Feed aggregator

Crypto wallets provide a safe place to store your coins while also ensuring you're the one in control of them.

The 98th Oscars will be the first Academy Awards to have rules surrounding generative AI, and it means films can openly use the technology without hindering their chances of taking home a win.

Following the controversy involving The Brutalist and Emilia Perez's 2025 Oscar campaigns, which were impacted by the use of AI to improve speech and dialect, you'd think the new rule change would be the most controversial addition to the upcoming year's overhaul. You'd be wrong.

Instead, there's an even bigger issue that should be grabbing all the headlines and highlighting everything wrong with award ceremonies.

Wait... Why hasn't this rule always existed?

(Image credit: A24/Netflix)

While allowing AI to be used in any movie eligible for an Oscar win might sound controversial, the more controversial rule change highlights an issue that's plagued the Academy Awards for years.

The statement on the Academy Awards website reads: "In a procedural change, Academy members must now watch all nominated films in each category to be eligible to vote in the final round for the Oscars."

At first, I had to take a second glance, and then my jaw dropped to the floor. Yes, now Academy members need to watch all new movies in a category before voting, which means that we've had 97 Oscar ceremonies so far where that was not a criterion.

How can anyone validate any Oscar win when, for almost a century, those who vote haven't even been required to watch the movies they are selecting from?

Now, I'm not naive, so I always knew Oscars campaigns and marketing budgets played a significant part in propelling films towards a gold statue. However, I, and I suspect most of the wider population, thought that movies still had to stand out versus the field to win.

Turns out, the Academy Awards are more of a popularity contest than I had ever realized, and up until this year, a good marketing campaign and getting your movie seen are probably enough to win.

Does this hinder credibility or benefit it?

(Image credit: Apple TV Plus)

As someone who watches the Oscars every year, hoping for my favorite movie to pick up a top prize, I'm not sure how I feel about the news that Academy members haven't needed to bother watching the nominations until now.

You see, I think it absolutely hinders the credibility of the Academy Awards in terms of how it's perceived by the general public. The regular people of the world, who tune in on TV every year, and have no ties to Hollywood, do not even know that there was no criteria in the first place.

That said, does this now give the 98th Academy Awards and all the subsequent award ceremonies increased credibility? Like, at some point, someone from the Academy would've known that this rule needed to be implemented. But it would always end up in backlash, so have they just been putting off the rule change, in the hope that when they do make the adjustment, it goes unnoticed?

I'm no insider, no Academy member, just a mere fan of cinema, and while now I'll look back at the last century of Oscar wins with a newfound skepticism, it does make me think that moving forward, the movies that deserve recognition are more likely to receive it.

The new AI rule might be grabbing all the headlines, but for us "normies," I think we should be focusing on the fact that the biggest awards in cinema haven't required those who make the selection to watch what they're voting for. It's absolutely baffling.

You might also like...

• From novelty to nuisance: The AI revolution no one wanted is sweeping all before it
• AI took a huge leap in IQ, and now a quarter of Gen Z thinks AI is conscious
• We’re locked inside a creative bubble, will AI burst it or throw away the key?

• Cybercriminals are inviting victims to talk to "journalists"
• On the Zoom call, they're asked to grant permissions for remote access
• Those that grant the permissions lose their crypto

Hackers are abusing Zoom’s remote desktop feature to steal people’s cryptocurrency, experts have warned.

Cybersecurity researchers Trail of Bits claim to have seen the attack in the wild, focusing on “high-value targets,” people who the media would often contact for comments and discussion on everyday events. The attackers would reach out via social media (X, for example), and send them a Zoom invite via Calendly, pretending to be Bloomberg journalists.

On Zoom, the attackers would join with an account named “Zoom”, and request remote control over the victim’s account. The victims would see a popup saying “Zoom is requesting remote control of your screen” which, for those used to granting permissions without thinking twice, might seem like a legitimate request from a legitimate app.

Get Keeper Personal for just $1.67/month, Keeper Family for just $3.54/month, and Keeper Business for just $7/month

​Keeper is a cybersecurity platform primarily known for its password manager and digital vault, designed to help individuals, families, and businesses securely store and manage passwords, sensitive files, and other private data.

It uses zero-knowledge encryption and offers features like two-factor authentication, dark web monitoring, secure file storage, and breach alerts to protect against cyber threats.

Preferred partner (What does this mean?)View Deal

Elusive Comet

"What makes this attack particularly dangerous is the permission dialog's similarity to other harmless Zoom notifications," Trail of Bits said.

"Users habituated to clicking "Approve" on Zoom prompts may grant complete control of their computer without realizing the implications."

Once the access is granted, the attackers would move fast, deploy a stealthy backdoor or other means of retaining access, and then disconnect from the call.

