SpaceX’s $17 billion deal to buy spectrum licenses from EchoStar should help Starlink satellites deliver better service to smartphones, and it might give a few large corporations second thoughts about their current partnerships with Starlink competitors.

The spectrum, combined with a SpaceX plan to launch up to 15,000 new and improved satellites for cellular service, could cause AT&T and Verizon to question their reliance on satellite company AST SpaceMobile. Apple, which was reportedly already facing internal dissent over its deal with Globalstar, now has another reason to wonder if it made the right choice in rejecting an offer from Elon Musk.

Pending regulatory approval, SpaceX will acquire EchoStar’s AWS-4 and H-block spectrum licenses, giving Musk’s space company the rights to 50 MHz of spectrum in the 1.9 and lower 2 GHz spectrum bands. SpaceX plans to acquire EchoStar’s rights to the spectrum in the US and globally.

Read full article

Comments

In 1915, intrepid British explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton and his crew were stranded for months in the Antarctic after their ship, Endurance, was trapped by pack ice, eventually sinking into the freezing depths of the Weddell Sea. Miraculously, the entire crew survived. The prevailing popular narrative surrounding the famous voyage features two key assumptions: that Endurance was the strongest polar ship of its time, and that the ship ultimately sank after ice tore away the rudder.

However, a fresh analysis reveals that Endurance would have sunk even with an intact rudder; it was crushed by the cumulative compressive forces of the Arctic ice with no single cause for the sinking. Furthermore, the ship wasn’t designed to withstand those forces and Shackleton was likely well aware of that fact, according to a new paper published in the journal Polar Record. Yet he chose to embark on the risky voyage anyway.

Author Jukka Tuhkuri of Aalto University is a polar explorer and one of the leading researchers on ice worldwide. He was among the scientists on the Endurance22 mission that discovered the Endurance shipwreck in 2022, documented in a 2024 National Geographic documentary. The ship was in pristine condition partly because of the lack of wood-eating microbes in those waters. In fact, the Endurance22 expedition’s exploration director, Mensun Bound, told The New York Times at the time that the shipwreck was the finest example he’s ever seen; Endurance was “in a brilliant state of preservation.”

Read full article

Comments

Steve Jobs died 14 years ago. But the blog Cult of Mac remembers that “Jobs himself was not sentimental.”

When he left Apple in the mid-1980s, he didn’t even clear out his office. That meant personal mementos like his first Apple stock certificate, which had hung on his office wall, got tossed in the trash. Shortly after returning to Apple in the late 1990s, he gave the company’s historical archive to Stanford University Libraries. The stash included records that Apple management kept since the mid-1980s. The reason Apple handed over this historical treasure trove? Jobs didn’t want the company to fixate on the past…

All of which goes some way to saying why it was so heartening that Steve Jobs’ death received so much attention. He wasn’t the richest technology CEO to die. But the reaction showed that his life — faults and all — meant a lot to a great number of people. Jobs helped create products people cared about, and in turn they cared about him.
The site Mac Rumors remembered Sunday that Jobs “died just one day after Apple unveiled the iPhone 4S and Siri.” Six years later, Apple CEO Tim Cook reflected on Jobs while opening Apple’s first-ever event at Steve Jobs Theater in 2017. “There is not a day that goes by that we don’t think about him.”

And Sunday Cook posted this remembrance of Steve Jobs. “Steve saw the future as a bright and boundless place, lit the path forward, and inspired us to follow.

“We miss you, my friend.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The director of a tour operation remembers two tourists arriving in a rural town in Peru determined to hike alone in the mountains to a sacred canyon recommended by their AI chatbot. But the canyon didn’t exists — and a high-altitude hike could be dangerous (especially where cellphone coverage is also spotty). They’re part of a BBC report on travellers arriving at their destination “only to find they’ve been fed incorrect information or steered to a place that only exists in the hard-wired imagination of a robot…”
“According to a 2024 survey, 37% of those surveyed who used AI to help plan their travels reported that it could not provide enough information, while around 33% said their AI-generated recommendations included false information.” Some examples?

