I’ve spend more time than I care to admit researching Selena Gomez today. The 33-year-old pop singer and star of Only Murders in The Building is at the center of an elaborate online conspiracy theory that been building steam all week. Why? In brief, many people online seem to believe Selena Gomez is a clone.
It started with the Epstein files. Last week, videos started showing up on TikTok claiming Selena Gomez was mentioned in the Epstein files. She was, but Gomez wasn’t corresponding with Epstein; her name is mentioned in a July 21, 2017 message between Jeffery Epstein and Lana (NAME REDACTED) in which Epstein writes, “sorry , you would have had fun. he has diecided [sic] on selena gomez.”
Conspiracy theorists have been using the Epstein files as evidence to confirm basically anything since they were released in January, and that Gomez reference from Epstein is, in their minds, a smoking gun that proves she’s a clone. The theory says the real Selena Gomez passed away during a kidney transplant operation in 2017, and the person we think is Selena Gomez is a genetically engineered replica. Interestingly, I can’t find anyone talking about why someone would go to the trouble, but maybe it was to keep the Gomez-money-machine printing cash.
To back up the cloning assertion, believers in the theory are comparing pictures and videos of a pre-2017 Gomez with her current appearance and pointing out all the ways she doesn’t look and sound like she did almost a decade ago. She has a rounded face now where here face used to be angular! Her voice is different too; she used to sound bubbly and high-pitched, now she sounds like Madeline Kahn. This has led some to believe she somehow is Madelein Kahn. (Or maybe Geena Davis.)
It’s impossible to prove a negative, but I’m still comfortable saying that Selena Gomez is definitely not a clone. Scientists have cloned all kinds of animals, from sheep to primates, so there’s theoretically no reason a human couldn’t be cloned. But it hasn’t been done (that anyone knows about), because it’s so unethical. But even if you put ethics aside, animal cloning has an extremely high failure rate: It took 79 embryos and 42 surrogate mothers to clone two macaque monkeys, for instance, and that was using fetal cells. Attempts to make cloned monkeys from adult cells went worse: 181 embryos were implanted into 42 surrogate mothers, and two baby monkeys were born, but both died within hours. The idea that a small army of doctors and scientists and 40+ surrogate mothers are keeping quiet about that one time they were supposed to give birth to Selena Gomez’s clone isn’t credible.
Like a lot of conspiracy theories, this one doesn’t even hold up to its own logic: if Selena Gomez had been cloned, wouldn’t the new version be identical to the old one? Why the changes in voice and appearance? If the clone can be spotted on sight (or upon listening to her sing), why make a clone at all?
More importantly, you can’t clone a full-grown person. You can (theoretically) clone a human embryo, but it would have to be implanted in someone’s womb, gestate, and be born. You’d have to raise it too. A Selena Gomez clone wouldn’t just pop out of a giant test tube and report to the set of a late-career Woody Allen movie.
Speaking of Woody Allen, the most reasonable explanation for that email is Jeffery Epstein telling “Lana” who Woody Allen had cast in A Rainy Day in New York—a movie shot in 2017 that stars Selena Gomez. The timeline fits perfectly with that movie’s pre-production schedule—they announced the casting publicly two weeks later—and Epstein and Allen were longtime acquaintances.
Selena Gomez has lupus, a debilitating disease serious enough to have required her to receive a kidney transplant in 2017. No matter how rich and famous you are, you don’t come out of that unmarked. The change in the shape of the face (“Moon face” as it’s called) and body are well known side effects of the corticosteroids/steroids given to treat Lupus, as well as the immunosuppressants given for organ transplants. Same with her voice: Lupus causes vocal changes in about 80% of sufferers. Inflammation of the cricoarytenoid joint commonly leads to a lower pitched or raspy voice. Gomez even addressed the changes herself, noting that her “throat kinda swells inside sometimes” due to her health issues.
In short, Selena Gomez looks and sounds exactly like someone who has lupus and had a kidney transplant in 2017. Ironically, if she looked the same as she did 10 years ago, it would be much stronger evidence for a conspiracy. It would be totally reasonable to ask, “did she really have a kidney replaced? Does she really have lupus?” But she clearly did and does, and you can see it on her face and hear it in her voice.
When it comes to cloning conspiracies, we’ve been her before. In 1969, hippies were convinced that Paul McCartney of the Beatles had died, and been replaced by Billy Shears, the (fictional) winner of a Paul McCartney look-a-like contest. In 2003, Avril Lavigne was said to have been replaced by a body double Melissa Vandella. Gucci Mane came out of prison in 2016 looking slimmer, and fans thought he was a clone. Britney Spears is AI. Eminem is an android. It never ends. I’m not sure why people in parasocial relationships with entertainers love pretending they’re fake, but they really do.
I don’t think many Selena Gomez fans really believe she’s a clone, even if they post about it online. At least, they don’t believe it in the same way they believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I doubt I could get anyone to put money on it. It feels more like it’s half fan-fiction, an exciting (if ghoulish) game of what if?
Believing in a world where a cabal of Hollywood mad scientists secretly cloned an actress so Hulu could produce more Only Murders in the Building is more exciting than accepting the dull, randomness of actual life. It’s hard to accept that anyone, even a celebrity, can be stricken with a debilitating diseases that changes their faces and gives them unfamiliar voice, just because that’s how shit goes sometimes. Because that means it could happen to you. In conspiracy-land, at least there’s someone in charge of the bad things that happen. We’d rather have someone steering the bus, even with terrible intentions, than accept that there is no driver, and the exit doors are sealed shut.
The facilities provided by the kernel for the management of processes have
evolved considerably in the last few years, driven mostly by the advent of
the pidfd API. A pidfd is a file
descriptor that refers to a process; unlike a process ID, a pidfd is an
unambiguous handle for a process; that makes it a safer, more deterministic
way of operating on processes. Christian Brauner, who has driven much of
the pidfd-related work, is proposing
two new flags for the clone3()
system call, one of which changes the kernel’s security model in a
somewhat controversial way.
For the last few years, Lamborghini has been in a quandary: What to do about an electric vehicle? Among the supercar brands, Lamborghini has always stood out as favoring drama over lap times. And while electric motors and their instant torque can make a car accelerate very quickly indeed, other than the G-forces, it happens with such little fuss. Working out how to imbue an EV with enough “wow” factor to wear the famous bull badge has proved so difficult that the company has thrown in the towel in favor of developing more plug-in hybrids.
As part of Volkswagen Group, Lamborghini has access to the EV platforms used by fellow VW Group brands Audi and Porsche, so it’s not a question of access to technology. Rather, the company just doesn’t think it can sell the cars. As Tim Stevens found out for Ars last year, in this rarefied end of the car market, the customers just aren’t interested in EVs. People paying six or even seven figures for a supercar, especially a Lamborghini, are not exercising restraint, and they don’t want the car to do that, either.
