from the maybe-he-should-stop-making-up-history dept

Call me crazy, but I tend to think when Supreme Court Justices make a big sweeping statement in one case, they should actually follow it through with other cases. You may recall, for example, that in the Dobbs case, where the right to an abortion was overturned, Justice Samuel Alito took the ‘history and tradition’ test and made it the centerpiece of modern conservative jurisprudence — using it to wipe out a 50-year-old precedent. Specifically, his reason for overturning Roe v. Wade was that he, a very weak amateur historian, could find no support for such a right in the history at the time the 14th Amendment was passed.

That very bad amateur historian shtick was on display again this week in the (otherwise good) decision in Watson v. the Republican National Committee, regarding whether or not the federal government could invalidate mail-in ballots received after election day. The majority, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, pointed out that (duh!) while the federal government sets the date of the presidential election, the states get to determine how those elections are run, including how the ballots are counted, including absentee ballots.

Barrett goes through the history of how absentee and “mail-in” ballots have been used since the Civil War, and for over a century many states have allowed them to be counted, so long as they were post-marked by election day. And democracy has survived without any indication of any problem with those mail-in ballots arriving after election day.

But, to Justice Alito, this is the end of democracy. In a typically overwrought dissent, he claims that this move (which again, many states started doing over a century ago), upsets the entire concept of an election.

The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement.

But as Barrett notes in the majority opinion, federal law sets the date of the election, not the date of the vote counting, or the date results get announced. Those are different things, and Alito pretending they’re the same is bizarre for someone who seems to think history should be his guide in legal issues. The majority points out:

The Constitution requires the “Day on which [the electors] shall give their Votes” to be “the same throughout the United States.” Art. II, §1, cl. 4. But it says nothing about the day for receipt, and, of course, 18th-century modes of transmission did not offer same-day delivery. The Constitution therefore envisions a system in which receipt is necessarily divorced from voting, and it sets the crucial, uniform day as the day of voting, leaving receipt to happen down the line. The federal election-day statutes follow the same pattern: They set when the people “shall give their Votes,” ibid., but leave open when those votes must be received.

And here, Alito’s complete ignorance of the history of American elections shines through. All we need to do is go back to the very first presidential election of George Washington, in which election day was set as February 4th, 1789, but Congress waited until April 6th of that year to fully gather and actually count and certify those votes — over a month past the originally planned March 4 inauguration date. The votes were all technically “submitted” — you could loosely say “mailed in” by election day — but it took two months to actually count them (and then over a week for anyone to tell George Washington he’d been elected).

So, I’m sorry, but Alito can spare me with the idea that counting ballots that arrive after election day somehow “postpones the day on which the electorate’s choice is made.” That’s just utter bullshit and wholly inconsistent with the history of this country and the way elections work. The actual election day can be a single day, but the votes can be counted way later, and the results announced even later. Saying that it violates the historical concept of “election day” to allow mail-in ballots that are post-marked by election day makes zero sense at all.

And it’s not like the Washington situation was a one-off of a young country trying to sort out its presidential election system. Four elections later, in the infamous 1800 presidential battle between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, the US had to wait until months later when the matter went to the House to resolve (perhaps Alito should rewatch the musical Hamilton, which dramatizes this moment).

Or the elections of John Quincy Adams, which was also sent to the House to decide long after election day. Or the infamous Hayes-Tilden fight in 1876, where many of the votes were disputed and it took a specific (and possibly corrupt) “Electoral Commission” to sort things out and give the election to Hayes just days before the inauguration was set to take place.

No matter how you look at it: the US has a long “history and tradition” of voting on election day, and then (sometimes) taking a great long while to sort out who actually won, including waiting to count all the ballots. Mail-in ballots that are post-marked by election day and counted later are perfectly within that tradition, no matter what Alito has to say.

Alito’s entire jurisprudential brand is built on the idea that history and tradition should constrain what courts can do. He made that the centerpiece of Dobbs. But when that same history turns around and bites him — when it turns out the United States has a long, consistent tradition of counting ballots well after election day — suddenly history doesn’t matter anymore. What matters, apparently, is whether the outcome suits the narrative. That’s Alito retrofitting a legal standard to reach an outcome he desires. It should be seen as an embarrassment for a Supreme Court Justice to do so, but as we’ve all learned, Alito has zero shame in cooking up pretenses to reach his desired outcome.