The last step is to use the malware to access the victim’s cryptocurrency wallets and siphon out any funds found inside.

The researchers named the group “Elusive Comet” and said the methodology is most likely copied from Lazarus, the infamous North Korean state-sponsored entity that targets crypto businesses.

"The ELUSIVE COMET methodology mirrors the techniques behind the recent $1.5 billion Bybit hack in February, where attackers manipulated legitimate workflows rather than exploiting code vulnerabilities," Trail of Bits said in its report.

To mitigate the risk, it would be best not to grant people or apps remote access, unless you’re 100% certain the person is benign.

Via BleepingComputer

You might also like

• NTT admits hackers accessed details of almost 18,000 corporate customers in cyberattack
• Take a look at our guide to the best authenticator app
• We've rounded up the best password managers

Much like that scene in this week's The Last of Us season 2 episode (spoilers! So many spoilers! Also: spoilers!), we knew it was coming, we were dreading it coming and now it's here: the promised Max password crackdown is happening.

Max has launched a new add-on for its customers in the US, enabling you to add one person to your plan. It's available on all subscription plans and costs a flat $7.99 per month in the US. You can also only add one Extra Member per account.

How to add an extra member to your Max subscription

In order to add someone to your Max plan, you need to be the primary account holder. If they're under the same roof as you, an extra member account isn't necessary. But if they live somewhere else, you'll need to upgrade your account.

The Extra Member account will have its own login credentials and will deliver all the same best Max shows, best Max movies and features as the main account. But they can only stream on one device at a time, so they can't share their login with others in the same place.

If that person is already on your existing account, you'll be able to transfer their profile including their watch history, recommendations and settings to their new login.

For now, you have to be a direct subscriber to Max: bundle subscribers who get Max as part of a bigger package can't use the Extra Member feature. The Extra Member feature is only available in the US at the time of writing, but it's expected to rollout to more regions soon.

You may also like

• Everything new on Max in May 2025
• IT: Welcome to Derry: everything you need to know
• The best streaming service: Netflix, Apple TV+ and more

Did you know elephants have long trunks? The first YouTube video delivers that little-known bit of animal knowledge -- and after that, things really got going.

• Tiny11 has been successfully installed on an iPad Air M2
• The lightweight version of Windows 11 works on Apple’s tablet via emulation
• However, don’t expect anything remotely close to smooth performance levels

In the ongoing quest to have software (or games – usually Doom) running on unexpected devices, a fresh twist has emerged as somebody has managed to get Windows 11 running on an iPad Air.

Windows Central noticed the feat achieved by using Tiny11, a lightweight version of Windows 11 which was installed on an iPad Air with M2 chip.

NTDEV, the developer of Tiny11, was behind this effort, and used the Arm64 variant of their slimline take on Windows 11. Microsoft’s OS was run on the iPad Air using emulation (UTM with JIT, the developer explains – a PC emulator, in short).

So, is Windows 11 impressive on an iPad Air? No, in a word. The developer is waiting for over a minute and a half for the desktop to appear, and Windows 11’s features (Task Manager, Settings) and apps load pretty sluggishly – but they work.

The illustrative YouTube clip below gives you a good idea of what to expect: it’s far, far from a smooth experience, but it’s still a bit better than the developer anticipated.

Analysis: Doing stuff for the hell of it

This stripped-back incarnation of Windows 11 certainly runs better on an iPad Air than it did on an iPhone 15 Pro, something NTDEV demonstrated in the past (booting the OS took 20 minutes on a smartphone).

However, as noted at the outset, sometimes achievements in the tech world are simply about marvelling that something can be done at all, rather than having any practical value.

You wouldn’t want to use Windows 11 on an iPad (or indeed iPhone) in this way, anyhow, just in the same way you wouldn’t want to play Doom on a toothbrush even though it’s possible (would you?).

It also underlines the niftiness of Tiny11, the bloat-free take on Windows 11 which has been around for a couple of years now. If you need a more streamlined version of Microsoft’s newest operating system, Tiny11 certainly delivers (bearing some security-related caveats in mind).

There are all sorts of takes on this app, including a ludicrously slimmed-down version of Tiny11 (that comes in at a featherweight 100MB). And, of course, the Arm64 spin used in this iPad Air demonstration, which we’ve previously seen installed on the Raspberry Pi.

You may also like...

• Here's why you should reinstall Windows 11 every two months - no, I'm not kidding
• Windows 11 is getting a very handy change to the taskbar, as Microsoft takes a leaf from Apple’s Mac playbook
• Windows 11 fully streamlined in just two clicks? Talon utility promises to rip all the bloatware out of Microsoft’s OS in a hassle-free way

A lawsuit alleges the Trump administration violated the free-speech rights of nonprofits and municipalities that have had federal funding for climate and environmental projects frozen or cancelled.