Speaking to the Sunday Times this weekend, Lamborghini CEO Stephan Winkelmann revealed that the Lanzador, an electric SUV under development for the past few years, was canceled in late 2025. “Investing heavily in full-EV development when the market and customer base are not ready would be an expensive hobby, and financially irresponsible towards shareholders, customers [and] to our employees and their families,” he told the paper.
If this claim (as noted by tech insider Old Chen Air over at Weibo)
Google Cloud recently launched their N4A series powered by their in-house Axion ARM64 processors. In that launch-day benchmarking last month was looking at how the N4A with Axion compared to their prior-generation ARM64 VMs powered by Ampere Altra. There were dramatic generational gains, but how does the N4A stand up to the AMD EPYC and Intel Xeon instances? Here are some follow-up benchmarks I had done to explore the N4A performance against the Intel Xeon N4 and AMD EPYC N4D series.
SRAM has unveiled a series of changes to its Maven brakes, relaunching the Bronze, Silver and top-tier models.
Although the lever feel has changed, SRAM says the top-end power remains the same.
With the lever feel of the mightily punchy Mavens being somewhat divisive, SRAM set about making some changes to the SwingLink cam mechanism and lever blade. The result is a brake that’s lighter to pull but still offers outstanding stopping power.
If you own the Mavens already, these new parts can be purchased as an aftermarket upgrade.
Braking style, lever setup and feel are all very individual, subjective things.
That’s why different riders will like different brakes for different reasons.
When SRAM launched the Maven brakes in 2024, I was a big fan of the power they possessed and how it was delivered.
Not everyone was, though. While some criticised them for being too powerful, there were more who were unhappy with the initial lever feel, wanting it to be lighter.
This might not have been such an issue if the Maven line-up didn’t include the Base model. The more basic lever didn’t feature the SwingLink cam mechanism and, as a result, felt lighter to pull.
The Maven Base model won over rider after rider and SRAM was quick to take note. It knew it needed to update the Maven line-up and adjust how the pricier, more adjustable levers felt in a bid to please the masses and the result is the updates announced today.
I caught up with Ben Crowe, Maven product manager, to find out how these changes came about.
“The current gen has that distinct heavy breakaway. As with anything, people who liked that just got on and rode it,” says Crowe.
While the original Mavens had their fans, that initial lever feel created more than its fair share of critics.
Crowe continues: “There were people who wanted a lighter-action lever. That was probably one of the number one things; getting rid of that cam-over feel and making that just a bit smoother and in line with Base.”
Despite lacking all the bells and whistles of its three pricier counterparts, the Base model’s lever feel was lighter and something many riders were gravitating towards.
“We had our SwingLink Mavens and Base Mavens in market, which had very different lever feels, so we got to take learnings from both and make improvements to the SwingLink versions,” says Crowe.
He and the product team got to work, using feedback about the original brake.
The result? “We made changes to the SwingLink mechanism, but almost everything else in the system is the same – same level of power, same air management system, same gland and volumes.”
So, what did SRAM do to change the polarising lever feel of the Maven Ultimate, Silver and Bronze brakes?
“We did manipulate the hydraulic ratio slightly. But it’s the change in the SwingLink that is going to manipulate your mechanical advantage through the pull of the stroke, and then the slight change in the hydraulic rate is how we addressed the feel,” says Crowe.
Take a closer look and you’ll see the older brake features a red cam, compared to the gold SwingLink cam on the new model.
This change means there’s a higher initial leverage rate, delivering a lighter feel at the revised lever blade. SRAM has then designed the leverage rate to be more linear on the new brake compared to its predecessor, although this still builds progressively, with the aim of delivering more power as you get deeper into the stroke.
Smoothing out the leverage rate helps to create a more predictable brake overall, with a ramp at the end where power tops out.
The previous brake delivered a lot of power in the middle of the stroke with less ramp-up at the end and required more force to get the lever moving initially.
With an increased mechanical rate, SRAM needed to balance out the hydraulic rate in order to keep the power the same.
This was done by reducing all four pistons to the same 18mm diameter, compared to the previous iteration, which featured two 19.5mm-diameter pistons, alongside two 18mm pistons.
The end result, according to Crowe, is “the lever feel off the top is much more similar to Maven Base”.
But how did SRAM settle on the final lever feel? And when did it decide that the existing offering wasn’t quite right?
Crowe explains: “We rely heavily on feedback from riders that trickles up through our in-market reps, our OEM customers and just markets. We try to listen the best we can and when something feels like there’s a momentum swell, you can feel that it’s not just one or two people saying something.”
Of course, it’s not as simple as making the decision to alter an entire product line because it’s a costly process. Crowe and his team will investigate the scope and costs of such a project before ploughing resource into it. In this case, it made sense to make some changes.
But how big a change should they aim to make? Replicate the feel of the Base or try something more extreme?
“We found that a light lever action is good, but if it’s too light, you start to lose some of the feedback,” says Crowe.
It was the feedback that I really liked (along with the power) on the first Maven brake. I find if the lever feels too light, my braking isn’t as accurate and I tend to pull harder than I need to.
Getting that feel perfect can’t be easy, though. What does the process look like for a brand such as SRAM?
“To the subjectivity part. Some people like that [a light lever feel] and want it as light as possible, and sometimes if it’s too light, you feel like you’re losing that precision and feedback of how hard you’re pulling,” says Crowe.
With the help of the machine shop in SRAM’s Colorado Springs facility, the brake team was able to whip up a number of different SwingLink samples, each delivering a slightly different brake feel.
Crowe gives some insights into the testing process: “Because it was so subjective, we have some hard requirements on reach range, and what your max deadband is in the worst-case scenario. For the subjective side of where that curve starts to climb at the end of the stroke, we get a group of six to eight of us together and go and do week-long test trips.”
While riding, Crowe explains SRAM’s riders avoid talking to one another, keeping feedback private to avoid influencing other members of the team.
They then collate their feedback in the hope they can make a call on the final direction they’ll be heading in.
“The one we went to production with was the almost uncontested preferred option,” says Crowe.
On the trail, it’s fair to say the revised SwingLink and lever make a difference – and the feel, especially that initial pull, is lighter. I’ll have a full review coming soon, so keep an eye out for that.
Not only did SRAM update the SwingLink, but the latest generation of Maven brakes also features new lever blades.
While the Ultimate brakes get a lighter-weight carbon blade, possibly the most interesting update is the Silver’s lever, which is a forged then CNC-machined number and is the choice of World Cup phenomenon Amaury Pierron.
The Bronze brakes use a forged alloy lever blade.
What’s more, SRAM is offering a retro-fittable ‘tuning kit’, which includes the new SwingLink (gold) and revised lever blade. That means if you have Mavens (Ultimate, Silver or Bronze) and want a lighter lever feel, you should be able to achieve it. And, in theory, by changing the SwingLink and lever but keeping the same caliper and pistons (including the two 19.5mm pots), you could increase power slightly more.
SRAM also says it has improved overall consistency with the new brakes and made setup easier.
