26.4 C
London
Saturday, June 27, 2026
Home Blog

Petty, punishing walls preventing South Asian integration

0

South Asia is home to nearly a quarter of the world’s population, yet it is one of the least connected regions in terms of people actually moving across borders.

Centuries of shared history, culture and language haven’t translated into easy travel between neighbors. Instead, visas, political tensions and diplomatic uncertainty still decide who gets to cross and who doesn’t.

People want to travel for the usual reasons: school, medical care, business or just to see family. But in South Asia, borders aren’t simply lines on a map — they’re high, impenetrable walls. That hurts a region that, more than most, needs economic cooperation, freedom of movement and cultural connection to thrive.

While other parts of the world are knitting themselves closer together, as seen in the European Union and ASEAN, South Asia is stuck on something more basic: getting to the country next door can be harder than flying halfway around the world.

For ordinary people, how far you can travel often has nothing to do with distance. It comes down to the state of diplomatic relations on any given day. Students, researchers, tourists, patients and businesspeople all get caught in the middle of political decisions over which they have no control or say.

Bangladesh and India show how fast border situations can shift. After Bangladesh’s political upheaval in August 2024, India sharply cut back on Bangladeshi tourist visas, keeping the door open mainly only for medical cases.

A trip to India, once routine for many Bangladeshis, became an ordeal. It took almost two years for India to announce that tourist visas for Bangladeshis would resume on June 28, 2026 — a move welcomed regionally as a concrete step toward mending ties.

Bangladesh and Pakistan tell a quieter, similarly stuck story. More than 50 years after 1971, when East Pakistan fought a war of independence from West Pakistan, resulting in the creation of Bangladesh, old wounds still shape ties.

Visa services have never shut down outright, but mobility has been restricted for decades — confined mostly to official, business or medical travel, with tourism barely registering. Two nations bound by history interact far less than their geography would suggest.

India and Pakistan are the starkest case. Since Partition in 1947, persistent wars and security crises have curtailed cross-border travel. The situation worsened after the Pahalgam attack in April 2025, when India suspended visa services for Pakistanis and revoked most visas already issued. Travel between the two countries has remained largely frozen since.

India and Afghanistan have similarly closed borders. When the Taliban seized power in August 2021, India suspended regular visa access for Afghan citizens. Access eased slightly in 2025, when India introduced e-visas for select categories — business, medical and students — a small but meaningful opening.

The Afghanistan-Pakistan border is as blocked as any in the region. Security concerns, armed conflict and diplomatic friction have created serious obstacles for Afghan nationals, with rights groups documenting mass deportations and tightening restrictions on families seeking refuge after the Taliban’s takeover.

Elsewhere, the barriers look different but amount to the same thing. Sri Lanka’s 2024 attempt to outsource its visa processing raised costs and entangled travelers in red tape before the Supreme Court suspended the deal, with the fallout still being sorted out.

Bhutan takes a different approach with its Sustainable Development Fee — not a visa restriction exactly, but a financial impediment to movement. Across much of the region, the size of your bank account increasingly decides how freely you can move.

Nepal and the Maldives remain exceptions, with more relaxed arrangements than most neighbors, though even these rest on one-off bilateral deals rather than any shared regional framework.

The bigger picture hasn’t changed: South Asians, more often than not, find it easier to fly somewhere distant than to visit the country next door. This isn’t just an inconvenience: limited mobility erodes academic collaboration, tourism and economic opportunity.

At the same time, governments rarely feel the cost directly. It’s the students pursuing education, the patients seeking urgent care, the families split by a border and the entrepreneurs trying to reach new markets who pay the price of the restrictions.

To be sure, building a more connected region doesn’t mean tearing down borders or ignoring genuine security concerns. But walls that unnecessarily prevent students, researchers and businesspeople from crossing borders for useful purposes are in nobody’s interest.

How much longer will South Asia let short-sighted border policy keep its neighbors strangers?

Meherun Nessa is a student at Jahangirnagar University in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Antibiotic “megacluster” discovery provides new strategy to fight superbugs

0
antibiotic-“megacluster”-discovery-provides-new-strategy-to-fight-superbugs
Antibiotic “megacluster” discovery provides new strategy to fight superbugs

Antibiotic resistance has loomed over humans since the moment we started using antibiotics. In the 20th century, the drugs downgraded potentially life-threatening bacterial infections to mere inconveniences—a miracle of modern medicine, it seemed. But the drugs aren’t really a human invention; we mostly swiped them from microbes, which have been locked in an arms race with each other for centuries. Microbial evolution has crafted both deadly molecules and clever tricks to dodge death as the wee organisms endlessly battle over turf and resources. More than 80 percent of the antibiotics used in clinics today are based on those turf-war weapons, which scientists refer to as “natural products.”

For decades, humans mined antibiotic molecules from microbes and tweaked them to develop new drugs, staying ahead of evolution’s cunning countermeasures. But in recent times, new natural products have been harder to find, and the pipeline of new antibiotics has slowed to a trickle. Meanwhile, existing antibiotics have been overused, and resistance has mounted to critical levels. Most antibiotics are single bioactive molecules, and some can be thwarted with single mutations. While the current situation is dire, a study in Nature this week reports a compelling discovery that not only points to a potentially new antibiotic regimen, but also an entirely new strategy to once again get ahead in the microbial arms race.