(Image credit: BRYAN DOZIER/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty)

Fiber broadband is popular but still not easy to find. Here are the top fiber providers nationwide and tips for finding a fast, cost-efficient connection.

The U.S. is showing signs that it is increasingly willing to withdraw from a peace process that has grown more complex in recent months.

(Image credit: Volodymyr Hordiienko)

• 80% of people would pay for Apple Intelligence, a survey has found
• Over 50% of respondents would be happy to pay $10 a month or more
• The results are surprising given Apple Intelligence’s history of struggles

Apple Intelligence hasn’t exactly received rave reviews since it was announced in summer 2024, with critics pointing to its delayed features and disappointing performance compared to rivals like ChatGPT. Yet that apparently hasn’t dissuaded consumers, with a new survey suggesting that huge numbers of people are enticed by Apple’s artificial intelligence (AI) platform (via MacRumors).

The survey was conducted by investment company Morgan Stanley, and it found that one in two respondents would be willing to pay at least $10 a month (around £7.50 / AU$15 p/month) for unlimited access to Apple Intelligence. Specifically, 30% would accept paying between $10 and $14.99, while a further 22% would be okay with paying $15 or more. Just 14% of respondents were unwilling to pay anything for Apple Intelligence and 6% weren’t sure, implying that 80% of people wouldn’t mind forking out for the service.

According to 9to5Mac, the survey found that 42% of people said it was extremely important or very important that their next iPhone featured Apple Intelligence, while 54% of respondents who planned to upgrade in the next 12 months said the same thing. All in all, the survey claimed that its results showed “stronger-than-expected consumer perception for Apple Intelligence.”

Morgan Stanley’s survey polled approximately 3,300 people, and it says that the sample is representative of the United States’ population in terms of age, gender, and religion.

Surprising results

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

If you’ve been following Apple Intelligence, you’ll probably know it’s faced a pretty bumpy road in the months since it launched. For one thing, it has received much criticism for its ability to carry out tasks for users, with many people comparing it unfavorably to some of the best AI services like ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Copilot.

As well as that, Apple has been forced to delay some of Apple Intelligence’s headline features, such as its ability to work within apps and understand what is happening on your device’s screen. These were some of Apple Intelligence’s most intriguing aspects, yet Apple’s heavy promotion of these tools hasn’t translated into working features.

That all makes these survey results seem rather surprising, but there could be a few reasons behind them. Perhaps consumers are happy to have any AI features on their Apple devices, even if they’re missing a few key aspects at the moment.

Or maybe those people who were willing to pay for Apple Intelligence did so based on getting the full feature set, rather than the incomplete range of abilities that are currently available. Alternatively, it could be that everyday users haven’t been following Apple Intelligence’s struggles as much as tech-savvy consumers and so aren’t acutely aware of its early difficulties.

Whatever the reasons, it’s interesting to see how many people are still enticed by Apple Intelligence. It will be encouraging reading for Apple, which has faced much bad press for its AI system, and might suggest that Apple Intelligence is not in as bad a spot as we might have thought.

You might also like

• I'm actually glad the new Siri with Apple Intelligence is delayed, and here's why we've got Apple's AI problem backwards
• Apple removed 'Available Now' from the Apple Intelligence webpage, but it may not have been Apple's choice
• Apple is currently levelling up Siri’s ‘onscreen awareness,’ enabling it to interact with your screen

• 80% of people would pay for Apple Intelligence, a survey has found
• Over 50% of respondents would be happy to pay $10 a month or more
• The results are surprising given Apple Intelligence’s history of struggles

Apple Intelligence hasn’t exactly received rave reviews since it was announced in summer 2024, with critics pointing to its delayed features and disappointing performance compared to rivals like ChatGPT. Yet that apparently hasn’t dissuaded consumers, with a new survey suggesting that huge numbers of people are enticed by Apple’s artificial intelligence (AI) platform (via MacRumors).

The survey was conducted by investment company Morgan Stanley, and it found that one in two respondents would be willing to pay at least $10 a month (around £7.50 / AU$15 p/month) for unlimited access to Apple Intelligence. Specifically, 30% would accept paying between $10 and $14.99, while a further 22% would be okay with paying $15 or more. Just 14% of respondents were unwilling to pay anything for Apple Intelligence and 6% weren’t sure, implying that 80% of people wouldn’t mind forking out for the service.

According to 9to5Mac, the survey found that 42% of people said it was extremely important or very important that their next iPhone featured Apple Intelligence, while 54% of respondents who planned to upgrade in the next 12 months said the same thing. All in all, the survey claimed that its results showed “stronger-than-expected consumer perception for Apple Intelligence.”

Morgan Stanley’s survey polled approximately 3,300 people, and it says that the sample is representative of the United States’ population in terms of age, gender, and religion.