Filed Under: absentee ballots, amy coney barrett, counting ballots, election day, history, missisippi, samuel alito

After a closer look at some new data, Apple’s iPhone 18 Pro modem situation may not be cut-and-dried. Here’s what the latest leaks say is in store for cellular connectivity, the A20 chip, and possible camera improvements.

On June 25, AppleInsider exclusively revealed that iPhone 18 Pro schematics and documents were among the more than 630GB of files taken from Tata in a cyberattack.

An initial analysis of the leaked documentation uncovered Apple’s plans to use its proprietary C2 modem in the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max. Additional details have since come to light, thanks to new research conducted by us and an analyst we’ve worked with in the past.

Qualcomm chip in the U.S. and Apple C2 elsewhere

Our findings suggest Apple may implement a region-based modem approach and a split release, with some iPhone 18 Pro models using the C2 chip and others a Qualcomm modem.

While all models of the iPhone Air use an Apple-designed mode, that may not be the case with the iPhone 18 Pro.

For the U.S. variant of the iPhone 18 Pro, which will feature mmWave compatibility, Apple seemingly plans to use Qualcomm modem hardware.

Multiple Qualcomm components, including the SDX80M, SDR875, QDM8771, QDM8720, PMK75, PMX75, and QET7100A, are referenced in a bill of materials related to the iPhone 18 Pro model Apple plans to sell in the United States.

As for the iPhone 18 models which will be sold elsewhere, Tata documentation suggests these configurations will use Apple’s proprietary C2 modem. While this approach may sound unusual, there is at least one possible explanation.

Apple’s current in-house modems, the C1 and the C1X, do not support 5G mmWave, and it looks as though the C2 will continue this trend. Until Apple develops a modem compatible with mmWave, it looks as though the company will offer mmWave support to iPhone 18 Pro users by using Qualcomm hardware.

With the iPhone 17 range, Apple already offers a mixed bag in terms of cellular hardware. The iPhone Air and iPhone 17e use Apple-designed modems, while the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone 17 Pro Max use Qualcomm hardware.

This split-release strategy will likely become more complex, as the iPhone 18 Pro now factors region into the equation. iPhone 18 Pro board schematics reinforce this idea, as two separate part numbers and logic board variants exist.

820-04340-06 corresponds to the iPhone 18 Pro logic board with a mmWave connector and Qualcomm modem hardware. The non-mmWave iPhone 18 Pro logic board, meanwhile, bears the part number 820-04305-06.

With Apple’s current iPhone 17 lineup, some cellular features already vary by region.

iPhone models sold in mainland China, for instance, do not use eSIM, instead offering support for two physical SIM cards. That may change in the near future, as Tata’s documentation suggests iPhone 18 Pro models sold in China might gain eSIM support.

“No more dual PSIM starting in V64 P2,” reads a region-based configuration list for the iPhone 18 Pro Max, up to the Proto2 stage of development. The document outright mentions eSIM and physical SIM support for a configuration labeled CN, more than likely referring to mainland China.

A20 Pro chip may use WMCM packaging

As AppleInsider originally pointed out, among the files leaked from Tata were documents related to the upcoming A20 Pro chip, codenamed Borneo.

Further analysis of the more than 630GB worth of files has revealed new details about the A20 Pro system-on-chip. The documentation appears to suggest Apple will use a WMCM-style package for the A20 Pro chip, with the AP and memory side-by-side, unlike in the standard InFO-PoP packaging.

WMCM is short for Wafer-Level Multi-Chip Module, while InFo-PoP stands for Integrated Fan-Out Package-on-Package. Both are chip packaging processes, but the two are quite different.

With InFo, Apple uses a single die housing the CPU, GPU, and the Neural Engine, and limited memory configurations. Non-CPU components, like the memory, are added to the chip package rather than being an external component.

By using WMCM, meanwhile, Apple could have separate dies for the CPU, the GPU, and the Neural Engine. This means the company might be able to better mix and match the combinations of each, increasing the number of different chip configurations available to consumers.