Exciting find

The study, led by biomedical researcher Eric Brown at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, reports the discovery of a large block of genes—dubbed a “megacluster”—that codes for four molecules that appear to work in concert to derail a single essential metabolic pathway.

It’s “an exciting advance in efforts to restock the antibiotic arsenal,” Steven Rutherford, a microbial sciences expert at Genentech, wrote in an accompanying commentary piece in Nature. “More broadly, the study provides a road map showing how genome mining can be used to identify new antibacterial natural products and strategies for using them.”

The pathway the megacluster’s products attack is one for making biotin, also known as vitamin B7. The nutrient is required for growth and virulence in many human pathogens, and, more specifically, it’s a cofactor that critical metabolic enzymes need to work properly. Some bacteria can scavenge biotin from their surroundings, but it’s generally scarce, and bacteria contain evolutionarily conserved pathways to make it themselves.

Brown and his colleagues interestingly found the biotin-targeting megacluster in Streptomyces species, which are very well studied. Streptomyces are bacteria that live in soil and are known as gold mines for antibiotic molecule discovery. Many natural products have already been extracted from them, including the antibiotic streptomycin, an essential medicine discovered in the 1940s. Despite this, the megacluster has been overlooked until now, possibly in part because bacteria in labs are often grown in nutrient-rich media.

Fresh strategy

Also, when researchers are looking for new antibiotics in bacterial genomes, they scan for biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) that could be responsible for producing single molecules. But Brown’s team identified a cluster of four clusters—the megacluster—that produces not just one, but four molecules that work in different ways to trip up the biotin pathway. Careful study revealed that three of the clusters produce antibiotics molecules—stravidins, acidomycins, dapamycins—that each thwart a different enzyme in the biotin biosynthesis pathway. The remaining fourth cluster produces 2-methyl-7-keto-8-aminopelargonic acid, or α-Me-KAPA, which appears to be a dummy molecule that takes the place of a biotin precursor, basically hijacking the pathway to yield a useless biotin lookalike.

Further, the megacluster is flanked on both sides for the code to make streptavidin, a protein known to take up and sequester biotin.

A megacluster of genes that produces synergistic inhibitors of biotin biosynthesis.

A megacluster of genes that produces synergistic inhibitors of biotin biosynthesis. Credit: Nature, 2026, Rutherford

In all, the megacluster provides a sophisticated siege on an essential pathway in many bacteria, including Streptomyces’ foes. Experiments in test tubes and in mice confirmed that the megacluster’s products could kill off various bacteria and were more potent when used in combination.

As antibiotic resistance has increased in clinics, doctors and researchers have had to test which combinations of drugs might be able to boost efficacy. But, as Rutherford noted in his commentary, “The discovery of a natural megacluster that encodes the production of synergistic biotin-synthesis inhibitors suggests that evolution has already identified effective combinations of antibacterials that act through distinct mechanisms.” Moreover, such evolved synergistic systems may be harder for microbes to develop countermeasures against, thus they may stave off resistance.

Rutherford is careful to note that there are many big steps between this discovery and having a new antibiotic regimen in clinics. That includes more basic research, optimization of the molecules for delivery in humans, as well as pricy and lengthy safety and efficacy clinical trials.

Still, moving from scanning for individual BGCs to “megaclusters” is a fresh strategy that could reinvigorate natural product development.

“The architecture of the anti-biotin megacluster provides a paradigm for naturally evolved combination therapies, supporting a shift in antibiotic discovery from isolating individual hits to reconstructing native synergistic systems,” Brown and his colleagues conclude. “As genome-mining methods advance, the identification of similar megaclusters may reveal new paths for overcoming antimicrobial resistance by mimicking the strategies of nature.”

Vance, Rubio strike different tone on Iran and Israel

0
vance,-rubio-strike-different-tone-on-iran-and-israel
Vance, Rubio strike different tone on Iran and Israel


President Donald Trump’s administration has pushed hard to present a united front on the Iran war, but statements by his vice president and secretary of state have at times diverged over the past week, especially on the subject of Israel.

Vice ​President JD Vance, speaking at the White House last week, lashed out against Israeli critics of the preliminary U.S.-Iran deal. He suggested that Israeli bombings of civilian ‌infrastructure in Beirut — intended to weaken Hezbollah, which has been attacking Israel — were undermining U.S.-led peace efforts.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who traveled through the Gulf this week, defended Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon, repeatedly describing its actions as a justified response to Hezbollah attacks. Pressed on Vance’s criticism, Rubio deflected before recounting an assault by the Lebanon-based militia on an Israeli checkpoint earlier in the week.

The contrast suggests that, even as the administration has emphasized unity, ​differing worldviews are at times rising to the surface — a challenge for a White House whose political coalition is deeply divided on foreign policy matters. It also offers an ​early glimpse of the Republican Party’s future, with Rubio and Vance both seen as potential 2028 presidential contenders.

Both Vance and Rubio were dispatched on high-profile ⁠trips abroad over the past week to defend the preliminary peace accord inked between Washington and Tehran on June 17.