Surprising results

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

If you’ve been following Apple Intelligence, you’ll probably know it’s faced a pretty bumpy road in the months since it launched. For one thing, it has received much criticism for its ability to carry out tasks for users, with many people comparing it unfavorably to some of the best AI services like ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Copilot.

As well as that, Apple has been forced to delay some of Apple Intelligence’s headline features, such as its ability to work within apps and understand what is happening on your device’s screen. These were some of Apple Intelligence’s most intriguing aspects, yet Apple’s heavy promotion of these tools hasn’t translated into working features.

That all makes these survey results seem rather surprising, but there could be a few reasons behind them. Perhaps consumers are happy to have any AI features on their Apple devices, even if they’re missing a few key aspects at the moment.

Or maybe those people who were willing to pay for Apple Intelligence did so based on getting the full feature set, rather than the incomplete range of abilities that are currently available. Alternatively, it could be that everyday users haven’t been following Apple Intelligence’s struggles as much as tech-savvy consumers and so aren’t acutely aware of its early difficulties.

Whatever the reasons, it’s interesting to see how many people are still enticed by Apple Intelligence. It will be encouraging reading for Apple, which has faced much bad press for its AI system, and might suggest that Apple Intelligence is not in as bad a spot as we might have thought.

You might also like

• I'm actually glad the new Siri with Apple Intelligence is delayed, and here's why we've got Apple's AI problem backwards
• Apple removed 'Available Now' from the Apple Intelligence webpage, but it may not have been Apple's choice
• Apple is currently levelling up Siri’s ‘onscreen awareness,’ enabling it to interact with your screen

The question of whether you should say please or thank you to ChatGPT is having something of a moment right now, and that’s made me consider my own interactions with the popular chatbot.

I’ve never really thought about it before, but on reflection I’m starting to wonder if I’m displaying sociopathic tendencies, because I never say please and thank you to ChatGPT, or am I being gaslit into thinking I'm at fault by well my well-meaning work colleagues who look at me in horror?

The news that I never say please or thank you is probably coming as a great relief to Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, who recently admitted that people saying please and thank you to ChatGPT are costing the company millions of dollars in processing power, not to mention the harm all that extra processing will be causing to the environment.

My reasons for no-frills approach to AI aren’t coming from a concern for OpenAI’s bottom line, or to do with environmental awareness issues: I simply can’t bring myself to be polite to machines, and also, like most of us, I’m in a hurry. I’ve got stuff to do, and it takes longer to be polite.

I like to think that this behavior stands in stark contrast to how I treat people in real life, especially my work colleagues (although you’re going to have to take my word for that).

Essentially, I’m a big 'please' and 'thank you' sayer in real life, but I don’t see ChatGPT as a person, in the same way that I don’t see Alexa as a person, or my car as a person. (Incidentally, I don’t say please and thank you to Alexa or my car, either.)

It’s not like adding a please or thank you to a ChatGPT, or Alexa, request makes any real difference to the answers you get, either. Does ChatGPT care that I’m polite? It doesn’t – you get exactly the same results from asking it to 'find me 10 examples of people in sport who quit after not getting a pay rise' as you do if you ask it the same question and add 'please' at the end. I know because I just tried it.

When you say 'please', ChatGPT starts its response with 'Certainly!', but you still get the same answers. The rest is just window dressing.

Also, I don’t feel like I’m actively being rude to ChatGPT. I’m just missing out unnecessary words that don’t make any real difference.

Our survey says...

So why do people say please and thank you to machines?

A 2024 study by Future (the publisher of TechRadar) revealed that 67% of US people are polite to AI. That’s staggeringly high.

I get that politeness is an ingrained habit that’s hard to break for some people, and that you get your answer framed in a slightly different way when you’re polite (see the 'Certainly!' example above), which means ChatGPT feels all warm and cuddly when you interact with it.

But beyond that, I think the logic starts to get a bit hazy. One person I know genuinely insists that they are polite to ChatGPT because one day it’s AI that will be in charge, and it will somehow remember them.

Yes, I'm sure that when the AI killer robots executing the last remains of the human race, they will pause and say, 'Stop, this is Kevin, he always said thank you. We’ll let him live.'

Ghost in the machine

What worries me is the tacit assumption that if you’re rude to ChatGPT then you must be rude to people in everyday life as well, as if a person can only exist in one mode of being. I'd argue that if your politeness is based purely on habit, then are you really being polite? Or are you just unthinkingly acting out patterns of behaviour without any genuine emotion behind them?

I can tell the difference between people and machines, and treat each accordingly.

If ChatGPT ever (and depending on who you talk to this is either inevitable, or impossible) reaches the level where it can be said to be conscious, rather than the pattern matching algorithm we know and love today, then yes, I’ll start using please and thank you.