Rumors of Apple using WMCM date back to at least August 2025. Tata’s files appear to corroborate these claims, at least regarding the A20 Pro chip.

Additionally, some of the iPhone 18 Pro board schematics suggest the system-on-chip will move closer to the outer edge of the dual-layer board. The storage of the device will seemingly sit deeper between the two board layers, though.

This design decision could ultimately impact thermal performance and repairability, though the exact impact remains to be seen.

iPhone 18 Pro may get upgraded rear camera

Diagnostic data, which compares the iPhone 17 Pro to the iPhone 18 Pro, reveal that the ID of the Wide sensor has changed from 0x903 to 0x905. This more than likely means the main rear camera of the iPhone 18 Pro is changing.

The iPhone 18 Pro might offer an upgraded rear wide camera.

To be more specific, the wide or main camera of the iPhone 17 Pro uses the Sony IMX-903 image sensor. Our findings would thus suggest that the iPhone 18 Pro will use the Sony IMX-905, a new custom-made image sensor.

As for what the upgrade itself might entail, rumors from October 2025, February 2026, and April 2026 claim the iPhone 18 Pro will get a rear camera with a variable aperture. If implemented, a variable aperture would reduce the need for computational photography to accomplish bokeh effects.

Though the documentation taken from Tata reveals a multitude of information about the upcoming iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max, the documents themselves detail prototype hardware in various stages of development. It’s not yet clear if these are final schematics, or interim ones.

from the well-that’s-a-choice dept

It should be obvious at this point that JD Vance is a purely political creature. There’s no virtue to find in there, no moral stances firmly taken, nor anything resembling a true political ideology. There is only the attainment and retention of more and more power. You need look no further than Vance’s prior status as a self-affirmed “never Trumper” that compared the current president to Hitler, only to flip-flop completely and become both Trump’s greatest defender and running mate. He wants to be president, of course, and will take whatever action or stance he thinks gives him the best chance to sit behind the Resolute Desk.

Now, I’m not particularly keen on giving free political advice to someone so loathsome, but I don’t think I’m breaking new ground when I say it’s not a great idea for Vance to brag about how this administration has so perfectly neutered the free press that they could do a bunch of Watergates and it wouldn’t be a major issue for them.

Vice President JD Vance on Thursday said the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon would have been a blip in today’s news cycle, and he drew parallels between Nixon and President Donald Trump — arguing that both were targeted by “deep state” forces.

“If Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story. The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy,” Vance said.

He went on: “If you look at the story of how the deep state took down Richard Nixon, it’s not all that different from what the same groups of people, the same institutions tried to do to Donald Trump in the first Trump administration.”

Advertisement

On this, Vance is sadly correct on multiple fronts, while incorrect on others. A Watergate scandal today probably wouldn’t get as much attention as it did in the 70s, in large part due to the bifurcation of our news media into one traditional media wing and one plain propaganda wing for the proverbial right. But that’s not a good thing. It’s bragging about the culmination of a long term plan to subjugate the press being that you can pull off wild scandals and get away with it. And if you need proof of that, you need only remember that January 6th happened, Donald Trump attempted to pull off a coup to retain the presidency over the clear will of the voters, and then managed to get elected to office again.

Vance’s comparison of Trump to Nixon is also quite apropos, though it’s quite incredible to see him willing to make it voluntarily. Once again, if you’re making a list of the worst political scandals in United States history, Watergate and January 6th are 1 and 1a, with the only argument being in which order you place them.

But it’s what he gets wrong about Watergate that explains why Vance somehow thinks these are good words to say out loud. The Nixon resignation from office was most certainly not the work of some “deep state.” Quite the opposite, in fact. Nixon used what might be called the deep state, or at least government intelligence services and the Justice Department, to attempt to evade accountability for breaking into the DNC headquarters and bugging them. He was caught attempting to hide and destroy evidence of his involvement in this crime. He’s on tape ordering an end to an investigation into his own reelection campaign. He resigned instead of being impeached. None of the above is a matter of debate.

Which is why, when Vance goes even further and happily compares himself to Nixon, I suggest we take him at his word.

Vance then noted his own similarities with Nixon.