Vance traveled to Switzerland for a round of talks with Iranian officials. Speaking ​to reporters on Sunday, he struck a decidedly optimistic tone on the state of talks with Iran. He has also said repeatedly in recent weeks that Gulf states could fund Iran’s reconstruction.

He has also ​frequently mentioned the possibility of a new, more cooperative relationship between Iran and the U.S., revealing in an interview released on Thursday that the U.S. had invited an Iranian intelligence official to serve as a deconfliction liaison with the Pentagon in Qatar.

Rubio, meanwhile, visited the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain to reassure allies — some of whom are concerned that the interim U.S.-Iran accord is too generous to Tehran — that their interests will be protected.

On ​Tuesday, Rubio said he would not ask Gulf allies during his trip to fund Iran’s reconstruction, saying such a possibility was “far down the road.” During a meeting with regional officials on Thursday, he emphasized ​that any deal has to be ironclad as it relates to U.S. interests and those of its allies.

“While we want a deal, we don’t want a deal at any price,” he said.

‘LOCKSTEP BEHIND PRESIDENT TRUMP’

The White ‌House vigorously ⁠denied any divergence between the two officials.

“There is one camp – President Trump’s camp – and the entire administration is fully behind the President’s efforts to ensure Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon,” said White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott called the idea that there were any foreign policy divisions between Rubio and Vance a “tired and fake” narrative, saying, “The entire administration is 100% in lockstep behind President Trump.”

A separate State Department spokesperson further argued there was no divergence between the two officials on Lebanon, saying the administration’s goal was to restore Lebanese government sovereignty over its entire territory.

Some analysts ​and commentators are unconvinced.

Michael Rubin, a senior fellow ​at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, ⁠said Rubio and Vance held clearly different views. “At their core they represent different strains,” he said.

The two officials come from radically different foreign policy backgrounds. Before taking office last year, Vance frequently criticized foreign wars as a waste of lives and money. Rubio made a name for himself as a “hawk” ​in the Senate, where he pushed for a more confrontational stance toward Iran, Russia and Cuba.

Both men are seen as potential successors to Trump ​and are the product ⁠of powerful, competing constituencies within the Republican Party.

On one side are “neoconservatives” whose adherents are more likely to advocate for foreign intervention. On the other are Republican voters and policy professionals who argue that many recent foreign wars were costly and reckless.

Only 52% of Republicans believe the current conflict has put the U.S. in a stronger position, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed Monday, suggesting a party divided between those camps.

Both Rubio ⁠and Vance ​have nevertheless supported all of Trump’s major foreign policy decisions, including his capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, his attack on Iran ​in February and his subsequent decision to pursue peace. Both have even used similar talking points in recent weeks, saying they will judge Tehran’s actions, not words, as negotiations unfold.

Asked by a reporter on Thursday to what degree his views ​on Iran differed from those of Vance, Rubio said they both took their lead from Trump.

“Everyone here is aligned behind the president,” he said.

Source:  Reuters

Prince William Accidentally Exposes Royal Family’s Jaw-Dropping Wealth Crisis

0
prince-william-accidentally-exposes-royal-family’s-jaw-dropping-wealth-crisis
Prince William Accidentally Exposes Royal Family’s Jaw-Dropping Wealth Crisis


King Charles and Prince William’s massive fortunes are under a harsh new spotlight after royal financial disclosures revealed just how much money sits behind the crown — and how the King’s own son appears to be far richer than him.

The latest figures have sparked fresh questions about royal wealth, public money and whether Britain’s most famous family is being transparent enough at a time when many ordinary families are still struggling to pay their bills.

According to the latest annual financial accounts from the Royal Household, King Charles has become the first British monarch to voluntarily reveal his personal tax payments since taking the throne.

But the disclosure has not quieted critics.

Instead, it has drawn even more attention to the jaw-dropping fortunes surrounding the monarchy — especially the wealth of Prince William, whose control of the Duchy of Cornwall has reportedly helped push his estimated net worth to around $1.6 billion.

That puts William far ahead of his father, whose fortune is estimated at roughly $898 million.

The massive numbers have fueled a new debate over whether the Royal Family can keep defending its financial arrangements while also receiving public funding.

Charles has spent years trying to present himself as a careful, old-fashioned royal who does not waste money. He has often been seen wearing older suits and jackets, and in 2023, he even made headlines after being photographed with a hole in his sock while visiting a mosque in London’s Brick Lane.

But the latest accounts paint a much more expensive picture of life inside the monarchy.

One of the biggest eyebrow-raising details involves the Royal Train, which is expected to be retired after another year of service. Despite being used only four times during the reporting period, it reportedly cost about $211,000 to operate.

Royal helicopter travel also came with a hefty price tag. The King and other members of the Royal Family reportedly made 177 helicopter trips, with each journey costing an average of about $5,000.

The Sovereign Grant, which helps fund the King’s official duties and the Royal Household, has also drawn attention after increasing under the latest arrangement. The grant is funded through profits generated by the Crown Estate, but critics have long argued that the public deserves a clearer picture of where the money goes.

Charles has repeatedly pushed the idea of a smaller, more modern monarchy. As Prince of Wales, he voluntarily published details of his tax payments, and he has now continued that practice as King by revealing the amount of income tax and capital gains tax he pays.