As I rolled into the steep, off-camber trail, littered with roots and rocks, I could clearly see the line I needed to hold. Just a few inches off and I’d be into the trees and cartwheeling down the side of a Welsh mountain.
Letting off the brakes, I managed to slide the bike into position and committed.
And then the revelation. As the speed picked up, I couldn’t quite comprehend how well my front wheel was tracking the ground. There was grip and control like I’d never felt. I could hold the line and ride it faster than ever before.
As my front wheel fluttered over the chunky root spread, I knew the fork I’d invested in was well worth the money.
This was back in 1999. I’d worked for hours on end in a supermarket, saving up to buy the latest RockShox Boxxer 151 and it was already changing how I was riding my bike.
Now, 27 years on, RockShox has unveiled the latest, updated Boxxer. It’s better than ever, dripping in cool tech and I was at the launch in New Zealand to see whether it could match the revelatory experience I had with the original fork.
RockShox unveiled the first Boxxer downhill fork way back in 1996. Back then, it was a prototype and only a handful of top racers had access to the tech. It had 32mm stanchions, 150mm of travel and posts for rim-brake calipers.
Then, in 1998, RockShox released the Boxxer to the masses, who could make the most of the open bath damping and mounts for disc brakes, which were slowly gathering momentum.
In the early 2000s, coil springs were replaced with a single-sided air spring and the first Motion Control damper.
Slowly, travel figures crept up to 200mm, different stanchion treatments were applied to reduce friction and damping adjustment, and tunability started to increase.
As I’m sure you can remember, it wasn’t all about damper development. Once into the 2010s, the mountain bike industry decided to up wheel size from 26in to 27.5in, then 29in hoops. As a result, the Boxxer had to change, too.
Before long, the stanchions were beefed up to 38mm and the Boxxer housed the latest DebonAir+ air spring and Charger 3 RC2 damper.
When it comes to success, the Boxxer must be one of, if not the most successful mountain bike forks of all time. It helped the likes of Steve Peat, Nico Vouilloz, Rachel Atherton, Sabrina Jonnier and Sam Hill (to name a few) win multiple World Cup races, overalls and World Championships between them.
I was one of the early customers. Although I’d missed out on the early 1998 fork, I managed to secure the 1999 151.
This replaced the RST Hi-5 I’d been running up until that point. The lack of control it offered, along with the elastomers that drastically altered in performance depending on the temperature, meant it was rubbish.
While I knew it couldn’t turn me into Steve Peat or Nico Vouilloz overnight, the 151 felt incredible. On my first ride on a Welsh mountainside, I couldn’t believe how well it kept my front wheel tracking the ground.
Root spreads were swallowed, I was finding grip where I never knew it existed and my confidence was sky high as a result. Swapping to this new fork transformed my bike and how I could ride it.
That was close to 30 years ago, though, and a lot has changed. The 2027 fork I’m just back from riding in New Zealand’s Queenstown Bike Park is a far cry from the coil-sprung, skinny-legged Boxxer I started out on.
Let’s start with the new, position-sensitive LinearXL air spring (stiffness varies depending on how far the fork is compressed) and the sticky-out bit at the bottom of the lowers, dubbed the AirAnnex.
The LinearXL AirAnnex creates additional volume on the spring side of the lower legs (which looks a lot like a brake reservoir). This helps produce a more linear spring curve, reducing harsh ramp-up that can result from the air inside the lower legs compressing.
Because there’s less volume on the air-spring side (due to the difference in air-spring cartridge versus damper design), the lowers only needed the extra space on one side to achieve this.
A more linear, less progressive spring curve helps produce more comfort and control deeper in the stroke.
To achieve this, RockShox moved to a twin-tube design, with the resulting changes (decrease in piston diameter, etc) requiring higher spring pressures as a result.
On top of this lot, breather holes placed strategically on the upper tubes (stanchions) further reduce pressure build by balancing pressures in the lower legs as the fork moves through its travel, boosting the overall effect and, according to RockShox, improving sensitivity and reducing any kind of harshness.
RockShox says it has created a very predictable, supportive and controlled new air spring that’s extremely supple.
Some of that suppleness and sensitivity can be attributed to divots dotted around the stanchions.
These dimples are found below the wiper seals. As the fork cycles through its travel, lower-leg lubrication oil can get trapped in these shallow pits before being transported to the bushings (and foam rings), ensuring things stay as slippery and friction-free as possible. This, in turn, helps create a consistent and very predictable feel, as well as upping the service interval to 50 hours.
Inverted forks don’t struggle with this issue because gravity helps keep the oil where it needs to be for maximum lubrication, so the RockShox ‘ButterWagonTech’, as the team refer to these divots, could be a real step forward for improved sensitivity over a longer period of time.
To help further, RockShox has switched to a new Maxima 15wt lower-leg oil and helped develop new SG920 grease, in a bid to rid the Boxxer of as much friction as possible.
It also worked with SKF to develop new wiper seals, which are said to ‘grab’ less on the stanchions as the fork switches between compression and rebound.
With less friction in the fork, RockShox had to reconfigure the Charger 3.2 damper, adding more damping force to help compensate for the lack of stiction.
The updated speed-sensitive damper (which regulates oil flow and damping force depending on the shaft speed) is designed to be incredibly easy to set up – a trait many appreciate with RockShox suspension units.
Adjustments include rebound damping, along with low- and high-speed compression, which are claimed to be fully independent of one another.
The updated rebound and compression tunes are said to still feel similar at the extreme ends (fully open or fully closed), with each click in between offering a tangible difference in feel.
On top of that, you’ll still find ButterCups at the end of the spring and damping shafts. These little golden assemblies are designed to help eliminate high-frequency vibrations and reduce rider fatigue.
It’s not all about the fork, though, with RockShox also unveiling the new Vivid Coil rear shock.
According to the brand, it has tidied up the oil paths in the reservoir, reduced friction and IFP pressures (which lowers the breakaway force and ups sensitivity) and updated the damper extensively, claiming to have made the low- and high-speed compression adjusters more usable, without any harshness when you need to wind them on.
As with the Boxxer, it has also numbered the adjuster dials to help riders keep tabs on their settings more easily.
So, did riding the new Boxxer conjure up the same feeling I had back in 1999 when I first tried the fork?
I spent three days lapping Coronet Peak and the Queenstown Bike Park to get a feel for for the new Boxxer.
While I don’t think my experience of the new fork could be as transformative as my first time on a Boxxer – remember, I’d switched from a fork with elastomers and springs over to the coil-sprung Boxxer 151, which was a massive leap – I was still extremely impressed.
It’s sensitive and smooth, but my biggest takeaway was how well it could handle big impacts late in its travel.
Riding the rough, fast trails of Queenstown Bike Park, I couldn’t believe what I could get away with when stoving the new Boxxer into the ugliest, steepest sections of track.
