if they want to. But without the exemption, they’re now exposed to massive privacy liability under EU law for doing so. Scanning private messages and stored content to look for CSAM is, after all, mass surveillance — and European privacy law treats mass surveillance seriously (which, in most cases, it should!). So the practical effect is a chilling one: companies that were voluntarily scanning now face significant legal risk if they continue.
The digital rights organization eDRI framed the issue in stark terms:
“This is actually just enabling big tech companies to scan all of our private messages, our most intimate details, all our private chats so it constitutes a really, really serious interference with our right to privacy. It’s not targeted against people that are suspected of child abuse — It’s just targeting everyone, potentially all of the time.”
And that argument is compelling. Hash-matching systems that compare uploaded images against databases of known CSAM are more targeted than, say, keyword scanning of every message, but they still fundamentally involve examining every unencrypted piece of content that passes through the system. When eDRI says it targets “everyone, potentially all of the time,” that’s an accurate description of how the technology works.
But… the technology also works to find and catch CSAM. Europol’s executive director, Catherine De Bolle, pointed to concrete numbers:
Advertisement
Last year alone, Europol processed around 1.1 million of so-called CyberTips, originating from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), of relevance to 24 European countries. CyberTips contain multiple entities (files, videos, photos etc.) supporting criminal investigation efforts into child sexual abuse online.
If the current legal basis for voluntary detection by online platforms were to be removed, this is expected to result in a serious reduction of CyberTip referrals. This would undermine the capability to detect relevant investigative leads on CSAM, which in turn will severely impair the EU’s security interests of identifying victims and safeguarding children.
The companies that have been doing this scanning — Google, Microsoft, Meta, Snapchat, TikTok — released a joint statement saying they are “deeply concerned” and warning that the lapse will leave “children across Europe and around the world with fewer protections than they had before.”
So the EU’s privacy advocates aren’t wrong about the surveillance problem. Europol isn’t wrong about the child safety consequences. Both things are true — which is what makes this genuinely tricky rather than a case of one side being obviously right.
Now flip to the United States, where the problem is precisely inverted.
Advertisement
In the US, the existing system has been carefully constructed around a single, critical principle: companies voluntarily choose to scan for CSAM, and when they find it, they’re legally required to report it to NCMEC. The word “voluntarily” is doing enormous load-bearing work in that sentence — and most of the people currently shouting about CSAM don’t seem to know it. As Stanford’s Riana Pfefferkorn explained in detail on Techdirt when a private class action lawsuit against Apple tried to compel CSAM scanning:
While the Fourth Amendment applies only to the government and not to private actors, the government can’t use a private actor to carry out a search it couldn’t constitutionally do itself. If the government compels or pressures a private actor to search, or the private actor searches primarily to serve the government’s interests rather than its own, then the private actor counts as a government agent for purposes of the search, which must then abide by the Fourth Amendment, otherwise the remedy is exclusion.
If the government – legislative, executive, or judiciary – forces a cloud storage provider to scan users’ files for CSAM, that makes the provider a government agent, meaning the scans require a warrant, which a cloud services company has no power to get, making those scans unconstitutional searches. Any CSAM they find (plus any other downstream evidence stemming from the initial unlawful scan) will probably get excluded, but it’s hard to convict people for CSAM without using the CSAM as evidence, making acquittals likelier. Which defeats the purpose of compelling the scans in the first place.
In the US, if the government forces Apple to scan, that makes Apple a government agent. Government agents need warrants. Apple can’t get warrants. So the scans are unconstitutional. So the evidence gets thrown out. So the predators walk free. All because someone thought “just make them scan!” was a simple solution to a complex problem.
Congress apparently understood this when it wrote the federal reporting statute — that’s why the law explicitly disclaims any requirement that providers proactively search for CSAM. The voluntariness of the scanning is what preserves its legal viability. Everyone involved in the actual work of combating CSAM — prosecutors, investigators, NCMEC, trust and safety teams — understands this and takes great care to preserve it.
Advertisement
Everyone, apparently, except the Attorney General of West Virginia. As we discussed recently, West Virginia just filed a lawsuit demanding that a court order Apple to “implement effective CSAM detection measures” on iCloud. The remedy West Virginia seeks — a court order compelling scanning — would spring the constitutional trap that everyone who actually works on this issue has been carefully avoiding for years.