Supporters say that is a historic step toward transparency.

Critics say it is not enough.

The scrutiny comes as Charles continues a demanding public schedule while undergoing cancer treatment. Despite his health battle, the King completed more official engagements than any other member of the Royal Family during the latest reporting year.

Still, questions over royal spending are not going away.

Another major flashpoint is Buckingham Palace. The famous royal residence has undergone an enormous refurbishment project costing nearly $530 million, yet Charles has reportedly decided to remain at Clarence House rather than move into the palace once the work is finished.

That decision has raised fresh concerns about the cost of maintaining royal properties — especially if the monarch does not plan to live full-time in the most famous one.

Prince William has also tried to frame himself as a reformer.

The Duchy of Cornwall’s latest accounts show the Prince of Wales plans to sell about 20 percent of the estate’s landholdings over the next decade. The proceeds are expected to be put toward sustainable investments and community housing projects.

But even that has not stopped questions about William’s extraordinary wealth.

The Duchy of Cornwall is a vast estate that traditionally provides income for the heir to the throne. Now that William controls it, his financial position has soared past that of his father.

The revelations have left campaigners and royal watchers asking whether the monarchy’s financial system still makes sense in modern Britain.

One former palace aide said the numbers are impossible to ignore at a time when many families are under serious financial pressure.

“At a time when so many families are struggling to pay the bills, figures like these are bound to leave people asking whether the monarchy truly understands the pressures facing ordinary households,” the former aide said.

“Publishing tax payments is one thing, but it doesn’t answer the bigger question of how anyone can justify such extraordinary levels of wealth while receiving public funding.”

The insider added that transparency is welcome, but only if it comes with real accountability.

“Greater transparency is welcome, but transparency without accountability risks looking like a public relations exercise rather than meaningful reform,” the aide said.

For critics, the issue is not simply whether Charles pays tax. It is whether the public is getting the full story about the scale of royal wealth, the cost of royal life and the future of public funding for the monarchy.

“People will inevitably compare these fortunes with the financial realities facing millions across the country,” the insider said. “That’s a difficult contrast for the Royal Family to overcome.”

The aide added, “The monarchy cannot expect applause for revealing tax payments if the wider financial picture still leaves the public with more questions than answers about their huge wealth.”

For now, Charles may be trying to project an image of duty, tradition and restraint.

But with William’s billion-dollar fortune, a half-billion-dollar palace renovation, pricey helicopter travel and a growing demand for answers, the Royal Family’s money problems are not about being short on cash.

They are about explaining why they have so much of it.

Bangladesh’s Rahman looks to China to squeeze India on the Teesta

0
bangladesh’s-rahman-looks-to-china-to-squeeze-india-on-the-teesta
Bangladesh’s Rahman looks to China to squeeze India on the Teesta

Bangladesh Prime Minister Tarique Rahman’s first four-day official visit to China yielded a predictable flurry of agreements spanning trade and green technology. But its true significance lies in the elevation of a single, long-stalled infrastructure initiative: the Teesta River Comprehensive Management and Restoration Project.

Once confined to the margins of diplomatic speculation, the project has emerged as the centerpiece of a deepening strategic partnership between Dhaka and Beijing, signaling a transition from political intent to actual implementation.

The reception in Beijing underscored the gravity attached to the visit. Rahman secured audiences with Premier Li Qiang, National People’s Congress Chairman Zhao Leji and President Xi Jinping.

The latter pledged that China would remain Bangladesh’s “trusted friend,” endorsing Dhaka’s long-term development agenda and its ambitions to join BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

Yet it was the explicit, repeated references to the Teesta project that reverberated most strongly across the region. Guo Jiakun, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, framed the initiative as a crucial “livelihood project” that Beijing is prepared to support to the best of its ability.

For Bangladesh, the Teesta River represents an acute and enduring developmental vulnerability. Seasonal monsoons regularly inflict devastating floods upon the country’s northern plains, followed invariably by severe dry-season water shortages that cripple local agriculture.

The proposed multi-billion-dollar restoration scheme aims to tame these extremes through extensive dredging, embankment construction, reservoir creation, and the modernization of irrigation networks. Crucially, because the project is entirely contained within Bangladeshi territory, it bypasses the fraught question of transboundary water allocation.

This distinction is vital. For over a decade, a formal water-sharing treaty between Dhaka and New Delhi has been blocked by political opposition within the Indian state of West Bengal. Frustrated by fifteen years of Indian inertia on a critical environmental security issue, Dhaka has turned to Chinese engineering and capital to manage the water it already receives.

Inevitably, this pivot has caused consternation in New Delhi. Indian security analysts view any Chinese footprint in northern Bangladesh through a lens of intense geopolitical rivalry. The Teesta basin sits in uncomfortable proximity to the Siliguri Corridor — the narrow “Chicken’s Neck” of land that connects mainland India to its northeastern states.

The prospect of Chinese state-owned enterprises undertaking large-scale engineering works near this strategic chokepoint causes significant discomfort to India’s military establishment.

Anticipating these anxieties, both Beijing and Dhaka have sought to decouple the project from regional power plays.