There were times when I felt as if my arms were going to crumple and leave my chest slammed on the bar, yet the fork soaked up the hardest hits, supporting my weight without feeling harsh and recovering in an instant, to keep my front wheel tracking the trail.
This was seriously impressive stuff.
The adjustments were noticeable and dialling it in didn’t take long, as promised.
Because my time with the new fork was limited to only a few days, I’ll leave a full review until I’ve spent more time on it, so stay tuned.
The forks and shocks below are available for aftermarket purchase. RockShox will also have various Select+ and base models on complete bikes, so keep an eye on bike brand websites for specs.
Mondraker has introduced its new Summum DH bike, available only in aluminium construction and mullet (mixed wheel size) configuration. All models will have reach adjustment via interchangeable headset cups, angle adjustment using a flip chip on the shock mount and adjustable chainstay length.
The top-spec build will include SRAM’s new wireless electronic seven-speed DH groupset, XX DH AXS Transmission, also released today.
The Mondraker Summum has a strong lineage, with the first prototype including Mondraker’s Zero Suspension System appearing in 2009 when Fabien Barel rode a prototype Summum to win the Maribor DH World Cup.
The Summum still uses Mondraker’s proprietary virtual-pivot style suspension system, seen on all of Mondraker’s full-suspension bikes. The Zero Suspension System connects front and rear triangles with two short, co-rotating links.
Although team riders were seen using a Summum with an idler wheel in 2024, the new Summum retains a more traditional low-pivot suspension setup delivering 200mm of rear-wheel travel.
The shock’s angle is more horizontal, showing that the way it’s actuated has been refined compared to the previous-generation bike.
The suspension is adjustable via a flip chip in the shock mount. Mondraker says the adjustment is primarily for geometry changes, but that it also changes leverage ratio at the beginning of the travel and increases progression by 1.5 per cent. Mondraker suggests this can be used to adapt the bike to different rider preferences, terrain and shocks.
There are three sizes on offer: medium, large and extra large, with 450mm, 480mm and 510mm reach respectively.
Mondraker has built a range of adjustment into the Summum for different riders’ bodies and riding styles.
Swapping the removable headset cups on the Summum changes the reach by +/- 5mm.
The flip chip alters the bottom bracket height by +/- 5mm and the head tube and seat tube angles by +/- 0.35 degrees.
Removable dropout inserts on the Summum can shorten or lengthen the chainstay by +/- 5mm to fine tune how the bike rides.
These adjustments add up to 27 possible geometry configurations. All Summums (including the frame-only option) include the dropout kit and reach adjustment headset cups as standard, so no extra purchase is needed to access the full range of geometry customisation.
The Summum is the only bike ever to score a clean sweep at a downhill World Championship, with a 1, 2, 3 for Danny Hart, Laurie Greenland and Flo Payet at Val Di Sole in 2016.
In 2017, Markus Stöckl took a standard Mondraker Summum to 167.6Km/h down a Chilean mountain, making it the fastest production mountain bike in the world.
This latest version of the Summum has been refined by the Mondraker DH team, including two-time Hardline and World Cup winner Rónán Dunne.
During the 2025 season, the prototype had bolt-on stiffening plates in the rear triangle. These enabled the stiffness to be tuned for optimum traction and Mondraker to decide on the balance of stiffness and compliance in the final production frame.
There are two bike builds and a frame-only option to choose from:
The Summum RR is the top-spec bike with a RockShox Boxxer Ultimate 29in fork, RockShox Vivid Coil Ultimate shock, DT Swiss EX1700 Classic wheels, SRAM Maven Ultimate brakes and the new electronic SRAM XX DH AXS T-Type seven-speed drivetrain.
The Summum R is the more budget-conscious of the two builds, featuring a Fox 40 Performance fork and Fox DHX2 Performance shock, e*thirteen Grappler Flux wheels, SRAM Maven Base brakes and SRAM GX DH seven-speed drivetrain. The Summum R is available in a Fog Grey / Superblack / Solar Flare colourway.
Mondraker says bikes and frames will be available “in a few weeks”.
SRAM’s new XX DH AXS Transmission is aimed squarely at downhill racers and riders, and is claimed to offer time savings over traditional, cabled gearing.
With the ability to shift under load, SRAM claims riders can accelerate faster over the first 15 metres of track, saving a claimed 1/20th of a second (0.05 secs), which could make a massive difference to race results.
SRAM says that’s because there’s no need to lift off the power while punching through wireless gears.
On top of that, the DH-specific, direct-mount derailleur is said to be SRAM’s toughest yet, and its quietest, too.
SRAM has also made a new alloy crankset in a move away from carbon for DH-specific use.
So, how is SRAM saving racers time? And what does it feel like on the trail? I flew to New Zealand for the launch of XX DH AXS Transmission to find out.
SRAM says the new XX DH AXS Transmission drivetrain enables you to shift under load.
This means racers don’t need to ease off as they hammer the shifter pod as the wireless derailleur transitions from cog to cog when they sprint from the start hut.
As a result, SRAM says riders were able to cover the first 15 metres of track 0.05 seconds faster using the new gear system compared to the traditional cable-operated X01 DH drivetrain it replaces (assuming the power output is the same).
SRAM claims when racers hit that 15-metre mark, they’re travelling 2.7kph faster.
SRAM’s Transmission drivetrains are known for the ability to shift under heavy load, which is why they work so well on eMTBs, which can be brutally unforgiving when it comes to gear changes.
Thanks to the X-Sync tooth profile used across the seven cogs, shift ramps and the shift lanes these create across the seven-speed cassette (10-24t), when you hit the shifter pod to change gear, the chain will only move from one cog to the next when it’s safe to do so.
That’s because the cassette profiling, combined with the clever firmware cassette mapping tech found in the derailleur, means the shift ramps and derailleur’s shift sequence need to sync perfectly before the chain will move, helping to keep it in continuous contact with the cassette, enabling you to shift gears without letting off the gas.
This controlling of shift speeds is what caused some to criticise the original Transmission, saying it was slow to change gear compared to the first-generation AXS Eagle gearing. However, a recent firmware update has helped to rectify this.
According to SRAM, when using its previous DH-specific drivetrain, riders would need to ease off the power momentarily for each shift to ensure the chain moved safely onto the next sprocket. Now, this shouldn’t be an issue, and riders can keep the power down while smashing through the gears.
I’ll admit, I was a little sceptical about the shift to a wireless rear derailleur. That’s not only because of the weight implications, but also because of their size.
If you’ve seen an Eagle AXS Transmission derailleur, you’ll know it’s considerably chunkier than cable-operated equivalents, and even bulkier than the Eagle AXS unit it replaced.
Having destroyed and replaced countless derailleurs in downhill racing, it’s an issue I’m well aware of.
Thankfully, the new XX DH Transmission derailleur sits more inboard than those that mount to derailleur hangers. That’s down partly to the direct-mount interface (it employs SRAM’s Full-Mount system, so doesn’t use a traditional hanger) of this new bit of kit, bolting it straight onto the frame. SRAM says that makes it incredibly robust, although I didn’t see any of the staff standing on it during the launch, as they did when Transmission first launched.