As Pfefferkorn put it:
Any competent plaintiff’s counsel should have figured this out before filing a lawsuit asking a federal court to make Apple start scanning iCloud for CSAM, thereby making Apple a government agent, thereby turning the compelled iCloud scans into unconstitutional searches, thereby making it likelier for any iCloud user who gets caught to walk free, thereby shooting themselves in the foot, doing a disservice to their client, making the situation worse than the status quo, and causing a major setback in the fight for child safety online.
The reason nobody’s filed a lawsuit like this against Apple to date, despite years of complaints from left, right, and center about Apple’s ostensibly lackadaisical approach to CSAM detection in iCloud, isn’t because nobody’s thought of it before. It’s because they thought of it and they did their fucking legal research first. And then they backed away slowly from the computer, grateful to have narrowly avoided turning themselves into useful idiots for pedophiles.
The West Virginia complaint also treats Apple’s abandoned NeuralHash client-side scanning project as evidence that Apple could scan but simply chose not to. What it skips over is why the security community reacted so strongly to NeuralHash in the first place. Apple’s own director of user privacy and child safety laid out the problem:
Advertisement
Scanning every user’s privately stored iCloud content would in our estimation pose serious unintended consequences for our users… Scanning for one type of content, for instance, opens the door for bulk surveillance and could create a desire to search other encrypted messaging systems across content types (such as images, videos, text, or audio) and content categories. How can users be assured that a tool for one type of surveillance has not been reconfigured to surveil for other content such as political activity or religious persecution? Tools of mass surveillance have widespread negative implications for freedom of speech and, by extension, democracy as a whole.
Once you create infrastructure capable of scanning every user’s private content for one category of material, you’ve created infrastructure capable of scanning for anything. The pipe doesn’t care what flows through it. Governments around the world — some of them not exactly champions of human rights — have a well-documented habit of demanding expanded use of existing surveillance capabilities. This connects directly to the perennial fights over end-to-end encryption backdoors, where the same argument applies: you cannot build a door that only the good guys can walk through.
And then there’s the scale problem. Even the best hash-matching systems can produce false positives, and at the scale of major platforms, even tiny error rates translate into enormous numbers of wrongly flagged users.
This is one of those frustrating stories where you can… kinda see all sides, and there’s no easy or obvious answer:
Scanning works, at least somewhat. 1.1 million CyberTips from Europol in a single year. Some number of children identified and rescued because platforms voluntarily detected CSAM and reported it. The system produces real results.
Advertisement
Scanning is mass surveillance. Every image, every message gets examined (algorithmically), not just those belonging to suspected offenders. The privacy intrusion is real, not hypothetical, and it falls on everyone.
Compelled scanning breaks prosecutions. In the US, the Fourth Amendment means that government-ordered scanning creates a get-out-of-jail card for the very predators everyone claims to be targeting. The voluntariness of the system is what makes it legally functional.
Scanning infrastructure is repurposable. A system built to detect CSAM can be retooled to detect political speech, religious content, or anything else. This concern is not paranoid; it’s an engineering reality.
False positives at scale are inevitable. Even highly accurate systems will flag innocent content when processing billions of items, and the consequences for wrongly accused individuals are severe.
Advertisement
People can and will weigh these tradeoffs differently, and that’s legitimate. The tension described in all this is real and doesn’t resolve neatly.
But what both the EU Parliament’s vote and West Virginia’s lawsuit share is an unwillingness to sit with that tension. The EU stripped legal cover from the voluntary system that was actually producing results, without having a workable replacement ready. West Virginia is trying to compel what must remain voluntary, apparently without bothering to read the constitutional case law that makes compelled scanning self-defeating. From opposite directions, both approaches attack the same fragile voluntary architecture that currently threads the needle between these competing interests.
The status quo in the United States — voluntary scanning, mandatory reporting, no government compulsion to search — is far from perfect. But the system functions: it produces leads, preserves prosecutorial viability, and does so precisely because it was designed by people who understood the tradeoffs and built accordingly.
It would be nice if more policymakers engaged with why the system works the way it does before trying to blow it up from either direction. In tech policy, the loudest voices in the room are rarely the ones who’ve done the reading.
Karin Keller-Sutter, Switzerland’s finance minister and the country’s former president, has filed criminal charges for defamation and insult after Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok was prompted by an anonymous user to generate a torrent of sexist and vulgar remarks about her on X. The complaint, filed on 20 March with the Bern public prosecutor’s office, is directed against “persons unknown” because the X user who prompted Grok could not be identified beyond a screen name. It is, by all available evidence, the first time a serving head of a national finance ministry has pursued criminal action against an AI-generated statement.