Guo, at a press conference on Friday, the last day of Rahman’s visit, took the unusual step of explicitly dismissing India’s concerns, asserting that China-Bangladesh relations are not directed against any third party and should not be viewed through the prism of geopolitical competition.

Bangladeshi officials have been equally disciplined, steadfastly presenting the Teesta initiative as a purely humanitarian and economic priority designed to enhance agricultural productivity rather than alter regional strategic balances.

This rhetorical caution reflects the delicate balancing act that defines Bangladesh’s contemporary foreign policy. Dhaka finds itself navigating one of the world’s most competitive diplomatic environments. China has established itself as Bangladesh’s primary supplier of military hardware and its largest source of development finance.

Conversely, India remains Bangladesh’s most critical geographical neighbor, an essential trading partner, and a traditional security ally with deep historical and cultural ties.

Rahman’s strategy represents the execution of a multi-vector foreign policy. Rather than succumbing to a binary choice between Beijing and New Delhi, Dhaka is attempting to maximize economic concessions from both while jealously guarding its strategic autonomy.

By advancing the Teesta project with Chinese backing, Bangladesh is subtly signaling to New Delhi that its patience regarding unresolved bilateral grievances is not infinite, and that it possesses viable alternative partnerships.

How India chooses to respond will dictate the next chapter of South Asian diplomacy. New Delhi cannot realistically challenge Bangladesh’s sovereign right to pursue domestic infrastructure development without appearing indifferent to the welfare of millions of Bangladeshi citizens — a blunder that would only accelerate Dhaka’s drift into Beijing’s orbit.

Instead, India is likely to adopt a more sophisticated counter-strategy. This could involve a renewed political effort to revive the moribund Teesta water-sharing treaty, alongside accelerating Indian-financed cross-border energy and connectivity projects designed to anchor Bangladesh more firmly to the Indian economy.

New Delhi may ultimately be forced to accept Chinese commercial participation in Bangladesh’s development, provided it does not translate into permanent military infrastructure.

For China, underwriting the Teesta project offers rewards that extend far beyond a lucrative engineering contract. It cements Beijing’s reputation as a reliable development partner capable of delivering high-impact, politically resonant infrastructure.

Furthermore, it breathes new life into the Belt and Road Initiative in South Asia and advances the proposed China-Myanmar-Bangladesh Economic Corridor, securing a commercial conduit toward the Bay of Bengal.

Technical planning and rigorous risk assessments must still be finalized before construction crews break ground. Nevertheless, the political momentum generated in Beijing suggests the status quo has shifted irreversibly.

The Teesta project has evolved from a speculative proposal into a defining symbol of a self-assured Bangladeshi foreign policy — one where Dhaka is increasingly determined to dictate its own terms to the region’s competing giants.

Faisal Mahmud is a Dhaka-based journalist.

Netflix now requires every user profile to be tied to unique email address

0
netflix-now-requires-every-user-profile-to-be-tied-to-unique-email-address
Netflix now requires every user profile to be tied to unique email address

Recently, my father called me in a panic.

There were just a few minutes until Netflix would start streaming a live MMA event, and he couldn’t get into my account. For a while, he had accessed Netflix as an add-on member with his own profile through my household’s account. That day, however, he was logged out and couldn’t use my login credentials to watch Netflix. Instead, he saw a prompt asking him to “add an email address to your profile” to continue.

Netflix pop-up notification

A Reddit user shared this image of the notification that affected profile owners are seeing.

A Reddit user shared this image of the notification that affected profile owners are seeing. Credit: Scotti_Dev/Reddit/Netflix

After some frantic phone troubleshooting and a couple of password resets, we realized that my father had to create his own login to continue using the extra profile I paid for. Although I was able to get him set up in time (for some disappointing bouts), the situation was confusing and inconvenient.

More users have been encountering this situation as Netflix has gradually required that each profile under a Netflix subscription use a unique email address. When setting things up for my father, I was also asked, but not required, to provide a first and last name.

A Netflix spokesperson confirmed to Ars Technica:

This sign-in update is a permanent change that started rolling out on June 15, 2026.

The change means that every user can now have their own login credentials, which could make it easier for secondary account users to store or change their credentials, log in to a new device, or use two-factor authentication. This setup also enables profile owners to set their language, audio, and display settings without the account holder, Cord Cutters News notes.

The email requirement doesn’t apply to profiles designated as belonging to a child.

Still, some users are complaining online. Some complaints come from families that often use different Netflix profiles on the same device, such as a living room TV.

Other complaints argue that Netflix doesn’t truly need this information and is merely seeking more ways to track viewers and share information with advertisers. Notably, Netflix’s privacy policy says Netflix may share users’ email addresses with marketing and advertising companies.

More immediately, sharing his email with Netflix meant my dad automatically started receiving advertisements for Netflix programming in his inbox (though he can unsubscribe from them).

Other concerns come from individuals who use multiple profiles. For example, one user wrote on Reddit:

I am the only one that uses my Netflix so I created each profile to be for certain types of shows. I have a main one for the shows that are my general [TV], some favs to rewatch.

Then I have one for movies, documentaries, reality/competition shows etc.