– Dana Yao and her husband recently experienced this first-hand. The couple used ChatGPT to plan a romantic hike to the top of Mount Misen on the Japanese island of Itsukushima earlier this year. After exploring the town of Miyajima with no issues, they set off at 15:00 to hike to the montain’s summit in time for sunset, exactly as ChatGPT had instructed them. “That’s when the problem showed up,” said Yao, a creator who runs a blog about traveling in Japan, “[when] we were ready to descend [the mountain via] the ropeway station. ChatGPT said the last ropeway down was at 17:30, but in reality, the ropeway had already closed. So, we were stuck at the mountain top…”
– A 2024 BBC article reported that [dedicated travel AI site] Layla briefly told users that there was an Eiffel Tower in Beijing and suggested a marathon route across northern Italy to a British traveller that was entirely unfeasible…
– A recent Fast Company article recounted an incident where a couple made the trek to a scenic cable car in Malaysia that they had seen on TikTok, only to find that no such structure existed. The video they’d watched had been entirely AI generated, either to drum up engagement or for some other strange purpose.

Rayid Ghani, a distinguished professor in machine learning at Carnegie Melon University, tells them that an AI chatbot “doesn’t know the difference between travel advice, directions or recipes. It just knows words. So, it keeps spitting out words that make whatever it’s telling you sound realistic…”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

If we could remove the 50 most concerning pieces of space debris in low-Earth orbit, there’d be a 50% reduction in the overall debris-generating potential, reports Ars Technica. That’s according to Darren McKnight, lead author of a paper presented Friday at the International Astronautical Congress in Sydney, which calculated the objects most likely to collide with other fragments and create more debris. (Russia and the Soviet Union lead with 34 objects, followed by China with 10, the U.S. with three, Europe with two, and Japan with one.) Even just the top 10 were removed, the debris-generating potential drops by 30%.

“The things left before 2000 are still the majority of the problem,” he points out, and “76% of the objects in the top 50 were deposited last century.” 88% of the objects are post-mission rocket bodies left behind to hurtle through space.

“The bad news is, since January 1, 2024, we’ve had 26 rocket bodies abandoned in low-Earth orbit that will stay in orbit for more than 25 years,” McKnight told Ars… China launched 21 of the 26 hazardous new rocket bodies over the last 21 months, each averaging more than 4 metric tons (8,800 pounds). Two more came from US launchers, one from Russia, one from India, and one from Iran. This trend is likely to continue as China steps up deployment of two megaconstellations — Guowang and Thousand Sails — with thousands of communications satellites in low-Earth orbit.

Launches of these constellations began last year. The Guowang and Thousand Sails satellites are relatively small and likely capable of maneuvering out of the way of space debris, although China has not disclosed their exact capabilities. However, most of the rockets used for Guowang and Thousand Sails launches have left their upper stages in orbit. McKnight said nine upper stages China has abandoned after launching Guowang and Thousand Sails satellites will stay in orbit for more than 25 years, violating the international guidelines.

It will take hundreds of rockets to fully populate China’s two major megaconstellations. The prospect of so much new space debris is worrisome, McKnight said. “In the next few years, if they continue the same trend, they’re going to leave well over 100 rocket bodies over the 25-year rule if they continue to deploy these constellations,” he said. “So, the trend is not good….” Since 2000, China has accumulated more dead rocket mass in long-lived orbits than the rest of the world combined, according to McKnight. “But now we’re at a point where it’s actually kind of accelerating in the last two years as these constellations are getting deployed.”

A deputy head of China’s national space agency recently said China is “currently researching” how to remove space debris from orbit, according to the article. (“One of the missions China claims is testing space debris mitigation techniques has docked with multiple spacecraft in orbit, but U.S. officials see it as a military threat. The same basic technologies needed for space debris cleanup — rendezvous and docking systems, robotic arms, and onboard automation — could be used to latch on to an adversary’s satellite.”)

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

“Recent attacks show that hackers keep using the same tricks to sneak bad code into popular software registries,” writes long-time Slashdot reader selinux geek, suggesting that “the real problem is how these registries are built, making these attacks likely to keep happening.”

