|
Popular shared stories on NewsBlur.
|
As the horse once said, everything happens so much. In my country, a far-right administration is waging war on students, researchers, activists, workers, immigrants, and every marginalized population you can name, all while strip-mining what remains of our already-insufficient social safety net.
In short, the world’s on fire. So I want to suggest that — now more than ever — you need a union.
A union is many things: it’s an engine of democracy in your workplace; it’s a path to a contract; it’s a community. A union also provides a critical layer of protection and stability. And that’s something you could use right now.
Worried about layoffs amid the rollout of astronomical tax hikes that could crater the economy? A union contract can’t prevent a layoff, but it can determine the kind of layoff you get: how much advance notice you’re given, how much severance you’re given, whether or not you can be a priority rehire, and more. Sick of being an at-will employee that can be dismissed for any reason? Unionize, and fight for a contract with “just cause” protections. Want a say over whether or not you’re surveilled at work? Unionize, and get a contract. Tired of “generative AI” in the workplace? You can guess what I’m going to say here.
A union can be useful for other fights, too. When graduate student Rumeysa Öztürk was abducted by federal agents last week, her union took to the streets before launching a nationwide pressure campaign. Last year, Cornell University suspended Momodou Taal for participating in campus protests. In response, his union went to war: they held multiple mass actions on campus, eventually forcing the university to the bargaining table to fight Taal’s suspension. When people talk about “worker power,” this is quite literally what it looks like: it’s built by workers, standing together not just to win a better form of work, but also to protect each other.
You and your coworkers deserve that power, and you can start building it today. Have a quiet conversation with a coworker — discuss what’s working, what isn’t, and what you’d like to change. Invite some trusted work friends to join you at some organizer training. Start a book club at work, and leave plenty of time for informal discussion. The best time to start forming a union was five years ago; the second best time is right now. And there are so many ways to get started.
Nobody is coming to save us, except us. And together, we’re enough.
This has been “It’s time to organize.” a post from Ethan’s journal.
As it flew up toward the International Space Station last summer, the Starliner spacecraft lost four thrusters. A NASA astronaut, Butch Wilmore, had to take manual control of the vehicle. But as Starliner's thrusters failed, Wilmore lost the ability to move the spacecraft in the direction he wanted to go.
He and his fellow astronaut, Suni Williams, knew where they wanted to go. Starliner had flown to within a stone's throw of the space station, a safe harbor, if only they could reach it. But already, the failure of so many thrusters violated the mission's flight rules. In such an instance, they were supposed to turn around and come back to Earth. Approaching the station was deemed too risky for Wilmore and Williams, aboard Starliner, as well as for the astronauts on the $100 billion space station.
But what if it was not safe to come home, either?
"I don't know that we can come back to Earth at that point," Wilmore said in an interview. "I don't know if we can. And matter of fact, I'm thinking we probably can't."
On Monday, for the first time since they returned to Earth on a Crew Dragon vehicle two weeks ago, Wilmore and Williams participated in a news conference at Johnson Space Center in Houston. Afterward, they spent hours conducting short, 10-minute interviews with reporters from around the world, describing their mission. I spoke with both of them.
Many of the questions concerned the politically messy end of the mission, in which the Trump White House claimed it had rescued the astronauts after they were stranded by the Biden administration. This was not true, but it is also not a question that active astronauts are going to answer. They have too much respect for the agency and the White House that appoints its leadership. They are trained not to speak out of school. As Wilmore said repeatedly on Monday, "I can't speak to any of that. Nor would I."
So when Ars met with Wilmore at the end of the day—it was his final interview, scheduled for 4:55 to 5:05 pm in a small studio at Johnson Space Center—politics was not on the menu. Instead, I wanted to know the real story, the heretofore untold story of what it was really like to fly Starliner. After all, the problems with the spacecraft's propulsion system precipitated all the other events—the decision to fly Starliner home without crew, the reshuffling of the Crew-9 mission, and their recent return in March after nine months in space.
I have known Wilmore a bit for more than a decade. I was privileged to see his launch on a Soyuz rocket from Kazakhstan in 2014, alongside his family. We both are about to become empty nesters, with daughters who are seniors in high school, soon to go off to college. Perhaps because of this, Wilmore felt comfortable sharing his experiences and anxieties from the flight. We blew through the 10-minute interview slot and ended up talking for nearly half an hour.
It's a hell of a story.
Boeing's Starliner spacecraft faced multiple delays before the vehicle's first crewed mission, carrying NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams launched on June 5, 2024. These included a faulty valve on the Atlas V rocket's upper stage, and then a helium leak inside Boeing's Starliner spacecraft.
The valve issue, in early May, stood the mission down long enough that Wilmore asked to fly back to Houston for additional time in a flight simulator to keep his skills fresh. Finally, with fine weather, the Starliner Crew Flight Test took off from Cape Canaveral, Florida. It marked the first human launch on the Atlas V rocket, which had a new Centaur upper stage with two engines.
Suni Williams' first night on Starliner was quite cold.
Credit:
NASA/Helen Arase Vargas
Sunita "Suni" Williams: "Oh man, the launch was awesome. Both of us looked at each other like, 'Wow, this is going just perfectly.' So the ride to space and the orbit insertion burn, all perfect."