It works great to organize and help if [I] am in a mood for, say, a documentary, [I] don’t have to scroll through all the other styles of shows.

Multifactor authentication

Amid discussions of the new profile requirement, Ars has also seen users becoming concerned that Netflix will require multifactor authentication as of July 7. This appears to stem from a Tuesday report from trade publication Media Play News (it’s no longer available online—you can view the article via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine). However, Ars understands that the multifactor authentication announcement only relates to business partner accounts and will not affect how regular users log in to Netflix.

Dozens protest in central Israel, demanding ultra-Orthodox military conscription

0
dozens-protest-in-central-israel,-demanding-ultra-orthodox-military-conscription
Dozens protest in central Israel, demanding ultra-Orthodox military conscription

Dozens of demonstrators protested Friday in the central Israeli city of Bnei Brak, blocking major roads to demand equal military service obligations and the conscription of ultra-Orthodox Jews, known as Haredim.

The Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth said dozens of secular Israelis and members of left-wing organizations, including the group “Mothers at the Front,” took part in the protest against exemptions granted to Haredim from mandatory military service.

The protesters marched in Bnei Brak, a stronghold of the ultra-Orthodox community, calling for equality in conscription and an end to exemptions for students enrolled in religious seminaries.

Israeli Channel 12 reported clashes between protesters and local residents amid a heavy deployment of Israeli police forces.

The protest came two days after thousands of Haredim took part in vehicle convoys on Wednesday from 19 cities toward Military Prison No. 10 near Kfar Yona in central Israel, protesting the detention of draft evaders and causing major traffic disruptions on key roads.

According to Channel 12, more than 100 vehicles joined the convoys heading toward the prison near the Beit Lid junction on Route 57.

READ: Ultra-orthodox Jews protests disrupt traffic across Israel amid opposition to military conscription

Haredi protesters carried signs bearing the image of Itamar Ben-Gvir reading “The number one enemy of the Jews,” while other banners read the following: “We will not enlist in the army of enemies,” the channel said.

Channel 12 also quoted Israeli Housing Minister Yitzhak Goldknopf as saying: “We will take over the prisons and turn them into Jewish religious schools.”

The protests came after dozens of Haredim were jailed about two weeks ago following their arrest during an attempt to storm the home of Supreme Court Deputy President Noam Sohlberg in the settlement of Alon Shvut south of Jerusalem in the occupied West Bank in protest against the conscription of religious seminary students.

Haredim make up about 13% of Israel’s population of 10 million. Many oppose military service on the grounds that they devote their lives to studying the Torah and argue that integration into secular society threatens their religious identity and way of life.

The dispute over military conscription comes as Israel continues to mobilize hundreds of reservists while maintaining military operations and escalating tensions across multiple fronts, including Lebanon, Iran, the Gaza Strip, and the occupied West Bank.

READ: Far-right Israeli minister urges ending Lebanon ceasefire after troops injured

US Weighs Moving Military Assets to Israel After Iran Attacks 

0
us-weighs-moving-military-assets-to-israel-after-iran-attacks 
US Weighs Moving Military Assets to Israel After Iran Attacks 


The United States is considering a major restructuring of its military posture in the Middle East following extensive Iranian strikes that severely damaged Naval Support Activity Bahrain, with Israel among the locations being evaluated to host relocated military assets, The Wall Street Journal reported. 

According to the newspaper, US officials are reviewing plans to reduce the American military presence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait while reinforcing facilities in Bahrain. The proposed changes would shift selected bases and operations farther west, placing them beyond the range of Iranian missiles and drones. 

Two officials cited by The Wall Street Journal said Israel is one of the potential destinations under consideration for forces and infrastructure that could be moved as part of the broader realignment. 

The report said a damage assessment found that multiple critical facilities at Naval Support Activity Bahrain were struck during the Iranian attacks, with some rendered completely inoperable. Among the sites affected were the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet, secure satellite communications facilities, storage warehouses, and military housing. 

Initial estimates place the cost of repairing the damaged structures at approximately $400 million. Officials expect the overall cost of restoring the installation to full operational capability to be substantially higher. 

The proposed changes follow widespread damage to US military infrastructure during the 2026 conflict. According to the report, Iran launched thousands of missiles and drones that struck more than 20 US military sites across the Middle East. 

Iranian attacks on US bases in the region caused more than $800 million in infrastructure damage, destroyed sensitive air defense systems and aircraft, and killed 13 US service members. 

 

 

Enter Helios: quantum computer sets high watermark for accuracy

0
enter-helios:-quantum-computer-sets-high-watermark-for-accuracy
Enter Helios: quantum computer sets high watermark for accuracy

In a laboratory in Broomfield, Colorado, 98 atoms are suspended in mid-air, held in place by electric fields and cooled to temperatures close to absolute zero.

Each atom is far smaller than anything the naked eye could ever see, yet each carries information in a form that has no counterpart in classical physics.

Together, they form Helios, a new quantum computer built by the British-American company Quantinuum. Quantum computers use the power of quantum mechanics, the rules that govern how physics operates at atomic and sub-atomic scales. Those that use Helios’ model of suspended atoms are known as trapped-ion.