If you end up belting your derailleur into a rock, it’s good to know the outer-parallelogram link, thread-on cage assembly and skid plates are all replaceable.
With clearance in mind, SRAM has designed XX DH Transmission around 148mm axle spacing rather than 150mm or 157mm. It will work with these, you’ll just need to be mindful when it comes to the bottom bracket and cranks – something many bike brands are embracing for DH.
The move to wider rear axles was in order to help create stiffer rear wheels, so shifting to a narrower back end may sound counterintuitive.
To balance things out, SRAM developed a new ‘XD SLIM Driver’ body.
This is shorter than the standard XD Driver and, according to SRAM, enables hubs with wider flanges to be used, creating a symmetrical spoke bracing angle (not dished), which should be strong but also quicker for mechanics to build up – a concern for World Cup teams.
There’s no longer a carbon crankset option for DH, with all XX DH Transmission crank arms made from alloy only.
These purpose-built, DH-specific cranks are said to be SRAM’s most robust crankset yet, and feature machined surfaces on any potentially high-wear area (whether that’s on the face, where they’re likely to be rubbed by shoes, or at the ends where they’ll potentially be bouncing off rocks and roots). This should help keep them looking fresher for longer.
SRAM is offering sizes ranging from 150-165mm, jumping up in 5mm increments.
Bolted to the new cranks is an updated alloy chainring, which has also been beefed up to handle the rigours of modern DH.
This has been designed to work with the Ochain (the suspension-kickback taming chainring-mounted device, recently acquired by SRAM) and is eMTB-compatible, too. Sizes range from 32-36t.
Like the existing Transmission derailleurs, the new XX DH unit uses the same Type 4 roller bearing clutch damper to help keep chain slap to a minimum.
SRAM says that due to the shorter cage found here, and therefore the lower leverage, the DH derailleur’s clutch feels stiffer to move.
The result is a very quiet ride, which I can attest to.
During three days of pummelling down Queenstown’s roughest DH runs, my test bike was freakishly quiet throughout.
When questioned about how the clutch impacts suspension performance, SRAM told me the impact is minimal.
In fact, according to its testing, SRAM says the lack of noise and vibration from the drivetrain had the biggest impact when it came to rider experience over any suspension performance concerns.
Bolting on a wireless derailleur, complete with a 50g battery, adds weight to back end of the bike, exactly where you don’t want it. You’re adding to the unsprung mass of the bike, which can in turn negatively impact suspension performance.
According to SRAM, although heavier than a standard derailleur, when you pair the new wireless unit with the new XX DH Transmission cassette and look at the system as a whole (cassette, XD SLIM Driver and XD SLIM cassette) the overall weight difference is around 100g.
My three days aboard a bike equipped with the new XX DH Transmission drivetrain was by no means a full test of the kit, but did highlight a couple of points.
First, as promised, you can indeed shift under load. Those shifts felt responsive enough while putting the power down and getting up to speed, and never felt harsh or made any of those potential chain-breaking sounds we all fear.
Whether it helped me save time when starting out is hard to say. But I could keep my effort constant as I hit the shifter.
Second, it’s incredibly quiet. Even over washboard braking bumps that had my eyes rattling around my head, the Canyon Sender I was on didn’t make a noise. There was no chain slap, no skipped gears and I experienced nothing but accurate shifting throughout.
I’ll keep riding the bike now I’m home and get a full review done in the not too distant future, so keep an eye out for that.
Discord is attempting to distance itself from the age verification provider Persona following a steady stream of user backlash. From a report: In an emailed statement to The Verge, Discord’s head of product policy, Savannah Badalich, confirms the company “ran a limited test of Persona in the UK where age assurance had previously launched and that test has since concluded.”
After Discord announced plans to implement age verification globally starting next month, users across social media accused Discord of “lying” about how it plans on handling face scans and ID uploads. Much of the criticism was directed toward Discord’s partnership with Persona, an age verification provider also used by Reddit and Roblox.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Even among professional athletes, nobody works out at 100% effort every single week. There are times to rest and recover, often for a week or more, and you and I can apply this principle to our routines, as well. Scaling back your strength training for a short period is called a deload. Here’s how to do one, and how to know when you need it.
Generally speaking, a deload is a short period of time—maybe a week, but this can vary—in which you do less strength training than usual. That said, people use the word in a few different ways.
For some people, a deload is a complete break from training, like a vacation. You take the whole week off, and that’s all there is to it. For others, a deload is just a little bit lower in intensity than your usual work. You may be doing just as many sets and reps, but the weights aren’t as heavy. Another way to do this type of deload is to reduce volume, so that you do fewer reps and sets, but the weights may be just as heavy as usual.
Which type of deload to use will depend on the type of work you’ve been doing up to this point, the reason for the deload, and your (or your coach’s) training philosophy.
A deload allows your body more recovery than you get in your usual training. Every workout incurs a bit of fatigue, and if you’re training hard for weeks (or months) at a time, you might be so tired that you can no longer perform as well or do as much work. A little bit of fatigue is normal, but in extreme cases, your health may begin to suffer.
You don’t need to wait until everything falls apart to think about taking a deload. There are several ways strength athletes (and recreational lifters like you and me) plan ahead to include deloads in their training. Here are the main ones:
To prepare for a competition. To do your best, you’ll need to reduce fatigue without getting rusty. Peaking usually involves a reduction in volume (fewer reps and sets) while keeping the weights heavy.
To introduce new lifts or goals. You’re more likely to get sore if you’re doing something new and intense, so introducing new exercises or new types of training often makes sense during a week of lighter training (in this context, that’s sometimes called a “pivot week.”)
To recover after a tough training block. Some programs will have a deload week built in; others times, you may choose to take an extra week after a program finishes and before you start the next one.
As part of a long-term plan to manage fatigue. Even if your training wasn’t particularly tough, you may want to sprinkle in occasional deload weeks just to be sure you’re not getting unnecessarily fatigued.
In response to perceived stress. Some programs don’t include planned deload weeks, and it’s up to the lifter to decide when they need a break.
There are two schools of thought on deloads. One is to use them as-needed: you train hard for as long as you can, and then take a deload when you start to feel beat-up. The other is that deloads should be planned, so that you never find yourself in the position of wondering if it’s time to take a deload yet.
I wouldn’t say there’s a single right answer; both styles of training have succeeded for the right people. But I will say that it’s hard to know when is the right time to take a deload if you’re doing them as-needed. Some people will want to take a deload as soon as they start to struggle even the tiniest bit, even if their problem isn’t something a deload can fix. Meanwhile, a lot of dedicated athletes will keep training long after they should have taken a break. It may be smarter to plan ahead and take those deloads whenever the calendar says it’s time.