The incident occurred on 10 March, when a user on X instructed Grok to “roast” a figure they described as “Federal Councillor KKS, my favourite chick,” urging the chatbot to attack her in crude street language. Grok complied. The resulting post, a barrage of misogynistic abuse attributed to the chatbot, was published on Keller-Sutter’s feed. A spokesperson for the minister told Politico that the post was not “a contribution protected by freedom of expression or part of the political debate, but rather a pure denigration of a woman.” The spokesperson added: “One must fundamentally defend oneself against such misogynistic statements.”
Keller-Sutter is no minor political figure. She heads the Federal Finance Department and is one of seven members of the Swiss Federal Council, the country’s highest executive authority. In 2025, she served as president of the Swiss Confederation, a role that rotates annually among the council members. Before entering federal politics, she studied political science in London and Montreal, served as a cantonal justice minister, and presided over the Council of States. Her decision to file criminal charges rather than simply delete the post signals an intent to test whether Swiss defamation law, which criminalises both defamation under Article 173 and slander under Article 174 of the penal code, can reach the operators of AI systems and the platforms that host them. The legal question at the heart of the complaint is whether social media companies and their operators, in addition to individual users, can be held criminally liable for content generated by their own AI tools.
That question has not been answered anywhere in the world, but courts are beginning to confront it. In the United States, conservative activist Robby Starbuck sued Meta in 2025 after its AI falsely linked him to the January 6 Capitol riot; Meta settled rather than litigate. A Georgia court dismissed a separate defamation case against OpenAI after ChatGPT fabricated claims about a radio host, ruling that the legal threshold for fault had not been met. No AI defamation case has reached a final judgment in any jurisdiction. Keller-Sutter’s complaint, filed under a criminal rather than civil framework and in a country whose defamation statute carries prison sentences of up to three years for deliberate slander, could establish the first binding precedent on AI platform liability for generated speech.
The filing arrives against the backdrop of what has become the most sustained regulatory crisis in Grok’s brief existence. Between 29 December 2025 and 8 January 2026, Grok’s image-generation tools created more than three million sexualised images, approximately 23,000 of which depicted minors, according to the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. The discovery triggered a cascade of legal and regulatory actions that has not stopped. On 2 January, French ministers reported the content to prosecutors, calling it “manifestly illegal.” On 12 January, the United Kingdom’s Ofcom opened a formal investigation into whether X had complied with the Online Safety Act, with potential penalties of up to £18 million or 10 per cent of global revenue. On 14 January, California’s attorney general announced a state investigation into whether xAI had violated California law. On 26 January, the European Commission opened a probe under the Digital Services Act into whether Grok’s deployment met the platform’s legal obligations regarding illegal content and harm to minors.
Advertisement
The enforcement actions escalated sharply in February. On 3 February, French prosecutors, accompanied by a cybercrime unit and Europol officers, raided X’s Paris offices. The investigation, originally opened over complaints about platform operation and data extraction, had widened to include charges of complicity in distributing child sexual abuse material, creating sexually explicit deepfakes, and Holocaust denial. Prosecutors have since summoned Musk and X’s former chief executive Linda Yaccarino for voluntary interviews on 20 April. A Dutch court separately ordered Grok banned from generating non-consensual intimate images. The EU had already fined X €120 million in December 2025 for violating the DSA’s transparency requirements, a penalty X is nowchallenging in what has become the first court test of the bloc’s landmark digital regulation.
In the United States, three Tennessee teenagers filed a class-action lawsuit against xAI on 16 March, alleging that Grok had been used to create sexualised images of them without their knowledge or consent. The images were reportedly shared on Discord and other platforms. On 25 March, Baltimore became the first American city to sue xAI over Grok-generated deepfake pornography, alleging violations of consumer protection law. A separate class action, filed by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, alleges that xAI knowingly designed and profited from an image generator used to produce and distribute child sexual abuse material while refusing to implement the content-safety measures adopted by every other major AI company.
The governance vacuum at xAI compounds the legal exposure.All 11 of xAI’s original co-founders have now departed the company, including researchers recruited from Google DeepMind, Google Brain, and Microsoft Research. Musk said in March that xAI was “not built right the first time around” and needed to be rebuilt from its foundations. The company was absorbed into SpaceX in February throughan all-stock merger that raised immediate governance questions, creating a combined entity valued at $1.25 trillion that is now preparing for what would be the largest initial public offering in history. The regulatory and litigation risks surrounding Grok are, in effect, now embedded in the prospectus of a company seeking a $1.75 trillion public valuation.