A paper published in Nature describes it as a 98-qubit processor with very high accuracy and performance that pushes beyond what can easily be simulated on classical machines. That sounds impressive, but the important question is not simply whether this is a bigger quantum computer (the previous biggest, System Model H2, had 56 qubits). It is whether it is a better one.

Quantum computers are not just faster versions of ordinary computers. The qubits (quantum bits) that they use to process information can exist in quantum states that do not behave like the ones and zeroes of conventional digital technology.

This allows some calculations to be arranged in ways that may eventually outperform even the largest supercomputers. The possible applications are fascinating: new materials, better optimization methods, improved chemistry simulations and new approaches to cryptography.

Youtube video

An introduction to the Helios quantum computer (Quantinuum).

The difficulty is that qubits are extremely fragile. They are disturbed by temperature variations, imperfect control, unwanted interactions with the environment and, in some systems, even the act of moving information around the device.

For this reason, the race in quantum computing is not only about having more qubits. It is about having more good qubits, controlled accurately enough to perform long and meaningful calculations.

Why it matters

This is why Helios’ result matters. Quantum computing has been promising to change the world for decades, but many announcements still tend to focus on the number of qubits.

This is like judging a race by the number of runners at the starting line. What matters is how many reach the finish, and in what condition. Helios takes both sides of that challenge seriously. Not only is the 98 qubits relatively large; it also reports very low error rates at this scale.

Errors are more common with quantum computers than with classical ones, so error correction is a big challenge in this area.

The Nature paper gives an average error rate for single-qubit gates of about 2.5 in 100,000 for Helios. A quantum gate is the building block of a circuit in quantum computers.

For two-qubit gates in Helios, which are harder and more important for useful computation, the average error rate is about 7.9 in 10,000. This is similar to the best demonstrations of around 5 in 10,000 errors.

Quantum operations are cumulative. A small error in one step may not matter much, but a useful quantum algorithm may require thousands, millions or more operations. Lower error rates mean that more complex calculations become possible before the quantum information falls apart.

Helios’ other notable feature is all-to-all connectivity. In many quantum computers, qubits can interact only with their nearest neighbours, rather like people who can speak only to those sitting next to them. If two distant qubits need to interact, the information must be moved through a chain of intermediate steps. Each extra step adds time and error.

In Helios, any qubit can in principle interact with any other. This is especially valuable for algorithms where the required pattern of interactions does not fit neatly onto a fixed grid.

Quantum railway

The hardware behind this is also interesting. Trapped-ion quantum computers such as Helios use charged atoms as qubits. These ions are held using electric fields and manipulated with laser pulses.

The approach is known for high accuracy, but scaling it up while preserving that accuracy is technically difficult. Helios uses barium ions in what is called a quantum charge-coupled device, or QCCD, architecture. A useful way to picture it is as a tiny quantum railway.

Ions can be stored in memory regions and physically moved into operation zones when the computer programme needs a calculation to be performed using particular qubits. In those operation zones, carefully controlled laser pulses perform the basic steps of a quantum algorithm, known as quantum gates.

These gates change the quantum state of one ion, or link the states of two ions together, allowing the computer to process information. In Helios, a ring-shaped storage area and a junction help route the ions around the device.

This separation of storage, movement and computation is not just smart engineering. It is a sign that quantum computing is becoming more like a full computing system, rather than a collection of impressive laboratory components.

The machine also uses software that can make routing and control decisions while a program is running. In practice, this means deciding which physical ion should represent each qubit, which ions need to be moved into the operation zones, and in what order the quantum gates should be carried out.

This is important for more advanced quantum programs, especially those where later steps may depend on measurements made during the computation.

And the paper reports that Helios can run random quantum circuits that would be extremely difficult to simulate on classical machines. That is an important benchmark, but not the same as having a generally useful quantum computer.

Random circuit sampling tests the power and complexity of the machine; it does not, by itself, solve problems in medicine, climate science or engineering.

So how big an advance is Helios? It is a serious one, because even if it is not the arrival point of a quantum revolution, it brings together scale, accuracy, connectivity and programmability in one machine.

It is a reminder that transformative technologies rarely arrive in a single leap; they are built step by step, atom by atom, until the impossible starts to look engineered.

Domenico Vicinanza is associate professor of intelligent systems and data science, Anglia Ruskin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

NYT slams Microsoft for building copyright-infringing supercomputer for OpenAI

0
nyt-slams-microsoft-for-building-copyright-infringing-supercomputer-for-openai
NYT slams Microsoft for building copyright-infringing supercomputer for OpenAI

In a heavily redacted court filing Thursday, The New York Times proposed to amend its copyright complaint against OpenAI and Microsoft to clarify a claim and allege that Microsoft actively encouraged OpenAI to steal NYT works by building a bespoke supercomputing system ranked among the most powerful in the world.

NYT’s motion comes after the Supreme Court sided with Cox Communications in a case where Sony tried and failed to claim that Cox was contributing to music piracy as an Internet service provider, which set a new standard for contributory infringement. Moving forward, plaintiffs will have to prove that parties intentionally acted to induce illegal conduct. Recognizing that the legal precedent has changed, the NYT now wants to amend its complaint to align its contributory infringement claim against Microsoft with that new standard.