Until then, I’m keeping my interactions with AI as short and limited as possible, and if that helps save the planet along the way then so much the better.

You may also like

• ChatGPT crosses a new AI threshold by beating the Turing test
• 4 ChatGPT features I hope Apple adds to Siri
• ChatGPT just leveled up – so why is Sam Altman comparing AI to the Renaissance, not a revolution?

The question of whether you should say please or thank you to ChatGPT is having something of a moment right now, and that’s made me consider my own interactions with the popular chatbot.

I’ve never really thought about it before, but on reflection I’m starting to wonder if I’m displaying sociopathic tendencies, because I never say please and thank you to ChatGPT, or am I being gaslit into thinking I'm at fault by well my well-meaning work colleagues who look at me in horror?

The news that I never say please or thank you is probably coming as a great relief to Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, who recently admitted that people saying please and thank you to ChatGPT are costing the company millions of dollars in processing power, not to mention the harm all that extra processing will be causing to the environment.

My reasons for no-frills approach to AI aren’t coming from a concern for OpenAI’s bottom line, or to do with environmental awareness issues: I simply can’t bring myself to be polite to machines, and also, like most of us, I’m in a hurry. I’ve got stuff to do, and it takes longer to be polite.

I like to think that this behavior stands in stark contrast to how I treat people in real life, especially my work colleagues (although you’re going to have to take my word for that).

Essentially, I’m a big 'please' and 'thank you' sayer in real life, but I don’t see ChatGPT as a person, in the same way that I don’t see Alexa as a person, or my car as a person. (Incidentally, I don’t say please and thank you to Alexa or my car, either.)

It’s not like adding a please or thank you to a ChatGPT, or Alexa, request makes any real difference to the answers you get, either. Does ChatGPT care that I’m polite? It doesn’t – you get exactly the same results from asking it to 'find me 10 examples of people in sport who quit after not getting a pay rise' as you do if you ask it the same question and add 'please' at the end. I know because I just tried it.

When you say 'please', ChatGPT starts its response with 'Certainly!', but you still get the same answers. The rest is just window dressing.

Also, I don’t feel like I’m actively being rude to ChatGPT. I’m just missing out unnecessary words that don’t make any real difference.

Our survey says...

So why do people say please and thank you to machines?

A 2024 study by Future (the publisher of TechRadar) revealed that 67% of US people are polite to AI. That’s staggeringly high.

I get that politeness is an ingrained habit that’s hard to break for some people, and that you get your answer framed in a slightly different way when you’re polite (see the 'Certainly!' example above), which means ChatGPT feels all warm and cuddly when you interact with it.

But beyond that, I think the logic starts to get a bit hazy. One person I know genuinely insists that they are polite to ChatGPT because one day it’s AI that will be in charge, and it will somehow remember them.

Yes, I'm sure that when the AI killer robots executing the last remains of the human race, they will pause and say, 'Stop, this is Kevin, he always said thank you. We’ll let him live.'

Ghost in the machine

What worries me is the tacit assumption that if you’re rude to ChatGPT then you must be rude to people in everyday life as well, as if a person can only exist in one mode of being. I'd argue that if your politeness is based purely on habit, then are you really being polite? Or are you just unthinkingly acting out patterns of behaviour without any genuine emotion behind them?

I can tell the difference between people and machines, and treat each accordingly.

If ChatGPT ever (and depending on who you talk to this is either inevitable, or impossible) reaches the level where it can be said to be conscious, rather than the pattern matching algorithm we know and love today, then yes, I’ll start using please and thank you.

Until then, I’m keeping my interactions with AI as short and limited as possible, and if that helps save the planet along the way then so much the better.

You may also like

• ChatGPT crosses a new AI threshold by beating the Turing test
• 4 ChatGPT features I hope Apple adds to Siri
• ChatGPT just leveled up – so why is Sam Altman comparing AI to the Renaissance, not a revolution?

• RIP: Privacy Sandbox, 2019-2025 – Google confirms it won’t go ahead with plans
• Third-party cookies continue, but Incognito mode offers enhanced protection
• Some tech, like Topics API, will continue to be used

Google is scaling back its Privacy Sandbox project, which was originally aimed at phasing out third-party cookies, after six years of hard work and its fair share of delays.

Launched in 2019 to address privacy concerns and to meet regulatory standards without impacting advertisers’ abilities to target specific users, we now know that Google will not phase out third-party cookies.

In a blog post confirming Privacy Sandbox’s demise, Google's Anthony Chavez blamed publishers, developers, regulators and the ads industry for resistance, as well as a changing landscape and increased scrutiny from regulatory bodies.

Google has pulled the plug on Privacy Sandbox

“Taking all of these factors into consideration, we’ve made the decision to maintain our current approach to offering users third-party cookie choice in Chrome, and will not be rolling out a new standalone prompt for third-party cookies,” Chavez confirmed.