Barry "Butch" Wilmore: "In simulations, there's always a deviation. Little deviations in your trajectory. And during the launch on Shuttle STS-129 many years ago, and Soyuz, there's the similar type of deviations that you see in this trajectory. I mean, it's always correcting back. But this ULA Atlas was dead on the center. I mean, it was exactly in the crosshairs, all the way. It was much different than what I'd expected or experienced in the past. It was exhilarating. It was fantastic. Yeah, it really was. The dual-engine Centaur did have a surge. I'm not sure ULA knew about it, but it was obvious to us. We were the first to ride it. Initially we asked, 'Should that be doing that? This surging?' But after a while, it was kind of soothing. And again, we were flying right down the middle."
After Starliner separated from the Atlas V rocket, Williams and Wilmore performed several maneuvering tests and put the vehicle through its paces. Starliner performed exceptionally well during these initial tests on day one.
Wilmore: "The precision, the ability to control to the exact point that I wanted, was great. There was very little, almost imperceptible cross-control. I've never given a handling qualities rating of "one," which was part of a measurement system. To take a qualitative test and make a quantitative assessment. I've never given a one, ever, in any test I've ever done, because nothing's ever deserved a one. Boy, I was tempted in some of the tests we did. I didn't give a one, but it was pretty amazing."
Following these tests, the crew attempted to sleep for several hours ahead of their all-important approach and docking with the International Space Station on the flight's second day. More so even than launch or landing, the most challenging part of this mission, which would stress Starliner's handling capabilities as well as its navigation system, would come as it approached the orbiting laboratory.
Williams: "The night that we spent there in the spacecraft, it was a little chilly. We had traded off some of our clothes to bring up some equipment up to the space station. So I had this small T-shirt thing, long-sleeve T-shirt, and I was like, 'Oh my gosh, I'm cold.' Butch is like, 'I'm cold, too.' So, we ended up actually putting our boots on, and then I put my spacesuit on. And then he's like, maybe I want mine, too. So we both actually got in our spacesuits. It might just be because there were two people in there."
Starliner was designed to fly four people to the International Space Station for six-month stays in orbit. But for this initial test flight, there were just two people, which meant less body heat. Wilmore estimated that it was about 50° Fahrenheit in the cabin.
Wilmore: "It was definitely low 50s, if not cooler. When you're hustling and bustling, and doing things, all the tests we were doing after launch, we didn't notice it until we slowed down. We purposely didn't take sleeping bags. I was just going to bungee myself to the bulkhead. I had a sweatshirt and some sweatpants, and I thought, I'm going to be fine. No, it was frigid. And I even got inside my space suit, put the boots on and everything, gloves, the whole thing. And it was still cold."
After a few hours of fitful sleep, Wilmore decided to get up and start working to get his blood pumping. He reviewed the flight plan and knew it was going to be a big day. Wilmore had been concerned about the performance of the vehicle's reaction control system thrusters. There are 28 of them. Around the perimeter of Starliner's service module, at the aft of the vehicle, there are four "doghouses" equally spaced around the vehicle.
Each of these doghouses contains seven small thrusters for maneuvering. In each doghouse, two thrusters are aft-facing, two are forward-facing, and three are in different radial directions (see an image of a doghouse, with the cover removed, here). For docking, these thrusters are essential. There had been some problems with their performance during an uncrewed flight test to the space station in May 2022, and Wilmore had been concerned those issues might crop up again.
Boeing's Starliner spacecraft is pictured docked to the International Space Station. One of the four doghouses is visible on the service module.
Credit:
NASA
Wilmore: "Before the flight we had a meeting with a lot of the senior Boeing executives, including the chief engineer. [This was Naveed Hussain, chief engineer for Boeing's Defense, Space, and Security division.] Naveed asked me what is my biggest concern? And I said the thrusters and the valves because we'd had failures on the OFT missions. You don't get the hardware back. (Starliner's service module is jettisoned before the crew capsule returns from orbit). So you're just looking at data and engineering judgment to say, 'OK, it must've been FOD,' (foreign object debris) or whatever the various issues they had. And I said that's what concerns me the most. Because in my mind, I'm thinking, 'If we lost thrusters, we could be in a situation where we're in space and can't control it.' That's what I was thinking. And oh my, what happened? We lost the first thruster."
When vehicles approach the space station, they use two imaginary lines to help guide their approach. These are the R-bar, which is a line connecting the space station to the center of Earth. The "R" stands for radius. Then there is the V-bar, which is the velocity vector of the space station. Due to thruster issues, as Starliner neared the V-bar about 260 meters (850 feet) from the space station, Wilmore had to take manual control of the vehicle.
Wilmore: "As we get closer to the V-bar, we lose our second thruster. So now we're single fault tolerance for the loss of 6DOF control. You understand that?"
Here things get a little more complicated if you've never piloted anything. When Wilmore refers to 6DOF control, he means six degrees of freedom—that is, the six different movements possible in three-dimensional space: forward/back, up/down, left/right, yaw, pitch, and roll. With Starliner's four doghouses and their various thrusters, a pilot is able to control the spacecraft's movement across these six degrees of freedom. But as Starliner got to within a few hundred meters of the station, a second thruster failed. The condition of being "single fault" tolerant means that the vehicle could sustain just one more thruster failure before being at risk of losing full control of Starliner's movement. This would necessitate a mandatory abort of the docking attempt.