“Today, we asked the court for permission to file an amended complaint that further strengthens our case, clarifying our claim of contributory infringement against Microsoft based on new law and new evidence uncovered during discovery,” Graham James, an NYT spokesperson, said in a statement provided to Ars.

In addition to clarifying one claim, NYT also agreed to voluntarily dismiss two claims of contributory copyright infringement and trademark dilution against all defendants.

A Microsoft spokesperson told Ars that the company views the amended complaint as “a last-ditch effort by the plaintiff to save its claim from unfavorable precedent set in other recent rulings.”

But in its motion, the NYT argued that neither Microsoft nor OpenAI would be prejudiced by allowing the amended complaint. It’s proper to allow plaintiffs to revise arguments when legal standards change, the NYT argued, and the case schedule would not be set back because “The Times does not seek any additional discovery in support of its amended claims.”

“As we have long alleged, Microsoft actively encouraged OpenAI to steal our copyrighted works,” James said. “Beyond amending that claim and streamlining the case to its most potent arguments, our core claims remain the same from the day we filed this lawsuit—that Microsoft and OpenAI stole millions of The Times’s copyrighted works to compete with our products and illegally enrich themselves.”

NYT targets Microsoft supercomputer

In 2023, the NYT became the first major publisher to sue OpenAI. The prominent newspaper alleged that ChatGPT was illegally trained on its articles, infringed on its copyrights by outputting articles verbatim, and caused market harms by positioning ChatGPT as a substitute for a NYT subscription, as well as reputational harms by falsely attributing claims to NYT reporting. Additionally, ChatGPT outputs summarizing Wirecutter reviews robbed writers of commissions from lost clicks on affiliate links, the NYT alleged.

In the initial complaint, the NYT discussed Microsoft’s supercomputing systems as if they were providing generic cloud computing services. The updated complaint seeks to specify that the supercomputer was tailor-made to help OpenAI infringe and allege that it was built for the explicit purpose of training AI on copyrighted works without permission. And as the NYT alleged, its articles were more heavily weighted by this system, as both firms hoped to train models on the highest-quality journalism possible, so that level of writing could be confidently mimicked in outputs.

By building this “unusually complex” machine, Microsoft not only helped select the works that were infringed but also provided a means to seize copyrighted works without permission, the NYT alleged.

“Microsoft specifically designed it for the purpose of using essentially the whole Internet—curated to disproportionately feature Times Works—to train the most capable LLM in history,” the NYT alleged.

And now it’s allegedly unfairly profiting.

“Microsoft’s deployment of Times-trained LLMs throughout its product line helped boost its market capitalization by a trillion dollars in the past year alone,” the NYT alleged.

Model outputs show market harms, NYT alleged

For the NYT, outputs shared during discovery—including a huge chunk of users’ ChatGPT sessions—remain some of the strongest evidence that OpenAI and Microsoft built tools that allegedly replaced the NYT by producing near-verbatim excerpts of its copyrighted works.

In some cases, users told ChatGPT they were trying to skirt paywalls and were able to see significant chunks of articles by requesting to see the “next paragraph.” In other cases, “models simply spit out several paragraphs” without such finagling. To prove market harms caused by substitution, they shared examples in their complaints of side-by-side comparisons, as well as screenshots of allegedly infringing outputs:

GPT and NYT side-by-side comparison.

GPT and NYT side-by-side comparison.

Example of using GPT to skirt paywall.

Example of using GPT to skirt paywall.

Similarly as problematic for the NYT are hallucinations where Microsoft and OpenAI models falsely cite the NYT for content that they never published. The complaint listed examples like Bing Chat citing fake quotes from Steve Forbes’ daughter Moira Forbes and ChatGPT fabricating an NYT article that was never published but ChatGPT claimed linked non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to consuming orange juice.

“Users who ask a search engine what The Times has written on a subject should be provided with neither an unauthorized copy nor an inaccurate forgery of a Times article, but a link to the article itself,” the NYT alleged.

Microsoft and OpenAI are hoping that the court will agree that training AI on NYT articles is fair use. In a statement provided to Ars, OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri reiterated the AI firm’s often-repeated claims that AI training on copyrighted works is indisputably fair use.

“Our models empower innovation, are trained on publicly available data, and are grounded in fair use,” Pusateri said.

But the NYT likely expects that its evidence of substitution is strong, and that might not bode well for the tech firms it’s suing. Notably, one of the earliest verdicts finding that AI training was fair use was explicitly granted due to the plaintiffs’ failure to prove market harms. Last June, a federal judge laid out what he thinks could be a winning argument against AI training on copyrighted works, suggesting that the fair use question is far from answered.

In this case, OpenAI has argued that “ChatGPT is not a substitute for a Times subscription,” the NYT reported, partly because “they transformed the material for a different use.”

But if NYT manages to convince the court that the ChatGPT use is not so different from the newspaper’s, the most extreme outcome could require OpenAI and Microsoft to wipe models and start over.

The NYT has also asked for permanent injunctive relief to prevent future infringement, as well as extensive damages, insisting that “as a direct result of their conduct, Defendants have wrongfully profited from copyrighted works that they do not own.”

0FansLike
0FollowersFollow
0FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -
Google search engine

Recent Posts