Although Google will continue to support cookies in Chrome, the company has promised to “enhance tracking protections” in Incognito mode, which already blocks third-party cookies.

Some tech remains in development or use, though, including IP address protection in Incognito mode, which is planned for Q3 2025, and Topics API, which allows interest-based advertising without sharing full browsing history.

Google is now committed to working with the industry to gather feedback in order to inform an updated roadmap for the technologies it’s already been developing. “In light of this update, we understand that the Privacy Sandbox APIs may have a different role to play in supporting the ecosystem,” Chavez said.

Privacy advocates have argued that Google undermined its own privacy claims, noting that privacy came second to surveillance, with many users seeking to switch to alternative browsers like Firefox.

Movement for an Open Web also hailed the announcement as the end of Google’s attempt to monopolize digital advertising standards.

You might also like

• Google U-turns on Privacy Sandbox endeavor, deciding that cookies won't be replaced after all - here's what that means for you
• These are the best privacy tools and anonymous browsers
• Protect your online footprint by using the best VPNs

• RIP: Privacy Sandbox, 2019-2025 – Google confirms it won’t go ahead with plans
• Third-party cookies continue, but Incognito mode offers enhanced protection
• Some tech, like Topics API, will continue to be used

Google is scaling back its Privacy Sandbox project, which was originally aimed at phasing out third-party cookies, after six years of hard work and its fair share of delays.

Launched in 2019 to address privacy concerns and to meet regulatory standards without impacting advertisers’ abilities to target specific users, we now know that Google will not phase out third-party cookies.

In a blog post confirming Privacy Sandbox’s demise, Google's Anthony Chavez blamed publishers, developers, regulators and the ads industry for resistance, as well as a changing landscape and increased scrutiny from regulatory bodies.

Google has pulled the plug on Privacy Sandbox

“Taking all of these factors into consideration, we’ve made the decision to maintain our current approach to offering users third-party cookie choice in Chrome, and will not be rolling out a new standalone prompt for third-party cookies,” Chavez confirmed.

Although Google will continue to support cookies in Chrome, the company has promised to “enhance tracking protections” in Incognito mode, which already blocks third-party cookies.

Some tech remains in development or use, though, including IP address protection in Incognito mode, which is planned for Q3 2025, and Topics API, which allows interest-based advertising without sharing full browsing history.

Google is now committed to working with the industry to gather feedback in order to inform an updated roadmap for the technologies it’s already been developing. “In light of this update, we understand that the Privacy Sandbox APIs may have a different role to play in supporting the ecosystem,” Chavez said.

Privacy advocates have argued that Google undermined its own privacy claims, noting that privacy came second to surveillance, with many users seeking to switch to alternative browsers like Firefox.

Movement for an Open Web also hailed the announcement as the end of Google’s attempt to monopolize digital advertising standards.

You might also like

• Google U-turns on Privacy Sandbox endeavor, deciding that cookies won't be replaced after all - here's what that means for you
• These are the best privacy tools and anonymous browsers
• Protect your online footprint by using the best VPNs

• Honor Band 10 has been released in China
• The design looks very similar to the Band 9
• We don’t yet know when it’ll be released in other regions

If you like the idea of the band-style fitness tracker format popularised by Fitbit, but you want a cheaper model, we’ve got great news for you: the Honor Band 10 has appeared on Honor’s Chinese website, indicating it could soon be sold in other countries.

An alternative to the best Fitbit, the Honor Band series frequently appears on our list of the best cheap fitness trackers (although Huawei and Xiaomi have usurped its position for now) as perfectly good, functional fitness trackers with great battery life and deceptively large AMOLED displays.

The Honor Band 10 hasn’t reinvented the wheel, based on these initial listings: it retains the large 1.57-inch screen and buttonless design of its predecessor, the Honor Band 9.

Like its predecessor, it’s unlikely to be available in the US, but it’s on sale in China starting at 229 yuan, the equivalent of £23.50 / AU$49. It’s likely to be a little more expensive in other regions, to account for shipping costs, and a more premium version capable of NFC payments seems to be an option on the Honor website.

NFC questions

However, Honor watches struggle to use their NFC capabilities due to incompatibility with Google Wallet and Apple Pay, even though Honor phones support Google Wallet.

It remains to be seen whether Honor Band 10 suffers the same fate, but it’s very likely, leaving the NFC version to be virtually unusable outside of China, unless you use an Honor phone’s proprietary digital wallet service.

Nevertheless, expect heart rate, steps, sleep tracking, workout tracking, stress management, notification functionalities, and more, all wrapped up in an attractive-looking (and even more attractively-priced) total package.