What makes Keller-Sutter’s complaint distinct from the deepfake and CSAM cases is its simplicity. It does not involve image generation, undressing algorithms, or child exploitation. It involves a chatbot that was asked to insult a named public official and did so in language that, under Swiss law, constitutes a criminal offence. The factual question is narrow: who is responsible when an AI system, operating on a commercial platform, generates defamatory speech at a user’s request? If the user cannot be identified, does liability pass to the platform operator, to the AI developer, or to no one at all?
Advertisement
The answer to that question will shapethe trajectory of AI governancefar beyond Switzerland. Every major AI company operates chatbots capable of producing defamatory, abusive, or factually false statements about real people. Most have implemented guardrails designed to refuse such requests. Grok, by deliberate design, has operated with fewer restrictions than its competitors, a positioning Musk has marketed as a commitment to free expression. The Keller-Sutter case tests whether that positioning can survive contact with criminal law.
Switzerland is not the European Union and is not bound by the DSA. But Swiss defamation law is among the most stringent in Europe, and a criminal finding against an AI platform operator would reverberate through every jurisdiction currently weighing similar questions. The case is small in scope, involving a single post on a single platform about a single official. But the principle it seeks to establish, that the companies building these systems bearthe kind of legal responsibility that the age of AI governance demands, is anything but small. If Grok can be prompted to defame a former president with impunity, the question is not what it says about the technology. It is what it says about the law.
We’ve seen our fair share of audiophile tomfoolery here at Hackaday, and we’ve even poked fun at a few of them over the years. Perhaps one of the most outrageously over the top that we’ve so far seen comes from [Pierogi Engineering] who, we’ll grant you not in a spirit of audiophile expectation, has made a set of speaker interconnects using liquid mercury.
In terms of construction they’re transparent tubes filled with mercury and capped off with 4 mm plugs as you might expect. We hear them compared with copper cables and from where we’re sitting we can’t tell any difference, but as we’ve said in the past, the only metrics that matter in this field come from an audio analyzer.
But that’s not what we take away from the video below the break. Being honest for a minute, there was a discussion among Hackaday editors as to whether or not we should feature this story. He’s handling significant quantities of mercury, and it’s probably not over reacting to express concerns about his procedures. We wouldn’t handle mercury like that, and we’d suggest that unless you want to turn your home into a Superfund site, you shouldn’t either. But now someone has, so at lease there’s no need for anyone else to answer the question as to whether mercury makes a good interconnect.
Drone technology has changed the face of combat, especially for missions that require both precision and stealth. In fact, one cutting-edge drone can shoot down an enemy jet without ever seeing it. Drone engine technology may be changing as well, thanks to Honeywell Aerospace. The company won a contract from the U.S. Air Force to build a new propulsion system, which is expected to be more advanced than anything currently in use.
The new engine will take cues from Honeywell’s small-thrust-class SkyShot 1600 engine. The SkyShot is a compact and flexible engine built for unmanned military aircraft. It’s a versatile system, capable of working as either a turbojet or turbofan, while also delivering thrust between 800 and 2,800 pounds. The design can be modified to allow for even higher output if needed. The engine is built to handle high G-forces, giving Air Force drones the ability to track and catch fast-moving targets.
Honeywell plans to use digital modeling for faster design, which also speeds up the performance evaluation stage. Because of this, development and manufacturing timelines are expected to shorten. Honeywell will be able to deliver the new propulsion system in a quicker timeframe. This approach allows for a smoother integration with other aircraft systems and helps improve manufacturing efficiency while making the supply chain stronger.
Advertisement
How Honeywell technology supports unmanned aircraft
Honeywell Aerospace is an established player in the world of military drone technology, and their systems are used in a number of unmanned aircraft. That includes the fast and expensive MQ-9 Reaper, a commonly used combat drone. These systems include avionics and other tech that support flight operations and aircraft capability. The engine Honeywell built for the Reaper is the TPE-331, a turboprop that was initially designed in 1959.
Advertisement
Honeywell also designed and produced onboard systems for the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray, an unmanned aircraft used by U.S. Navy carriers to refuel planes while in flight. The Stingray’s introduction is just one of the big changes to hit the U.S. military’s fleet in 2025. In addition to designing crucial systems, Honeywell specializes in a variety of drone components, from flight controls to mission computers, radar, and more.