Wilmore: "We're single fault tolerant, and I'm thinking, 'Wow, we're supposed to leave the space station.' Because I know the flight rules. I did not know that the flight directors were already in discussions about waiving the flight rule because we've lost two thrusters. We didn't know why. They just dropped."
As part of the Commercial Crew program, the two companies providing transportation services for NASA, SpaceX, and Boeing, got to decide who would fly their spacecraft. SpaceX chose to operate its Dragon vehicles out of a control center at the company's headquarters in Hawthorne, California. Boeing chose to contract with NASA's Mission Control at Johnson Space Center in Houston to fly Starliner. So at this point, the vehicle is under the purview of a Flight Director named Ed Van Cise. This was the capstone mission of his 15-year career as a NASA flight director.
Wilmore: "Thankfully, these folks are heroes. And please print this. What do heroes look like? Well, heroes put their tank on and they run into a fiery building and pull people out of it. That's a hero. Heroes also sit in their cubicle for decades studying their systems, and knowing their systems front and back. And when there is no time to assess a situation and go and talk to people and ask, 'What do you think?' they know their system so well they come up with a plan on the fly. That is a hero. And there are several of them in Mission Control."
From the outside, as Starliner approached the space station last June, we knew little of this. By following NASA's webcast of the docking, it was clear there were some thruster issues and that Wilmore had to take manual control. But we did not know that in the final minutes before docking, NASA waived the flight rules about loss of thrusters. According to Wilmore and Williams, the drama was only beginning at this point.
Wilmore: "We acquired the V-bar, and I took over manual control. And then we lose the third thruster. Now, again, they're all in the same direction. And I'm picturing these thrusters that we're losing. We lost two bottom thrusters. You can lose four thrusters, if they're top and bottom, but you still got the two on this side, you can still maneuver. But if you lose thrusters in off-orthogonal, the bottom and the port, and you've only got starboard and top, you can't control that. It's off-axis. So I'm parsing all this out in my mind, because I understand the system. And we lose two of the bottom thrusters. We've lost a port thruster. And now we're zero-fault tolerant. We're already past the point where we were supposed to leave, and now we're zero-fault tolerant and I'm manual control. And, oh my, the control is sluggish. Compared to the first day, it is not the same spacecraft. Am I able to maintain control? I am. But it is not the same."
At this point in the interview, Wilmore went into some wonderful detail.
Wilmore: "And this is the part I'm sure you haven't heard. We lost the fourth thruster. Now we've lost 6DOF control. We can't maneuver forward. I still have control, supposedly, on all the other axes. But I'm thinking, the F-18 is a fly-by-wire. You put control into the stick, and the throttle, and it sends the signal to the computer. The computer goes, 'OK, he wants to do that, let's throw that out aileron a bit. Let's throw that stabilizer a bit. Let's pull the rudder there.' And it's going to maintain balanced flight. I have not even had a reason to think, how does Starliner do this, to maintain a balance?"
Essentially, Wilmore could not fully control Starliner any longer. But simply abandoning the docking attempt was not a palatable solution. Just as the thrusters were needed to control the vehicle during the docking process, they were also necessary to position Starliner for its deorbit burn and reentry to Earth's atmosphere. So Wilmore had to contemplate whether it was riskier to approach the space station or try to fly back to Earth. Williams was worrying about the same thing.
Williams: "There was a lot of unsaid communication, like, 'Hey, this is a very precarious situation we're in.' I think both of us overwhelmingly felt like it would be really nice to dock to that space station that's right in front of us. We knew that they [Mission Control] were working really hard to be able to keep communication with us, and then be able to send commands. We were both thinking, what if we lose communication with the ground? So NORDO Con Ops (this means flying a vehicle without a radio), and we didn't talk about it too much, but we already had synced in our mind that we should go to the space station. This is our place that we need to probably go to, to have a conversation because we don't know exactly what is happening, why the thrusters are falling off, and what the solution would be."
Wilmore: "I don't know that we can come back to Earth at that point. I don't know if we can. And matter of fact, I'm thinking we probably can't. So there we are, loss of 6DOF control, four aft thrusters down, and I'm visualizing orbital mechanics. The space station is nose down. So we're not exactly level with the station, but below it. If you're below the station, you're moving faster. That's orbital mechanics. It's going to make you move away from the station. So I'm doing all of this in my mind. I don't know what control I have. What if I lose another thruster? What if we lose comm? What am I going to do?"
One of the other challenges at this point, in addition to holding his position relative to the space station, was keeping Starliner's nose pointed directly at the orbital laboratory.
Williams: "Starliner is based on a vision system that looks at the space station and uses the space station as a frame of reference. So if we had started to fall off and lose that, which there's a plus or minus that we can have; we didn't lose the station ever, but we did start to deviate a little bit. I think both of us were getting a bit nervous then because the system would've automatically aborted us."
After Starliner lost four of its 28 reaction control system thrusters, Van Cise and this team in Houston decided the best chance for success was resetting the failed thrusters. This is, effectively, a fancy way of turning off your computer and rebooting it to try to fix the problem. But it meant Wilmore had to go hands-off from Starliner's controls.