“Young senator, vice president, writes some bestselling books, is hated by the media,” he said. “It kind of sounds like JD Vance. I’ve always liked Richard Nixon.”

Nixon was not a perfectly terrible president, but nobody serious wants to compare themselves to Mussolini over the apocryphal claims that he kept the trains running on time. Until the current president, Nixon was clearly the most disgraced American president ever. Again, I don’t really think that is a matter for debate.

What this smells like instead is Vance attempting to will into existence the “renaissance” he claims Nixon’s legacy is undergoing at the moment. I have not heard of this renaissance until Vance decided to talk about it. Normalizing a scandal-plagued president must surely serve some purpose, but I can already see campaign ads in a few years asking the public if they really want another Nixon president, since that was Vance claims to be.

These are not the most talented people, it is clear. I can’t possibly see the percentage for Vance in trying to frame himself as a modern day Nixon. But I suppose there is some honesty in the claim, for what it’s worth.

Filed Under: jd vance, politics, richard nixon, scandals

Apple CEO Tim Cook will soon be Executive Chairman and handle government interactions, but that isn’t stopping him from taking a phone call today with a European Commission head over Apple AI in the EU.

WWDC 2026 was focused on system optimization, child safety, and the new Apple Foundation Models. Apple Users in the EU were cut off completely from that last third of the keynote, as those features can’t launch in the region as they exist today.

According to a report from The Financial Times, first shared by 9to5Mac, Apple CEO Tim Cook had a virtual meeting with Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice President of the European Commission, which reportedly was “constructive.” People familiar with the exchange said that the conversation centered around how Apple might launch its revamped AI tools in the EU without violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

For anyone paying attention, such a phone call was inevitable. It could be months or years of back and forth before Apple and the EU find a compromise here.

What’s actually interesting here is Tim Cook himself being on the other end of the phone. He’s still CEO, but will be stepping down on September 1 to take over as Executive Chairman with John Ternus taking on the CEO role.

Normally, such things would have involved Eddy Cue or a similar senior executive. It seems that Cook is taking on his role as a government liaison sooner than expected.

Of course, Cook has already acted as a buffer between the United States administration and Apple in the past. That role is expanding with his position as Executive Chairman.

It isn’t clear who might budge first in these negotiations. The problem is that Apple likely won’t be materially affected by this delayed launch and the EU seems rather stubborn in its demands.

In the end, it is the Apple customers in the EU that lose the most.

The Trump administration is lifting export controls on Anthropic’s two most powerful AI models after the company reached a deal with the Commerce Department. The news was communicated in a letter sent by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to Anthropic cofounder Tom Brown viewed by WIRED.

The department is lifting restrictions on both the Fable 5 model and the more powerful Mythos 5 model, which had so far been approved for release only to select companies and government agencies. “A license is no longer required for the export, reexport, or in-country transfer, including deemed export or deemed reexport, of the Mythos or Fable models,” Lutnick wrote.

The developments come as Anthropic has been working with the Commerce Department and the White House to strengthen safeguards against users bypassing Fable’s safety restrictions to access restricted capabilities, especially those related to cybersecurity, according to people familiar with the matter.

“Among other things, Anthropic has agreed to proactively detect and address security risks associated with the models; to work diligently with the U.S. government on protocols and standards and releases for Mythos, Fable, and future models,” Lutnick wrote.

Lutnick has been leading the Trump administration’s efforts to resolve its dispute with Anthropic alongside the national cyber director Sean Cairncross.

Anthropic originally contended that the administration’s security concerns were overblown. The company said it was impossible to ensure there were zero jailbreaks that could unlock the more powerful capabilities of the company’s restricted Mythos model.

In recent weeks, Anthropic changed tack to try to get Fable back online, which has also meant changing the company’s communication style with the administration. WIRED previously reported that Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei was recently replaced in meetings with Brown, who officials liked more on a personal level.

Anthropic also assured the administration that it would try to reduce the number of jailbreaks by building more robust safeguards, effectively telling the administration what it wanted to hear rather than relitigating the conceptual issue of whether jailbreaks can be stopped, the people said.

Update 6/30/26 7:53pm ET: This story has been updated to include references to a letter sent by the Commerce Department to Anthropic viewed by WIRED.