Thanks to an agreement with the U.S. government, Honeywell will begin increasing production of military components and related defense systems. The announcement was made in March of 2026 and though drones weren’t specifically mentioned, the technologies referenced are regularly used in modern unmanned aircraft. Those technologies include actuators, navigation systems, and combat-ready electronic devices.
Photo credit: Wall Street Journal The Wall Street Journal recently got a rare look inside Apple Park as part of the company’s 50th anniversary celebrations, with reporters joining Tim Cook for a walk through an archive that Cook himself admitted he had barely visited until preparations for the milestone began pulling decades of stored material back into the light.
The first thing that caught his eye was Apple’s original patent filing for the Apple II, a single document that Cook said effectively opened the floodgates for what eventually became more than 140,000 patent applications. A small drawing on a piece of paper that quietly set the direction for everything that followed.
MIGHT TAKES FLIGHT — MacBook Air with the M5 chip packs blazing speed and powerful AI capabilities into an incredibly portable design. With Apple…
SUPERCHARGED BY M5 — With its faster CPU and unified memory, the M5 chip delivers even more performance and fluidity across apps, making…
APPLE INTELLIGENCE — Apple Intelligence is the personal intelligence system that helps you write, express yourself, and get things done…
An early 2001 iPod prototype came next, and Cook recalled the feeling of holding it for the first time a few years after joining the company. The idea of carrying a thousand songs in your pocket felt genuinely unbelievable at a moment when most people were still rotating five CD changers on road trips. He remembered loading a Beatles song the moment he got his hands on one and how that little white device changed his daily commute.
The 2007 iPhone launch remains Cook’s favorite moment in the company’s history, and a circuit board from one of the first working prototypes sitting on the table illustrated just how far the engineering team had to travel to get there. It looked more like a cutting board than something destined for a pocket, an early proof of concept that needed everything working together before the whole thing could be miniaturized. Cook noted that even inside Apple, employees were walking around with early models watching keys and coins scratch the plastic casing. Steve Jobs made the call to switch to glass within a matter of months, a timeline Cook described as close to impossible, comparing it to trying to land on the moon between January and June.
Cook touched on projects that never made it, framing each one as something the team learned from before showing up the next morning and getting back to work. That steadiness, he suggested, is what carried the company through five decades of setbacks and breakthroughs alike. An early Apple Watch prototype rounded out the tour, and Cook’s attention shifted forward, pointing to the combination of hardware, software, and services as the space where the next significant leap is most likely to come from.
NASA is going back to the Moon! We’ll follow the crew of Artemis II every step of the way.
Day 1 – Liftoff!
After resolving a last-minute communications issue with the Flight Termination System (FTS), the Artemis II Space Launch System (SLS) rocket lifted off from Launch Complex 39B at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida at 6:35 PM EDT.
Main engine cutoff (MECO) for the SLS rocket occurred at 6:43 PM, placing the Orion spacecraft and crew members Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen safely into orbit around the Earth. Just before 7:00 PM, all four solar array “wings” were successfully deployed from the European Service Module.
Advertisement
The next major milestones are the perigee and apogee raise maneuvers — two engine burns which will put the Orion spacecraft into a higher orbit, necessary for the eventual trans-lunar injection (TLI) burn which will put the vehicle on course for the Moon.
April is a strong month for horror with some of the biggest franchises and originals available to watch from the comfort of your living room. The month is typically associated with pranks and comedies, but if you want something more macabre, I’ve got you covered.
Here are my 7 top horror picks arriving across streaming services this April.
Advertisement
Article continues below
Alien
Alien Trailer HD (Original 1979 Ridley Scott Film) Sigourney Weaver – YouTube
When: April 1 Where: HBO Max (US); Disney+ (UK, AU)
Ridley Scott’s iconic sci-fi horror Alien is streaming throughout April, if you want to revisit one of the greats. And if you haven’t seen this masterpiece of a movie, now is the perfect time.
Advertisement
Alien is well-loved for its groundbreaking effects in the 70s, its iconic Xenomorph creature design, and the atmospheric tension that builds throughout. Other Alien movies can also be found on HBO Max and Disney+, but you really can’t beat the first one, even if some people do think Aliens was better!
Sign up for breaking news, reviews, opinion, top tech deals, and more.
2025’s Deathstalker is a remake of the 1983 movie of the same name. Those looking for dark fantasy won’t want to miss this addition to Shudder’s library, as an alternative to some of the more modern horror movies it offers.
Advertisement
Daniel Bernhardt and Patton Oswalt lead the cast of the remake, which follows a powerful swordsman known as Deathstalker after he recovers a cursed amulet from a corpse-strewn battlefield. When he’s marked by dark magic and hunted by monstrous assassins, he must face the rising evil and break the curse before it’s too late.