Imagine that. You're drifting away from the space station, trying to maintain your position. The station is your only real lifeline because if you lose the ability to dock, the chance of coming back in one piece is quite low. And now you're being told to take your hands off the controls.
Wilmore: "That was not easy to do. I have lived rendezvous orbital dynamics going back decades. [Wilmore is one of only two active NASA astronauts who has experience piloting the space shuttle.] Ray Bigonesse is our rendezvous officer. What a motivated individual. Primarily him, but me as well, we worked to develop this manual rendezvous capability over the years. He's a volunteer fireman, and he said, 'Hey, I'm coming off shift at 5:30 Saturday morning; will you meet me in the sim?' So we'd meet on Saturdays. We never got to the point of saying lose four thrusters. Who would've thought that, in the same direction? But we're in there training, doing things, playing around. That was the preparation."
All of this training meant Wilmore felt like he was in the best position to fly Starliner, and he did not relish the thought of giving up control. But finally, when he thought the spacecraft was temporarily stable enough, Wilmore called down to Mission Control, "Hands off." Almost immediately, flight controllers sent a signal to override Starliner's flight computer and fire the thrusters that had been turned off. Two of the four thrusters came back online.
Wilmore: "Now we're back to single-fault tolerant. But then we lose a fifth jet. What if we'd have lost that fifth jet while those other four were still down? I have no idea what would've happened. I attribute to the providence of the Lord getting those two jets back before that fifth one failed. So we're down to zero-fault tolerant again. I can still maintain control. Again, sluggish. Not only was the control different on the visual, what inputs and what it looked like, but we could hear it. The valve opening and closing. When a thruster would fire, it was like a machine gun."
Mission Control decided that it wanted to try to recover the failed thrusters again. After Wilmore took his hands off the controls, this process recovered all but one of them. At that point, the vehicle could be flown autonomously, as it was intended to be. When asked to give up control of the vehicle for its final approach to the station, Wilmore said he was apprehensive about doing so. He was concerned that if the system went into automation mode, it may not have been possible to get it back in manual mode. After all that had happened, he wanted to make sure he could take control of Starliner again.
Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams landed in a Crew Dragon spacecraft in March. Dolphins were among their greeters.
Credit:
NASA
Wilmore: "I was very apprehensive. In earlier sims, I had even told the flight directors, 'If we get in a situation where I got to give it back to auto, I may not.' And they understood. Because if I've got a mode that's working, I don't want to give it up. But because we got those jets back, I thought, 'OK, we're only down one.' All this is going through my mind in real time. And I gave it back. And of course, we docked."
Williams: "I was super happy. If you remember from the video, when we came into the space station, I did this little happy dance. One, of course, just because I love being in space and am happy to be on the space station and [with] great friends up there. Two, just really happy that Starliner docked to the space station. My feeling at that point in time was like, 'Oh, phew, let's just take a breather and try to understand what happened.'"
"There are really great people on our team. Our team is huge. The commercial crew program, NASA and Boeing engineers, were all working hard to try to understand, to try to decide what we might need to do to get us to come back in that spacecraft. At that point, we also knew it was going to take a little while. Everything in this business takes a little while, like you know, because you want to cross the T's and dot the I's and make sure. I think the decision at the end of the summer was the right decision. We didn't have all the T's crossed; we didn't have all the I's dotted. So do we take that risk where we don't need to?"
Wilmore added that he felt pretty confident, in the aftermath of docking to the space station, that Starliner probably would not be their ride home.
Wilmore: "I was thinking, we might not come home in the spacecraft. We might not. And one of the first phone calls I made was to Vincent LaCourt, the ISS flight director, who was one of the ones that made the call about waiving the flight rule. I said, 'OK, what about this spacecraft, is it our safe haven?'"
It was unlikely to happen, but if some catastrophic space station emergency occurred while Wilmore and Williams were in orbit, what were they supposed to do? Should they retreat to Starliner for an emergency departure, or cram into one of the other vehicles on station, for which they did not have seats or spacesuits? LaCourt said they should use Starliner as a safe haven for the time being. Therein followed a long series of meetings and discussions about Starliner's suitability for flying crew back to Earth. Publicly, NASA and Boeing expressed confidence in Starliner's safe return with crew. But Williams and Wilmore, who had just made that harrowing ride, felt differently.
Wilmore: "I was very skeptical, just because of what we'd experienced. I just didn't see that we could make it. I was hopeful that we could, but it would've been really tough to get there, to where we could say, 'Yeah, we can come back.'"
So they did not.
TVs offer us an escape from the real world. After a long day, sometimes there’s nothing more relaxing than turning on your TV, tuning into your favorite program, and unplugging from the realities around you.
But what happens when divisive, potentially offensive messaging infiltrates that escape? Even with streaming services making it easy to watch TV commercial-free, it can still be difficult for TV viewers to avoid ads with these sorts of messages.
That’s especially the case with budget brands, which may even force controversial ads onto TVs when they’re idle, making users pay for low-priced TVs in unexpected, and sometimes troubling, ways.
An experience recently shared by an apparent Vizio TV owner illustrates how ads delivered via TV operating systems (OSes) can take ads from annoying to intrusive and offensive.