It won’t have some of the advanced features we see on Fitbits and the best Garmin watches, but for a cheap-and-cheerful fitness tracker, it looks great. Stay tuned for a full review when it hits shelves outside of China.

You might also like...

• Worried about bonking on your London Marathon? Strava says you should train with friends
• Download Google's latest Pixel Watch update now to solve notification lag and crashing issues
• Google Pixel Watch can now alert you to scam calls in real time

• Fujifilm teases new camera with tagline ‘Half the Size, Twice the Story’
• Hints at new half-frame digital camera, possible called the X-Half
• Silhouette appears to show a secondary film preview display

Fujifilm’s rumored half-frame camera appears to be one step closer to reality. Weeks after leaked images gave us our first look at the ‘X-Half’, an official teaser has now all but confirmed its existence.

Shared on Fujifilm’s YouTube channel on April 22, the 19-second clip teases the new camera with the tagline ‘Half the Size, Twice the Story’. That leans heavily into speculation that the model will play on the half-frame format.

The clip doesn’t confirm a launch date or name for the new model. It simply says ’See you soon’, hinting that we won’t have long to wait to find out more.

The video also gives us a silhouette of the camera, which looks consistent with images that circulated online earlier in April. The shadowy preview shows a camera that apes the retro design language channelled by other Fujifilm models, including a textured control dial and circular viewfinder.

Another detail in the teaser has fuelled further speculation: a blue Provia logo on the left side of the camera, beneath the viewfinder. This sits where the canister window would traditionally be positioned on a film camera. So what does that mean for the X-half?

A window to simulation

The half-frame format comes from analog photography. It traditionally refers to a camera that can capture two vertical exposures on a single frame of 35mm film, allowing you to get twice the number of stills from a roll. It’s also a natural fit for today’s content creators, producing portrait images that are easily shared on social media.

New film cameras such as the Pentax 17 and Kodak Ektar H35 have helped the half-frame format return to popularity in recent years. The question is how Fujifilm’s new camera will tie into this revival.

As we reported earlier this month, online sources suggest the X-Half will be a modern take on the half-frame format, combining the convenience of digital with the charm of analog. That’s a recipe familiar to Fujifilm, as seen in models like the virally popular X100VI.

Leaked specs suggest that the X-Half will continue that trend, with a vintage design featuring a manual exposure dial and an optical viewfinder. Fuji Rumors has also reported that the new camera will have a vertical LCD display on the rear, to help with composing shots.

Fuji Rumors has further speculated that the X-Half will have a 1-inch sensor. It’s not clear whether this will be oriented vertically or horizontally, but many believe it will allow users to create ‘diptych’ images, combining two side-by-side photos in one frame. The teaser clip adds weight to this, with the line ‘Twice the Story.’

Where will film come into that story? As above, the trailer shows a blue Provia banner on the rear bottom left of the camera. Provia is a type of 35mm film that was made by Fujifilm. It’s also one of the many Film Simulation recipes available on recent Fujifilm cameras, which digitally emulate the look of classic film.

Some analog cameras featured a canister window which showed the roll fitted inside. As several commenters have suggested online, this could be mimicked by a secondary LCD display on the X-Half. It’s something we’ve seen before: the X-Pro 3 featured a mini display on the back panel which could show the selected Film Simulation.

A film preview screen would certainly fit with the X-Half’s rumored blend of analog and digital, putting a contemporary twist on a design hallmark of 35mm cameras. It could also be a divisive one. As with the X-Pro 3, nostalgic flourishes can be seen as gimmicks by purists. Then again, the X-Half isn’t necessarily targeted at a purist audience.

We’ll only how Fujifilm’s half-frame camera is pitched when full specs and pricing are confirmed. Hopefully we won’t have to wait too long to find out.

You might also like...

• Best film cameras: the finest classic and new analog cameras you can buy
• Fujifilm's quirky new compact just leaked – and it could be 2025's most fun camera
• Camera rumors for 2025: the new gear we're expecting soon from DJI, Sony, Canon and more

• M&S suffered a cyberattack that affected Click and Collect systems
• Stores were largely unaffected, except some contactless payment systems disabled
• It's not clear yet if any customer data is affected

Marks and Spencer (M&S) has suffered a “cyber incident” that has affected stores for the last few days, resulting in “small changes” to store operations in order to protect customers “and the business."

The retailer confirmed Click and Collect services were impacted by technical issues as a result, and some stores were unable to process contactless payments. It’s not yet clear if this incident has resulted in any breached customer or employee data, or if this was a ransomware attack, but customers should make sure to change their passwords and be on the lookout for suspicious activity just in case.

The retail giant has apologised for any inconvenience, and assures that it is working with “the best experts” to manage the incident - here’s what we know so far.

Get Keeper Personal for just $1.67/month, Keeper Family for just $3.54/month, and Keeper Business for just $7/month.