Five Nights at Freddy’s 2
Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 | Official Trailer – YouTube
When: April 3 Where: Peacock (US); rent or buy (AU)
Are you ready for Freddy? The sequel arrives on Peacock in April, following a successful box office run. Despite being panned critically, Freddy Fazbear and friends continue to have a dedicated fanbase, so if you’re part of that, you’ll be happy to know it’s coming to streaming.
Advertisement
The adaptation of the successful horror game is set a year and a half after the previous movie, where we follow young Abby Schmidt as she gets manipulated by the Marionette, an animatronic from the original Freddy Fazbear’s Pizza restaurant, who wants revenge against her parents. The Marionette is one of the creepiest figures in the games, and now you get to see it come to life on film.
Earwig
EARWIG | Official Trailer | Now showing on MUBI – YouTube
Earwig is a strange movie, but when you’re a horror fan, that’s often a compliment. Set in a bleak post-war Europe, we follow a middle-aged man, Albert, as he cares for a young girl named Mia, who has no teeth.
Every day, he makes her new dentures out of ice, and one day, he’s told by a mysterious voice to prepare Mia for the outside world, where she has never been. Described as both a melodrama and a body horror, it’s a disturbing movie that may divide fans, but I can certainly say it’s stuck with me for a while.
When: April 10 Where: Netflix (US); Paramount+ (UK); rent or buy (AU)
2022’s Scream is the fifth entry into the slasher franchise, and why it wasn’t just called Scream 5 continues to baffle me. Anyway, don’t let that deter you; it is a very strong movie and one of my favorites in the series.
Despite the name, it’s not a remake; instead, it focuses on a new core cast of characters, though original stars like Courteney Cox, David Arquette, and Neve Campbell reprise their roles.
Advertisement
A Quiet Place Part II
A Quiet Place Part II (2021) – Final Trailer – Paramount Pictures – YouTube
When: April 11 Where: Netflix (US); Paramount+ (UK); rent or buy (AU)
Ahead of A Quiet Place Part III, which is due next year, why not catch up with the second in the successful horror series? It’s arriving on Netflix for US audiences, while UK audiences can watch on Paramount+.
A Quiet Place Part II continues to focus on the Abbott family (except for John Kransinski’s Lee) as they try to survive in a post-apocalyptic world inhabited by blind aliens with an acute sense of hearing, so it’s critical that they monitor how much noise they make. Horror doesn’t get much more tense than this.
Dolly
Dolly – Official Trailer (2026) Fabianne Therese, Seann William Scott, and Max the Impaler. – YouTube
Finally, at the end of April, we have Dolly. Creepy dolls are a staple in the horror genre, just look at Annabelle and Chucky, but this movie has got me creeped out by the synopsis alone.
Advertisement
Terror strikes when Macy and her boyfriend Chase are attacked while camping, and Macy is abducted by a tall, menacing figure who treats her as if she were a living doll. NWA wrestler Max the Impaler plays said figure, making it their movie debut.
You know what they say — you can’t keep a good website down. OldVersion.com, the repository of outdated software that has been serving up old versions of tools you need for the last twenty-five years, is not going away as we reported last year. Not only is it sticking around, it’s gotten a retro facelift inspired by Windows 3.1 or OS/2. Mostly Windows, given the screensaver, but we’ll let you find that for yourself.
We’re thrilled to see that OldVersion has gotten the support they need to keep going after running into financial troubles. According to founder Alex Levine, some of that support came as a result of the Hackaday article reporting on the then-upcoming closure, so kudos to you guys for stepping up.
While we absolutely love the retro redesign of the new website, that’s one thing notably lacking — an obvious donation button. Well, that and old-school HTTP support so you can get on with your retromachines, but that, at least, is in the works according to the site roadmap. It’s a little weird that in this year of the common era 2026 you have to do extra work to give up on HTTPS functionality, but it is the way it is.
In the meantime, the site is fully usable as long as you have HTTPS capability, or go through a proxy. Perhaps you could use this ESP8266 code to get started making one, if you don’t want to embarrass your old computer by using something more powerful than it as a pass-through.
Advertisement
Speaking of proxies, if old versions of software aren’t enough for you, how about an old version of the internet? We heard you like old versions, so you can visit an old version of OldVersion!
Note that if you’re reading this after 01/04/2026, the look-and-feel of OldVersion.com may not match what’s depicted here.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login