Reddit user DoubleJumps claimed last week that when their Vizio TV is idle, “it plays calming nature video, calming music, and then loops a message from the [T]rump admin[istration] telling illegal immigrants to gtfo over and over and over again.” They explained:
I left the [TV] idle while I went to the other room to play with my dog. After about a half an hour, I started hearing [US Secretary of Homeland Security] Kristi Noem praising Trump and telling immigrants to get out of America, over and over. I went in to check, and caught this video looping 3 more times before it went back to the nature clips.
The user added that when trying to replicate this, the TV “played the video again after about 20 minutes,” but only once.
As Distractify detailed, the video in question includes Noem telling people who live outside of the US that the US government will “hunt you down” if they enter the country illegally. Noem also claims in the video that “weak leadership has left our borders wide open, flooding our communities with drugs, human trafficking, and violent criminals.”
“This TV will be out of my house by the end of the week. Fucking dystopian bullshit company," DoubleJumps said.
Ars Technica hasn’t been able to replicate this internally. We also haven’t seen other reports of Vizio TV owners seeing this ad. Vizio and parent company Walmart didn’t respond to requests for comment.
However, what DoubleJumps detailed is completely within the scope of Vizio’s advertising efforts. Vizio TVs have something called Scenic Mode, which has the sets show, per Vizio, “relaxing, ambient content when your TV is idle for a period of time," along with ads. Scenic Mode can be disabled, but if it's enabled, the ads cannot be turned off. Vizio says the ads help it pay for things like the TVs’ free ad-supported streaming TV (FAST) channels and help keep Vizio TV prices low.
Vizio also has ties to political ads. It has previously boasted about its work with "a political candidate on an ad campaign that combined CTV ads with our Household Connect omnichannel feature to reach potential voters both on their TV sets and on other opted in devices." The company says it can play a "powerful role... in helping political campaigns reach their intended audiences."
The possibility that the ad placement was a mistake doesn't bring that much comfort either. If TV OS operators want to be so dependent on the advertising business, they owe it to customers to at least make sure errors like this (assuming this was an error) don't happen.
Even though Vizio TV owners can turn off Scenic Mode, a company marketing screensaver ads as “an experience that adds to the environment of your home or office” shows how far some TV brands are willing to go to make advertising dollars. Selling screensaver ad space to politicians delivering threats and associating immigration with “drugs, human trafficking,” and violence suggests a lack of discernment over what sort of ads are shown where. A political ad shown during a TV commercial break is reasonable. However, seeing one when using a TV functionality that's supposed to offer “relaxing, ambient content” seems wholly misguided.
But TV brands, especially more budget ones like Vizio, are increasingly looking for new places to show ads. And one of the biggest opportunities for more ad space is idle TVs.
TV OS operators besides Vizio are trying to seize that opportunity. For example, in 2022, Roku launched Roku City, a screensaver for devices using Roku OS that shows an animated city with advertisements in the form of logos splattered across the city. Roku claims that Roku City reaches 38.5 million streaming households a week on average.
A shot of a Roku City screensaver.
Credit:
Roku
Smart TVs and streaming devices running Amazon’s Fire OS have screensaver ads, too. Even LG, which is considered a more premium brand, launched screensaver ads in September, but users can disable them.
Startup Telly is a standout example of a company trying to monetize idle TV time. Announced in 2023, Telly TVs have a secondary screen that can show ads when the TV is not in use. Telly TVs are free to purchase in exchange for providing the company with user data, including disclosing your favorite news outlets, film and TV genres, foods, and services, your gender and race, and other information before you’re able to order the TV.
The free Telly 4K TV has a second screen for showing ads.
Credit:
Telly
After they’re set up, Telly TVs track user behavior, including what they watch and for how long, what they search for, and where they put their Telly. If users opt out of tracking, Telly charges them for the TV.
Glance is another company demonstrating the strong interest advertisers have in TV screensavers. Glance is known for custom lock screens for phones that show things like news and weather. In December, it announced Glance TV, which essentially brings the same capability to TVs with Glance TV embedded into their OS. In addition to offering a different idle screen, Glance TV delivers targeted advertising and shoppable content to TVs when they go idle. Glance TV only delivers content from Glance's partners and doesn’t gather information from the web, Digital Trends previously reported.
Currently, Airtel Xstream streaming boxes and sticks, which use Android TV OS and are available in India, are the only devices supporting Glance TV.
Buying a budget TV means accepting some trade-offs. Those trade-offs have historically been around things like image quality and feature sets. But companies like Vizio are also asking customers to accept questionable advertising decisions as they look to create new paths to ad revenue.
Numerous factors are pushing TV OS operators deeper into advertising. Brands are struggling to grow profits as people buy new TVs less frequently. As the TV market gets more competitive, hardware is also selling for cheaper, with some companies selling TVs at a loss with hopes of making up for it with ad sales. There’s concern that these market realities could detract from real TV innovation. And as the Secretary Noem ad reportedly shown to Vizio TV owners has highlighted, another concern is the lack of care around which ads are being shown to TV owners—especially when all they want is simple “ambient background” noise.
Today, people can disable ambient mode settings that show ads. But with some TV brands showing poor judgment around where they sell and place ads, we wouldn’t bank on companies maintaining these boundaries forever. If the industry can’t find a way to balance corporate needs with appropriate advertising, people might turn off not only their TVs more often, but also unplug from those brands completely.