Keeper generates and stores strong passwords so you never have to remember them again. Don’t let one weak password leave you exposed.

Preferred partner (What does this mean?)View Deal

Business as usual

In a note to customers, M&S Chief Executive Stuart Machin apologised, confirming that stores remain open, and the retailer’s website and app are operating as usual.

“There is no need for you to take any action at this time, and if the situation changes we will let you know. There may be some limited delays to your Click and Collect order, which we are working hard to resolve,” Machin writes.

The retail industry is a frequent target for cyberattacks, often holding personally identifiable information such as names, email addresses, and shipping addresses of customers. Criminals that can take control of systems can cost retail firms millions in downtime - gaining serious leverage in ransomware incidents.

M&S has confirmed to TechRadar Pro all contactless payments are now back online in all stores, and that it has seen “positive comments from customers thanking us for our transparency and for store colleague support.”

In 2024, a supply chain attack hit some of the UK’s largest grocery stores, Morrisons and Sainsbury's, as well as coffee shop Starbucks, taking some systems offline in a ransomware attack that saw over 680GB of data stolen.

For those affected

Marks and Spencer has not confirmed the nature of this incident, and so far no cybercrime group has taken responsibility for the incident, nor has any customer data been posted online.

That being said, customers would be wise to take some steps in the next few days just to be on the same side and to get ahead of any repercussions if their information has been affected.

In an incident like this where it isn't clear what, if any, data has been affected - the first thing to do is to change your password, and any other sites with the same credentials. We’ve put together a guide on how to create a secure password to make sure you’re as safe as possible.

The next, and probably most important step, is keeping vigilant. With your name and email address, a criminal can send sophisticated social engineering attacks, aimed to trick you into handing over more information, or into inadvertently downloading malware.

Make sure you double check any unexpected communications and email addresses - especially cross referencing these against the legitimate email addresses (these can be found on Google).

Be especially wary of any email that asks you to enter any information, click a link, or scan a QR code. Phishing attacks using QR codes are becoming more common, and are more dangerous than ever before, so make sure anything you scan is verified beforehand.

If a criminal does email you, there will most likely be signs. The first, is the email address the communication comes from - if it's G00gle or M1crosoft instead of their legitimate addresses, just delete the email. If you get an unexpected text, email, or phone call from anyone claiming to be a “friend”, from a number or address you don’t recognise, especially one that asks you to sign in, send money, buy a gift card, be very very suspicious.

You might also like

• Take a look at our picks for the best malware removal software around
• Check out our choice for best antivirus software
• One of the most powerful ransomware hacks around has been cracked using some serious GPU power

The IMF has soured on the global economy in a new forecast due to President Trump's tariffs. NPR talks with Jason Furman, an economist and Harvard professor, about Trump's management of the economy.

• New FOG ransomware is asking victims to justify their jobs
• FOG has been responsible for 173 attacks since June 2024
• The payload is initially delivered by email/phishing

A new ransomware attack appears to be channelling Elon Musk’s energy by demanding that workers share a recap of their weekly accomplishments, much like the Tesla CEO has demanded as part of his DOGE efforts.

The note references Musk’s controversial ‘five bullet points’ memo, asking victims to justify their jobs or cough up $1 trillion.

The original Musk policy was issued under Trump’s administration, and intended to drive accountability in federal departments. It quickly faced backlash and later became optional, however it’s now fuelling the latest round of scams according to a new Trend Micro report.

FOG ransomware inspired by Musk’s push for accountability

TrendMicro found nine ransomware samples between March 27 and April 2, which it has attributed to FOG Ransomware.

They “dropped a note containing key names related to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE),” says the report, which highlights DOGE’s position in the headlines.

The report cites recent Reuters reporting disclosing a DOGE technologist had previously been involved in providing support to a cybercrime gang linked to trafficking stolen data and cyberstalking an FBI agent.

FOG ransomware has been tied to 173 counts of ransomware activity since June 2024, and 53 in February 2025 alone. Individuals and organizations from the technology, education, manufacturing and transportation sectors are mostly at risk.

In the case of the current DOGE-inspired attack, malware is delivered via email or a phishing attempt using a ZIP file named ‘Pay Adjustment’, which contains a LNK file disguised as a PDF. Clicking the file runs a PowerShell script which retrieves ransomware payloads and plays political YouTube videos.

Although there are basic cybersecurity hygiene steps users can take to prevent attacks, such as not clicking on suspicious links, social engineering continues to be othe most exploited attack vector and humans are the weakest point of any company’s cybersecurity strategy, which is why Trend Micro is also recommending companies to monitor indicators of compromise.

You might also like

• These are the best endpoint protection systems
• Check out the best malware removal tools around
• Fake PDF converters are spreading malware to steal user information and worse - here's how to stay secure