After all, npm wasn’t the only software library hit by a supply chain attack, argues the Linux Security blog. “PyPI and Docker Hub both faced their own compromises in 2025, and the overlaps are impossible to ignore.”
Phishing has always been the low-hanging fruit. In 2025, it wasn’t just effective once — it was the entry point for multiple registry breaches, all occurring close together in different ecosystems… The real problem isn’t that phishing happened. It’s that there weren’t enough safeguards to blunt the impact. One stolen password shouldn’t be all it takes to poison an entire ecosystem. Yet in 2025, that’s exactly how it played out…

Even if every maintainer spotted every lure, registries left gaps that attackers could walk through without much effort. The problem wasn’t social engineering this time. It was how little verification stood between an attacker and the “publish” button. Weak authentication and missing provenance were the quiet enablers in 2025… Sometimes the registry itself offers the path in. When the failure is at the registry level, admins don’t get an alert, a log entry, or any hint that something went wrong. That’s what makes it so dangerous. The compromise appears to be a normal update until it reaches the downstream system… It shifts the risk from human error to systemic design.

And once that weakly authenticated code gets in, it doesn’t always go away quickly, which leads straight into the persistence problem… Once an artifact is published, it spreads into mirrors, caches, and derivative builds. Removing the original upload doesn’t erase all the copies… From our perspective at LinuxSecurity, this isn’t about slow cleanup; it’s about architecture. Registries have no universally reliable kill switch once trust is broken. Even after removal, poisoned base images replicate across mirrors, caches, and derivative builds, meaning developers may keep pulling them in long after the registry itself is “clean.”

The article condlues that “To us at LinuxSecurity, the real vulnerability isn’t phishing emails or stolen tokens — it’s the way registries are built. They distribute code without embedding security guarantees. That design ensures supply chain attacks won’t be rare anomalies, but recurring events.”BR>

So in a world where “the only safe assumption is that the code you consume may already be compromised,” they argue, developers should look to controls they can enforce themselves:

Verify artifacts with signatures or provenance tools. Pin dependencies to specific, trusted versions. Generate and track SBOMs so you know exactly what’s in your stack. Scan continuously, not just at the point of install.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A computer-generated actress appearing in Instagram shorts now has a talent agent, reports the Los Angeles Times.
The massive screen actors union SAG-AFTRA “weighed in with a withering response.”

SAG-AFTRA believes creativity is, and should remain, human-centered. The union is opposed to the replacement of human performers by synthetics.

To be clear, “Tilly Norwood” is not an actor, it’s a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers — without permission or compensation. It has no life experience to draw from, no emotion and, from what we’ve seen, audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience. It doesn’t solve any “problem” — it creates the problem of using stolen performances to put actors out of work, jeopardizing performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry.

Additionally, signatory producers should be aware that they may not use synthetic performers without complying with our contractual obligations, which require notice and bargaining whenever a synthetic performer is going to be used.

“They are taking our professional members’ work that has been created, sometimes over generations, without permission, without compensation and without acknowledgment, building something new,” SAG-AFTRA President Sean Astin told the Los Angeles Times in an interview:
“But the truth is, it’s not new. It manipulates something that already exists, so the conceit that it isn’t harming actors — because it is its own new thing — ignores the fundamental truth that it is taking something that doesn’t belong to them,” Astin said. “We want to allow our members to benefit from new technologies,” Astin said. “They just need to know that it’s happening. They need to give permission for it, and they need to be bargained with….”

Some actors called for a boycott of any agents who decide to represent Norwood. “Read the room, how gross,” In the Heights actor Melissa Barrera wrote on Instagram. “Our members reserve the right to not be in business with representatives who are operating in an unfair conflict of interest, who are operating in bad faith,” Astin said.

But this week the head of a new studio from startup Luma AI “said all the big companies and studios were working on AI assisted projects,” writes Deadline — and then claimed “being under NDA, she was not in a position to announce any of the details.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.