Actor Val Kilmer—star of Top Gun, The Doors, and Batman Forever, among other roles—has died at the age of 65 of pneumonia, Deadline Hollywood reports.
Kilmer was diagnosed with throat cancer in 2015 and while chemotherapy and two tracheotomies helped him defeat it, the procedures destroyed his voice. He spoke in a rasp or used an electric voice box for the remainder of his life and largely left acting. (He made a brief cameo in 2022's Top Gun: Maverick, for which his voice was digitally altered.) The 2021 documentary Val, narrated by his son Jack Kilmer, followed his life and health struggles.
Kilmer had a reputation for being eccentric and difficult to work with, but he also had his champions, and his talent was undeniable. “While working with Val on Heat, I always marveled at the range, the brilliant variability within the powerful current of Val’s possessing and expressing character," Michael Mann, who directed the actor in 1995's Heat, told Deadline. "After so many years of Val battling disease and maintaining his spirit, this is tremendously sad news.”
Sure, there were some stinkers over the course of Kilmer's career, but he leaves behind an impressive list of roles that have stood the test of time. His portrayal of rock star Jim Morrison in The Doors (1991) was widely praised, as was his work in the 2004 black comedy Kiss Kiss Bang Bang opposite Robert Downey, Jr.
And who could forget his deliciously profligate Doc Holliday ("I'll be your Huckleberry") in 1993's Tombstone or his colorful turn as Elvis Presley in True Romance that same year? Then there was the cocky "Iceman" opposite Tom Cruise's Maverick in 1986's Top Gun and Madmartigan in the classic fantasy adventure Willow (1988) that turned him into a major star.
But here at Ars, we'd like to remember him as Chris Knight in Real Genius, the rebellious, irreverent science whiz kid at the fictional Pacific Tech (a thinly disguised Caltech) who befriends a shy young 15-year-old freshman (Gabriel Jarret). It was only his second feature film role, but Kilmer was unforgettable. So we're re-upping our 2020 tribute to the film in Kilmer's honor.
[Original article:]
Back to the Future justly dominated the summer box office in 1985, but it's too bad its massive success overshadowed another nerd-friendly gem, Real Genius, which debuted one month later, on August 9. Now celebrating its 35th anniversary, the film remains one of the most charming, winsome depictions of super-smart science whizzes idealistically hoping to change the world for the better with their work. It also boasts a lot of reasonably accurate science—a rare occurrence at the time.
Real Genius came out the same year as the similarly themed films Weird Science—which spawned a 1990s TV sitcom—and My Science Project, because 1980s Hollywood tended to do things in threes. But I'd argue that Real Genius has better stood the test of time, despite being so quintessentially an '80s film—right down to the many montages set to electronic/synth-pop chart-toppers. The film only grossed $12.9 million domestically against its $8 million budget, compared to $23.8 million domestically for its fellow cult classic, Weird Science. (My Science Project bombed with a paltry $4.1 million.) Reviews were mostly positive, however, and over time it became a sleeper hit via VHS, and later, DVD and streaming platforms.
(Spoilers for the 35-year-old film below.)
Fifteen-year-old Mitch Taylor (Gabriel Jarret) is a science genius and social outcast at his high school. So he is over the moon when Professor Jerry Hathaway (William Atherton), a star researcher at the fictional Pacific Technical University, stops by the science fair to inform Mitch he's been admitted to the university. Even better, Hathaway has handpicked Mitch to work in his own lab on a laser project. But unbeknownst to Mitch, Hathaway is in league with a covert CIA program to develop a space-based laser weapon called "Crossbow," designed for precisely targeted political assassinations. The only remaining obstacle is the weapon's power source: they need a 5-megawatt laser and are relying on Hathaway to deliver.
The first act is a nerdier version of the classic fish-out-of-water tale, as Mitch arrives at Pacific Tech and tries to fit in. His roommate, Chris Knight (Val Kilmer), is a senior who was once a bright young star like Mitch but has since rebelled against the high-pressure academic grind and embraced a goofy YOLO approach to life, urging his fellow students to allow themselves to blow off a little steam now and then. Mitch butts heads with Kent (Robert Prescott), a less gifted older protegé of Hathaway's who is jealous of the attention Mitch receives. He finds friends and allies not just in Chris, but also fellow science nerds "Ick" Ikagami (Mark Kamiyama) and Jordan Cochran (Michelle Meyrink), a hyperactive young woman who rarely stops talking or inventing gadgets, and by her own admission almost never sleeps.
Then there is Lazlo Hollyfeld (Jon Gries), a former star student who cracked under the pressure and is now an eccentric hermit living in the dormitory steam tunnels. Fun fact: Lazlo's steam tunnel hideout, accessible through Mitch's closet, is an elaborate homage to Leonardo da Vinci. As depicted when Mitch finally figures out how to gain access, it features a multidirectional elevator built out of a small car controlled by a rotating screw. The car descends to a horizontal track and is propelled forward by a hidden drive chain. The automated scribbler Lazlo uses to submit more than a million entries to the Frito-Lay Sweepstakes was inspired by a sketch in one of Leonardo's notebooks.