SandboxAQ claims its LQMs can offer ‘critical advances’ in sectors such as life sciences, financial services and navigation.

Quantum computing and AI technology company SandboxAQ is to make two of its ‘large quantitative models’ (LQMs) available for Google Cloud Marketplace users with the aim of driving AI-assisted developments in materials science, healthcare and drug discovery.

SandboxAQ said its LQMs are “rigorous, physics-grounded scientific models” built on “real-world lab data and scientific equations” that will now interface with other AI models through Google’s platform.

The ‘AQCat’ LQM, which will be available on the storefront in Q3 of this year, “targets the most critical first step in catalyst and materials discovery, adsorption energy calculation, which is a measure of how strongly molecules bind to a catalyst surface”, its maker said.

Researchers will be able to use AQCat “to rapidly identify and prioritise the most promising candidates” for materials discovery “before committing costly modelling and lab resources to full evaluation”, according to SandboxAQ, which said that catalysts underpin more than 90pc of all commercially produced chemical products and directly impact initiatives such as green hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuel, fertiliser production and plastics recycling.

“Bringing our LQMs to Google Cloud’s Marketplace will put the rigour of first-principles science directly into the hands of every researcher, in the tools they already use,” said Jack D Hidary, CEO of SandboxAQ.

“Pairing the reasoning of a frontier model such as Gemini with the quantitative precision of our LQMs is a powerful combination.”

The ‘AQPotency’ LQM, available later in 2026 on Google Cloud Marketplace, “will let researchers computationally identify and prioritise the most promising binders at high throughput, evaluating thousands of candidates in a fraction of the time and cost of traditional screening”, according to its creator.

SandboxAQ said that binding molecule identification is “the foundation of designing a safe, effective drug”, and the new LQM would offer “frontier, physics-grounded drug discovery capabilities” to pharmaceutical and biotech R&D teams.

Brian Goldstein, vice-president of strategic AI and independent software vendors at Google Cloud, said: “Bringing SandboxAQ’s large quantitative models to [our] marketplace is one of the ways we are empowering healthcare researchers to accelerate drug discovery and solve one of the most critical gaps in healthcare today.”

SandboxAQ is already integrated with Anthropic’s Claude AI model. It claims its LQMs can offer “critical advances” in sectors such as life sciences, financial services and navigation.

The company began life at Alphabet, the parent organisation of Google, in 2016, before launching as a spin-out in 2022. SandboxAQ is chaired by Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google.

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Social media platforms have spent years telling parents their children are safe online. New research suggests those assurances don’t hold up. A report from the Cybersafety Research Center tested 86 child safety features across TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube. Only 35 worked as promised, and the rest were broken, buried in settings, or missing entirely.

Which social media platforms performed the worst on child safety?

To run the tests, researchers created fake teen accounts and adult accounts to see whether safety features worked in practice. Snapchat had the worst failure rate at 73%, followed by Instagram at 66%, YouTube at 55%, and TikTok at 50%. Every conduct safeguard designed to prevent cyberbullying failed across all four platforms.

On TikTok, a minor’s test account searching for content related to disordered eating was met with the app’s own suggestions for terms linked to pro-anorexia communities, including phrases about hiding food and self-harm.

On Snapchat, an adult test account was able to find and message a child account without any restrictions at all. Meanwhile, Instagram prevented adults from starting conversations with teens who didn’t follow them, but once a child messaged an adult first, that adult could reply freely with no warnings.

Across all four platforms, nine features were classified as completely missing, meaning researchers could not trigger them even after following the steps each company described.

How the platforms responded and what this means for child safety online

All four companies disputed the findings, arguing their features work as intended or that the tests didn’t reflect how real kids use the apps. These findings come as the UK moves toward a social media ban for under-16s, while similar restrictions gain traction in other countries.

Separate research has also found that Australia’s outright ban on under-16s has not stopped 85% of teens from accessing social media anyway, as kids have proven surprisingly creative at bypassing age checks altogether.

The bigger problem is getting harder to ignore. If platform safeguards are weak and bans are easy to dodge, your child may be relying on systems that are far less safe than they seem.