If you’re working with a coach, ask them about their big-picture plans for you. The deloads (or lack thereof) should be part of the puzzle, and have a reason for being programmed the way they are.
If you’re running a program that you’ve found on the Internet or in books, take a moment to think about how your program approaches deloads. Some may include deloads, and some may not. If you’re programming for yourself, you can take inspiration from other programs that are out there, but you should also use some common sense and ask yourself how you are feeling.
Deloads are a common tool for fatigue management, but they aren’t the only tool. Your program may adjust volume from week to week, for example, in a way that keeps you feeling fresh. If that’s the case, you may not need a deload at all. Even if you’re preparing for a competition, a deload is a very common way to reduce fatigue and ensure a good performance, but that doesn’t mean you always need to deload before a competition. (It’s common to “train through” a competition that is low priority, for example.)
A deload is really just a training tool, so make sure you’re matching your choices about deloads to what your body needs.
It’s been a little over a week since Discord said it will take its age verification mandate global, and despite promises that most users wouldn’t need to verify, the company is still in hot water with gamers.
Most recently, Discord’s been discovered to have worked with Peter Thiel-backed company Persona, which itself is embroiled in multiple scandals. These include allegations that it was keeping personal identifying data from Discord users longer than was initially stated, and a reveal that the company accidentally left some of its data available to view on the open internet. Discord now says it’s backing away from its partnership with Persona, but is it worth sticking around after all this?
When Discord announced that it would soon require age verification globally, it actually followed age verification programs that had already started in regions like Australia and the UK. Discord’s only known age verification partner in the United States is k-ID, which uses on-device facial scanning, but users discovered that in the UK, the company had also partnered with Persona. Discord’s partnership with Persona was for an “experiment” that could have seen users submitting information that would have been “temporarily stored for up to seven days, then deleted.”
According to reporting from PCGamer, the information came to light following reports that some UK-based Discord users had gotten requests to submit information to Persona, which prompted concerns about their facial data leaving their devices despite the initial announcement’s promise that only government ID data would go to the cloud, as well as how long any uploaded data would stay in the cloud. In a now-deleted support page, Discord clarified that the partnership was indeed real and part of an experiment, and added the note about the potential seven-day window for deletion, which contradicted statements that uploaded data would be deleted directly after age verification.
In a post on X, the CEO of Persona, Rick Song, attempted to defend the workflow, saying that “on-device facial scanning” is “unfortunately too easy to bypass today,” before later adding that uploaded information is still “processed and then deleted.” However, Song did not provide a timeline for deletion. And data potentially leaving the user’s device despite initial promises that it wouldn’t was only one part of the concern.
Over the weekend, a trio of hacktivists also discovered a vulnerability in Persona’s data front end, which—according to analysis from independent publication The Rage and anti-malware organization Malwarebytes—left 2,456 files accessible to the open internet. Both the hackers and Persona’s CEO, who have been in “good faith” communication, say that Persona itself was not hacked, and that the data was accidentally leaked and viewable to anyone with the know-how to find it (it has since been deleted).
The full report of the findings has been published by one of the hackers, Celeste, and details that the leak was apparently found via a U.S. government-authorized endpoint that had somehow been isolated from its regular work environment. While the hackers did not find personal identifying information in the leaked files, they did find that Persona often performs far more than age verification on data sent to its servers. According to the leaked code, the company uses facial recognition to perform 269 separate verification checks against watchlists across 14 categories (including terrorism and espionage) and tags its reports with codenames related to known public-private partnerships for tracking anything from cannabis distribution to money laundering. Information including collected IP addresses, browser and device fingerprints, phone numbers, names, faces, and more, can be stored for up to three years, according to the hackers’ findings.
Granted, it’s possible that Persona was not implementing all of these checks on users submitting age verification information via Discord, or keeping data for longer than the seven days mentioned on the now deleted support page. But it has not been a good look for either Persona or Discord.
Following user outrage about personal data leaving their devices or staying on the cloud for an unknown period of time, as well as the news that the company responsible for said data had apparently allowed so many of its files to leak to the open internet, Discord has begun damage control.
The company told Ars Technica that only a “small number of users was included in the experiment” involving Persona, and that it “ran for less than one month.” More importantly, now that the experiment is purportedly over, Discord told both Ars and The Verge that it is no longer partnering with Persona, and that it will “keep our users informed as vendors are added or updated.”
On Persona’s end, the company clarified to Ars that it doesn’t have any government contracts. CEO Rick Song also said in communication with the hackers that the leaked information was based on publicly available records, before iterating that Persona does not store data that users send to it. Song also said that Persona does not use AI, and despite being funded in part by Peter Thiel, does not have a relationship with Palantir.
While it’s unclear the extent to which Persona was storing or analyzing user data, that it came as a surprise to so many users has been enough to see a massive increase in users trying alternatives like Teamspeak, which itself has taken the opportunity to criticize Discord’s security.
Personally, I likely won’t uninstall Discord right away (if only because I need it to write stories like this), but I would think twice about uploading information if asked to verify my age. Note, however, that Discord can use metrics like your signup email to guess your age even if you don’t send it personal identifying information—that’s actually how it’s planning to avoid pestering most of its users with age verification prompts.
But even if you divest from Discord, it should be noted that, depending on the services you use in your life, you might still have to interact with Persona. While Discord will no longer work with the age verification company, Persona still has active relationships with social media sites including Reddit and LinkedIn, games like Roblox, and even payment service Square and access management platform Okta.
Most notable might be Persona’s relationship with OpenAI: This appears to be how Persona’s code could have leaked in the first place. The hacktivists that discovered the leak found OpenAI signifiers in it—which, according to The Rage, means that OpenAI might have built an internal database for accessing Persona identity checks. This could explain how Persona’s data found its way onto a U.S. government computer despite the company supposedly not having any government contracts.
At any rate, as the internet becomes more connected and age verification becomes more common, flipping one switch, like divesting from a single app, likely isn’t enough to fully wipe your online presence anymore. It’s worth controlling what you can—Discord lets you delete information like sent messages or server channels—but it’s legally obligated to retain purchase information, and also chooses to retain additional information such as database backups as well, even after account deletion. You can see a full list of retained Discord information on the company’s website.
In the meantime, check out these 10 tips from my colleague Pranay Parab for staying secure while online.
Meta has struck a multi-billion dollar chip deal with AMD that could lead to the Facebook owner taking a 10 percent stake in the group, sending shares in the US chipmaker surging on Tuesday.
The social media giant said it would acquire customized chips with a total capacity of 6 gigawatts from AMD as it races to develop and deploy its AI models.
AMD’s chief executive Lisa Su said that “each gigawatt of compute is worth double-digit billions” under the deal.
Good news for all Ryan Coogler fans: The Sinners director is bringing back a beloved TV show. Hulu has officially green lit a pilot of Coogler’s X-Files reboot, a project three years in the making, Deadline reports. Coogler has a five-year exclusive television deal with Disney, Hulu’s parent company.