Eventually, Mitch and Chris succeed in solving the power problem for their laser, only to realize (thanks to Lazlo) that it will be used to build a powerful directed-energy laser weapon. The five of them team up to foil Hathaway's big military test of the system, in their usual eccentrically ingenious way.
It fell to film consultant Martin A. Gunderson of the University of Southern California (who has a bit part as a math professor) to help ensure that the science and campus culture depicted in the film were plausible, even if certain liberties were taken. Certain details were deliberately left out, according to Director Martha Coolidge, such as those for Mitch's flash-pumped ultraviolet laser at the science fair, and technical details pertaining to a directed-energy laser weapon. ("We didn't want to inspire any lethal tinkering.")
I've always appreciated how closely the laboratory laser setups hewed to reality: Gunderson himself provided the blue-green argon laser and tunable dye laser used in those scenes. Chris uses a cube beam splitter to create the laser light show announcing the Tanning Invitational pool party that incurs Hathaway's wrath. That said, a 5-megawatt laser had certainly not been achieved in 1985. While Chris' construction of a xenon-halogen laser to solve the power problem was purely theoretical at the time, the underlying scientific details were later outlined in a scientific paper—a fitting example of how science and Hollywood can both benefit from such collaborations.
For the "Smart People on Ice" scene, the crew used a frozen volatile gas, pumped through thousands of feet of tubing beneath the corridor flooring that was connected to a refrigeration unit to keep the gas cold. And as Ick explains when Kent asks him what will happen when the ice melts, the frozen gas shifts directly from a solid to a gaseous state, rather than melting into a liquid.
Then there is the famous popcorn scene that marks the group's triumph over Hathaway. Mitch, Chris, Ick, Jordan, and Lazlo fill his newly renovated house (accomplished with funds embezzled from his CIA grant) with unpopped popcorn covered in tinfoil. They place a prismatic-like piece of glass on the window sill and hijack the computer during Hathaway's big military test to redirect the laser energy through that window. The kernels start popping, expanding to fill the entire house until it quite literally bursts at the seams.
In a 2010 interview with the AV Club, Atherton revealed that the studio had six ten-foot-high air poppers devoted to popping popcorn all day for three months, filling a massive storage tank. Since the popcorn had been treated with fire-retardant to keep it from combusting, additional measures had to be taken to ensure the birds didn't eat it. All that popcorn was then carted out to a new subdivision being built in Canyon Country just northwest of Los Angeles and then stuffed inside a Victorian frame house specifically built for the film. That way the crew could pull the whole thing down in the climactic scene with the help of an elaborate network of conveyor belts, hydraulic lifts, airblowers, and vacuum hoses. "Now they'd do it digitally, I guess, but in those days, you had to pop the dang popcorn and put it in a truck and schlep it out to the valley," Atherton said.
As evidence of the film's enduring popularity with the nerdy set, the Mythbusters decided to test the feasibility of popping that much popcorn in 2009 with a laser and destroying a house. The initial test went well: the team successfully popped a single kernel wrapped in aluminum foil with a ten-watt laser. Unfortunately, they weren't able to get a sufficiently powerful laser for their scaled-up experiment, relying instead on a large pan used to cook the popcorn via induction heating. They also built a scaled-down model of the house in the film with a piston on the floor pushing popped popcorn upward to see if it could generate sufficient force to break apart the house. Alas, the Mythbusters determined it would require several tons of force. So myth: busted. But it's still an entertaining movie comeuppance.
Real Genius is admittedly a bit cheesy. The plot is predictable, the characters are pretty basic, and the dialogue can be clunky. And it goes without saying that the sexually frustrated virgin nerds ogling hot cosmetology students in bikinis during the pool party reflects hopelessly outdated stereotypes on several fronts. But the film still offers smartly silly escapist fare, with a side of solid science for those who care about such things. And its yearning idealism is a good antidote to the current prevailing cynicism.
On Tuesday, the Wikimedia Foundation announced that relentless AI scraping is putting strain on Wikipedia's servers. Automated bots seeking AI model training data for LLMs have been vacuuming up terabytes of data, growing the foundation's bandwidth used for downloading multimedia content by 50 percent since January 2024. It’s a scenario familiar across the free and open source software (FOSS) community, as we've previously detailed.
The Foundation hosts not only Wikipedia but also platforms like Wikimedia Commons, which offers 144 million media files under open licenses. For decades, this content has powered everything from search results to school projects. But since early 2024, AI companies have dramatically increased automated scraping through direct crawling, APIs, and bulk downloads to feed their hungry AI models. This exponential growth in non-human traffic has imposed steep technical and financial costs—often without the attribution that helps sustain Wikimedia’s volunteer ecosystem.
The impact isn’t theoretical. The foundation says that when former US President Jimmy Carter died in December 2024, his Wikipedia page predictably drew millions of views. But the real stress came when users simultaneously streamed a 1.5-hour video of a 1980 debate from Wikimedia Commons. The surge doubled Wikimedia’s normal network traffic, temporarily maxing out several of its Internet connections. Wikimedia engineers quickly rerouted traffic to reduce congestion, but the event revealed a deeper problem: The baseline bandwidth had already been consumed largely by bots scraping media at scale.
This behavior is increasingly familiar across the FOSS world. Fedora’s Pagure repository blocked all traffic from Brazil after similar scraping incidents covered by Ars Technica. GNOME’s GitLab instance implemented proof-of-work challenges to filter excessive bot access. Read the Docs dramatically cut its bandwidth costs after blocking AI crawlers.
Wikimedia’s internal data explains why this kind of traffic is so costly for open projects. Unlike humans, who tend to view popular and frequently cached articles, bots crawl obscure and less-accessed pages, forcing Wikimedia’s core datacenters to serve them directly. Caching systems designed for predictable, human browsing behavior don’t work when bots are reading the entire archive indiscriminately.
As a result, Wikimedia found that bots account for 65 percent of the most expensive requests to its core infrastructure despite making up just 35 percent of total pageviews. This asymmetry is a key technical insight: The cost of a bot request is far higher than a human one, and it adds up fast.
Making the situation more difficult, many AI-focused crawlers do not play by established rules. Some ignore robots.txt directives. Others spoof browser user agents to disguise themselves as human visitors. Some even rotate through residential IP addresses to avoid blocking, tactics that have become common enough to force individual developers like Xe Iaso to adopt drastic protective measures for their code repositories.
This leaves Wikimedia’s Site Reliability team in a perpetual state of defense. Every hour spent rate-limiting bots or mitigating traffic surges is time not spent supporting Wikimedia’s contributors, users, or technical improvements. And it’s not just content platforms under strain. Developer infrastructure, like Wikimedia’s code review tools and bug trackers, is also frequently hit by scrapers, further diverting attention and resources.
These problems mirror others in the AI scraping ecosystem over time. Curl developer Daniel Stenberg has previously detailed how fake, AI-generated bug reports are wasting human time. On his blog, SourceHut’s Drew DeVault highlight how bots hammer endpoints like git logs, far beyond what human developers would ever need.
Across the Internet, open platforms are experimenting with technical solutions: proof-of-work challenges, slow-response tarpits (like Nepenthes), collaborative crawler blocklists (like "ai.robots.txt"), and commercial tools like Cloudflare's AI Labyrinth. These approaches address the technical mismatch between infrastructure designed for human readers and the industrial-scale demands of AI training.
Wikimedia acknowledges the importance of providing "knowledge as a service," and its content is indeed freely licensed. But as the Foundation states plainly, "Our content is free, our infrastructure is not."
The organization is now focusing on systemic approaches to this issue under a new initiative: WE5: Responsible Use of Infrastructure. It raises critical questions about guiding developers toward less resource-intensive access methods and establishing sustainable boundaries while preserving openness.
The challenge lies in bridging two worlds: open knowledge repositories and commercial AI development. Many companies rely on open knowledge to train commercial models but don't contribute to the infrastructure making that knowledge accessible. This creates a technical imbalance that threatens the sustainability of community-run platforms.
Better coordination between AI developers and resource providers could potentially resolve these issues through dedicated APIs, shared infrastructure funding, or more efficient access patterns. Without such practical collaboration, the platforms that have enabled AI advancement may struggle to maintain reliable service. Wikimedia's warning is clear: Freedom of access does not mean freedom from consequences.
Paramount+ has dropped a tantalizing one-minute teaser for the upcoming third season of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds., and it looks like the latest adventures of the starship Enterprise will bring romance, comedy, mystery, and even a bit of analog tech, not to mention a brand new villain.
(Some spoilers for S2 below)
We haven't seen much from the third season to date. There was an exclusive clip during San Diego Comic Con last summer—a callback to the S2 episode "Charades," in which a higher-dimensional race, the Kerkohvians, accidentally reconfigured Spock's half-human, half-Vulcan physiology to that of a full-blooded human, just before Spock was supposed to meet his Vulcan fiancee's parents. The S3 clip had the situation reversed: The human crew had to make themselves Vulcan to succeed on a new mission but weren't able to change back.
The S2 finale found the Enterprise under vicious attack by the Gorn, who were in the midst of invading one of the Federation's colony worlds. Several crew members were kidnapped (La'an, M'Benga, Ortegas, and Sam), along with other survivors of the attack. Pike faced a momentous decision: follow orders to retreat, or disobey them to rescue his crew. In October, we learned that Pike naturally chose the latter. New footage shown at New York City Comic-Con picked up where the finale left off, giving us the kind of harrowing high-stakes pitched space battle against a ferocious enemy that has long been a hallmark of the franchise.
In addition to the returning main and recurring cast members, Cillian O'Sullivan joins the recurring cast as Dr. Roger Korby, a legacy character (originally played by Michael Strong). Korby was a renowned archaeologist in the field of medical archaeology, introduced in the episode "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" as Nurse Chapel's long-missing fiancé. That's bound to cause problems for SNW's Nurse Christine Chapel (Jess Bush), who is currently romantically involved with Spock (Ethan Peck). Rhys Darby (Our Flag Means Death) and Patton Oswalt will guest star in as-yet-undisclosed roles—we catch glimpses of both in the teaser.
Not known for being a particularly sarcastic people, my financial advisor at a major multinational bank just emailed an update with the subject,
"They're eating the dogs, they're tarrifing the penguins"that began with: "In yesterday's episode of
'How to Lose All Allies in 65 Days'..."
So that's going great.
Log in
reply