Coogler is directing and writing the pilot episode, with Jennifer Yale coming on as showrunner. She previously held the role on The Copenhagen Test. Actress Danielle Deadwyler, known for roles in Till and The Harder They Fall, has signed on as co-lead.
The show will follow the original storyline of two FBI agents who bond as they work on cases around paranormal and unexplained phenomena. No confirmation has come over whether former stars Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny will have any role in the reboot.
The news came on Sunday, the same day Coogler won the BAFTA for Best Original Screenplay for Sinners. Coogler made history this year with a record 16 Oscar nominations for Sinners, including Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture. Coogler also wrote and directed Creed, Black Panther and Black Panther: Wakanda Forever.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/tv-movies/ryan-cooglers-x-files-reboot-gets-the-green-light-at-hulu-140735536.html?src=rss
Scotch tape has been a household mainstay for nearly a century, but it still holds some scientific surprises. Researchers have discovered that the screeching sound emitted when one rapidly peels Scotch tape—akin to the screech of fingernails on a chalkboard—is the result of shock waves produced by micro-cracks propagating along the tape at supersonic speeds, according to a new paper published in the journal Physical Review E.
It was a 3M engineer named Richard Drew who developed the first transparent sticky tape in 1930. The impetus came from car manufacturing, specifically two-color designs, where the adhesives used were so sticky they often removed the paint when peeled off; the paint then needed to be manually touched up. Drew found a sandpaper adhesive with just the right amount of stickiness and used it to coat a roll of cellophane tape. (Fun fact: Drew also co-invented the snail-style dispenser for the tape with his 3M colleague, John Borden.) The tape was hugely popular during the Great Depression; consumers used it to repair everyday items rather than replace them. That popularity has never waned.
Scotch tape has also generated considerable interest among physicists. Back in 1939, scientists noticed that peeling tape could produce light—specifically, a glowing line where the tape end pulls away from the roll. The phenomenon was first recorded in the 17th century and is known as triboluminescence: the generation of light when a material is crushed, ripped, rubbed, or scratched. Diamonds, for instance, sometimes glow blue or red during the cutting process, while ceramics emit yellow-orange light when being cut by abrasive water jets.
Russia has opened an investigation into Telegram founder Pavel Durov for “abetting terrorist activities,” [non-paywalled source] in the latest sign that his uneasy relationship with the Kremlin has broken down. From a report: Two Russian newspapers, including the state-run Rossiiskaya Gazeta and Kremlin-friendly tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda, alleged on Tuesday that the messaging app had become a tool of western and Ukrainian intelligence services.
The articles, credited to materials from Russia’s FSB security service, accused Telegram of enabling attacks in Russia and said that Durov’s “actions … are under criminal investigation.” Russia has restricted Telegram’s functions, accusing it of flouting the law and is seeking to divert users towards Max, a state-run rival messenger. The steps escalate pressure on a platform that remains deeply embedded in Russian public life.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
There’s a type of knife tech often seen in science fiction that revolves around vibrating a blade to increase its sharpness. We’ve seen examples of this in franchises like Star Wars (vibroblades), Evangelion (the prog knife), Dune (pulse-swords) and the Marvel universe (vibranium), but what might surprise you is that the underlying science is sound. By vibrating a cutting tool at high frequencies, not only do you reduce friction, you essentially turn the blade into a saw, as tiny oscillations enhance the inherent sharpness of a blade.
However, up until recently, this tech largely only existed in fiction or for large companies that have the money to utilize the tech on an industrial scale. But that’s changing in a big way for home cooks this year thanks to Seattle Ultrasonics, which is releasing the world’s first ultrasonic chef’s knife: the C-200. After chopping, smashing and cooking with it for about a month, I’m convinced that this is the future of kitchen knives.
From afar, the C-200 looks a lot like a regular 8-inch chef’s knife, but with a slightly more contemporary design. It features a three-layer san mai blade made from Japanese AUS-10 steel with a 13-degree edge angle per side (26 degrees total). However, upon closer inspection, you’ll notice there are some features that seem a bit out of place on a premium knife.
The first is that the C-200 doesn’t have a full tang, which is the back end of a blade that ideally extends into the handle to provide added strength and durability. This is usually a major no-no, particularly on a $400 knife. However, when you consider that Seattle Ultrasonics needed somewhere to put its vibration tech, there really isn’t any room for it other than inside the knife’s grip.
The knife’s second quirk is that the back of the plastic handle features small indicator lights on either side, which is obviously a bit weird. Furthermore, the entire gray section can be removed to reveal a small 1,100mAh battery with an onboard USB-C port. Frankly, the presence of a battery in a knife is just kind of funky. But hey, the power to vibrate the knife has to come from somewhere because it definitely isn’t being generated by your hands. And while Seattle Ultrasonics doesn’t include a charging adapter or cable in the box, I don’t mind because the company wisely took cues from the larger gadget industry and went with a power spec that’s already widely in use. Honestly, I wish more kitchen tech makers would do the same.
However, the knife’s biggest oddity is the big orange button on the bottom of its handle. This is what you use to make the blade vibrate, which it does at 33kHz. It’s positioned well so that it’s easy to press regardless of whether you do a traditional pinch grip or if you’re a bit more casual and prefer to hold the knife only using its handle. In the future, I can see this button becoming a touch-sensitive sensor, but for now, it’s simple and effective.
The main downside to the C-200’s design is that at 328 grams (around 0.75 pounds) it’s heavier and bulkier than a typical knife. When compared to other knives I own, which are made from a wide variety of materials including, ceramic, molybdenum steel, carbon steel and even titanium carbide, it weighs more than everything else aside from my big Chinese cleaver (396 grams). And while it fits nicely in my hand, my wife said it takes a bit more effort for her to wield. It’s not too much to the point where you don’t want to use it. But for quick tasks, sometimes I found myself subconsciously reaching for lighter options like my 6-inch ceramic knife, which weighs just 97 grams.
From a user standpoint, putting the C-200 to work couldn’t be simpler. Just press the button and let the knife do its thing. The big difference from how knives like this work in sci-fi is that there’s no audible hum or detectable vibration when it’s on. It’s practically silent (well, most of the time, but more on that later), so you have to trust that it’s on or check the indicator light on the handle. That said, if you still don’t believe anything is happening, you can run the edge of the blade under water or scrape it over some cut citrus, at which point the blade’s vibration will atomize nearby liquid into a fine mist. It’s a cool party trick that also doubles as a way to amp up a cocktail by adding a faint essence of lemon, lime or anything else you can think of.
Inside, the knife relies on PZT-8 piezoelectric ceramic crystals to generate up to 30,000 vibrations per second, which propagate down the blade and make the knife function as if it’s sharper than it actually is. This all sounds rather fantastic, so how does it function in the real world?
To really put the C-200 through its paces, I cooked over a dozen meals that involved neatly slicing or preparing a wide variety of foods — including Hasselback potatoes, flank steak, pork belly, chives, sushi-grade tuna and all sorts of fruit.
In short, the C-200’s effectiveness depends a lot on what you’re chopping. For soft things like strawberries or a piece of cake, I didn’t notice much of a difference. To make things even more difficult, the knife arrived out of the box with an incredibly fine edge — the kind that makes shearing through a sheet of paper child’s play. So even though Seattle Ultrasonics says its knife can reduce cutting effort by up to 50 percent, there’s not much gain to be had when slicing foods that could just as easily be cut by a butter knife.
However, as I used it more, I found that the C-200 excels at cutting through delicate items like tomatoes, scallions and fish, where using a dull knife often results in bruising the food as you chop. This was most evident when I made poke at home, where Seattle Ultrasonic’s knife delivered cleaner, more precise cuts than anything else I own.
When I whipped up some pico de gallo, I distinctly noticed how neatly the C-200 sliced through the skin of a tomato, instead of initially putting a crease in it before cleanly passing through its interior — which often happens when using dull knives. An additional benefit is that because of the vibrations, I found some foods like garlic didn’t stick to the side of the blade as much. This made it easier to keep track of how much I chopped while simultaneously reducing the mess from things falling willy-nilly during prep. But perhaps the most obvious demonstration of the knife’s prowess was when I diced an onion. When using my other knives or the C-200 without powering it on, I could feel when I tried to cut through thicker, more sturdy layers. But then, at the touch of a button, I was able to slice down with practically no resistance. It’s almost shocking because it feels like magic.
The C-200 even has the ability to reduce the importance of certain knife techniques. Anyone who’s seen all the posts on r/kitchenconfidential about cutting chives will already know what I’m talking about. As J Kenji Lopez-Alt neatly demonstrated, the ideal way to get crisp, clean slices is to do a subtle forward or back cut instead of simply chopping straight down. But with Seattle Ultrasonics’ knife, I’ve found that it’s so sharp you can get away with almost any motion and still get good results. And if you do it the right way, things are even better.
Other types of food that makes the C-200 really shine are denser ingredients like meat and potatoes, where you can really feel the added cutting power. Previously, when I had to break down thick cuts of protein, I sometimes wished I owned a serrated electric knife. You know, the kind you break out once a year on Thanksgiving and then it sits and gathers dust for the other 364 days. But the C-200 made that desire a thing of that past, as it quickly and easily worked through flank steak while once again producing neat, uniform slices.
My favorite application of the C-200 was when I was doing prep for Taiwanese braised pork (aka 滷肉飯). Despite this being one of my most beloved dishes that I taught myself how to cook because I couldn’t easily find it from local restaurants, I don’t make it very often because it’s a lot of work to cut multiple pounds of pork belly into small lardon-shaped pieces. Here, the knife’s vibrations made it so much easier to cut through all those layers of meat, fat and skin. If there’s any situation where the C-200 makes it 50 percent easier to slice through something, it’s this.
During my testing, two small issues cropped up. While it was quite rare, the knife would sometimes emit a faint high-pitched whine. When I asked Seattle Ultrasonic’s founder Scott Heimendinger about this behavior, he was rather frank, saying that this can occur when water or moisture accumulates in just the right spots on the blade. Furthermore, he said this only happens on a small number of V1 models, which the company is working to fix in the future. Thankfully, I don’t mind, but if it bothers you, making the noise go away is as easy as wiping down the knife down with a cloth or paper towel.
The other complication came while I was working through the multiple pounds of pork belly I mentioned earlier. After 10 to 15 minutes of continuous use, the knife beeped and its indicator light turned red. Turns out the knife had overheated, which was something I had not even considered. This led to higher-than-normal temperatures inside the knife’s sealed electronics causing it to shut off. But after just 30 seconds, it returned to form. During later uses, I learned that simply taking my finger off the button between tasks, which happens naturally as you prep anyway, was more than enough to stop that situation from happening ever again.
On the flipside, I was happy to discover that despite lacking a full tang, the C-200 can handle fairly rough tasks, including laying the knife on its side to smash garlic or jamming it into an avocado to remove its pit. That said, I would really recommend against doing the latter, because between its inherent sharpness and its vibration tech, this is the first knife I’ve used that can slice cleanly through an entire avocado with almost no extra effort.
The last big concern about a knife with built-in electronics is how it handles clean-up. Thankfully, the C-200 features an IP65 rating for dust and water resistance. That means it can withstand rinsing and splashes without issue. And it’s actually even tougher than that, because the front of the knife, including its bolster and button, are rated IP67. This means it can take full submersions in water if need be. However, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Good kitchen protocol says you don’t throw knives you care about in the sink and forget them, just like how you wouldn’t put one in the dishwasher either.
But perhaps the greatest advantage of this tech is that it allows you to go longer between needing to get your knives sharpened, which if you’re like most home cooks, is probably never. To be clear, I haven’t tested this and in some respects I wish I had been able to test out a dull version of the C-200. That said, science dictates that slice for slice, an ultrasonic knife will simply cut better than an equivalent blade without the extra tech. So if you believe in the adage that a dull knife is more dangerous than a sharp one because you need to apply more force to get the same results, this is another bonus for both safety and convenience.
I fully admit the need to keep a knife charged up is a major annoyance and something I or anyone else probably doesn’t want to do. Thankfully, Seattle Ultrasonics thought of that by including support for wireless charging via the C-200’s magnetic tile and it’s dead simple to use. Just toss it on the charger when you’re not using and it will take care of itself, so you never have to worry about how much of its normal 20-minute runtime it may or may not have left. There are also holes around back so you can easily mount the charger on a wall or shelf. In short, the added convenience the charging tile brings is so valuable that I don’t really consider it an optional accessory. If you’re getting the C-200, you need to buy this too, which sadly means you’re looking at an all-in price of $500 for the bundle instead of just $400 for the knife by itself.
After using the C-200, I don’t think people need to rush out and throw all their old-school knives in the trash. The beauty of an ultrasonic blade like this is that it can handle everything your old cutlery is meant for, but with the touch of a button, it delivers sharpness unlike anything you’ve experienced before. And while it has some quirks, they’re nothing like the kind you typically encounter on first-gen gadgets. Its biggest drawback is that its magnetic charging tile feels like an essential accessory, but it adds extra cost on top of a product that already has a deservedly premium price tag.
Even though I’m sure knife makers will continue tweaking blade shapes and alloy mixes from now until the end of time, the addition of ultrasonic vibrations to a chef’s knife unlocks a completely new tier of performance. That’s because this technology is additive. All it does is enhance what a blade already does best. And when you look at related gadgets in the maker space, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that there’s a similar revolution that resulted in Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame naming a sonic cutter as one of his favorite things of 2025. When viewed that way, it makes me even more confident that the C-200 is the flagbearer for a new breed of kitchen knives.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/home/kitchen-tech/seattle-ultrasonics-c-200-review-this-is-the-future-of-kitchen-knives-140000051.html?src=rss