Jun 9 2026
Why this year’s World Cup ball may not fly as far

Much is new about this month’s upcoming FIFA World Cup tournament, which will be held in the US, Canada, and Mexico. It hosts more teams than ever before. It’s the first to occur in three different host countries. And, like predecessor cups for over half a century, it will employ a soccer ball with a brand-new design.

One group of researchers that has been testing the physics of World Cup balls for the past 20 years recently studied this new entry, called the Trionda. Made by Adidas, the Trionda features four red, green, and blue panels textured with deep grooves and maple leaf, green eagle, and star emblems to represent the three host countries. Through wind-tunnel experiments, the research team found that this ball improves over previous versions in some ways, but long-distance kicks might not go as far as they did in the past. 

“The simple picture is that Trionda may very slightly punish extreme distance, but it should reward clean technique and predictable flight,” says team member John Eric Goff, who researches sports physics and is an incoming professor of engineering practice at Purdue University. “Goalkeepers, defenders hitting long passes, and long-range shooters are where I would look first for visible differences.” 

Researchers used a wind tunnel to study the Trionda ball at the University of Tsukuba.
TAKESHI ASAI, SUNGCHAN HONG, AND RICHONG LIU

Adidas has been designing new balls for each World Cup since the 1970s. Some of the design changes in the first few decades were aesthetic: The 1986 ball featured graphics inspired by Aztec temples for the Mexico tournament, and 1994’s had space graphics in honor of the moon landing’s 25th anniversary. There were some structural differences too, such as upgraded foam cores and improved water resistance. But by and large, the balls used the same design of 32 pentagonal panels stitched together. 

That changed in the 2006 World Cup in Germany, when Adidas introduced the +Teamgeist ball. It featured just 14 curved panels, which were thermally bonded together rather than stitched. The design helped keep moisture out so the ball wouldn’t grow heavier throughout the game, Goff says. It was around this time that he started studying soccer balls. In the years since then, he and his colleagues have followed the transformations as Adidas has released balls with different surface textures and even fewer panels—design changes significant enough to affect game play. 

In-flight motion

Goff discovered early on that by analyzing a ball’s trajectory data, he could derive its drag coefficient—a number that determines the air resistance it experiences midflight at a given speed. Shortly after, he began working with a team in Japan to analyze how the World Cup ball’s in-flight behavior changes with each new design. 

The experiments, carried out at the University of Tsukuba in Japan, have been purposely consistent over the years because “maintaining continuity is important for comparing new data with historical data sets,” says Takeshi Asai, a professor there who works on the experiments. They entail attaching the ball to a metal rod connected to an instrument called a force balance, which measures aerodynamic forces such as drag and lift as the ball is exposed to the same wind speeds it would experience in a real soccer game—seven to 35 meters per second. 

The team tests the ball in different orientations, “but you can only do a few because the Trionda ball is $170,” Goff says, and each new test effectively destroys it. The experiments show the team how the drag coefficient changes with speed, and Goff then writes code to simulate the ball’s overall trajectory as it flies through the air.  

The team’s analysis has shown how recent World Cup balls evolved since the eight-panel Jabulani ball for the 2010 event. The Jabulani faced much criticism from players—particularly goalkeepers, who said it had a deceptive trajectory that “dipped wickedly,” as one player told the Guardian. 

Adidas JABULANI, official ball of the FIFA World Cup 2010

ALAMY
Adidas Brazuca Match ball for the 2014 World Cup

ADOBE STOCK
Trionda official 2026 FIFA match ball

TAKESHI ASAI, SUNGCHAN HONG, RICHONG LIU

The 2010 Jabulani ball (left) had eight panels and a smooth texture that translated into unpredictable performance. Later balls, like the 2014 Brazuca (center) and this year’s Trionda (right), have fewer panels but more roughness.

The ball had one key flaw: It was too smooth. Even though its drag coefficient was relatively low at high speeds, once the ball slowed to a certain point the coefficient would ratchet up, causing it to lose speed quite fast and behave as the 2010 players complained. This sudden transition—called the drag crisis—occurs at higher speeds for smoother balls, but with added texture like seams and grooves, the transition can be avoided until a ball reaches lower speeds. This allows the ball to travel farther and generally behave in a more predictable way during typical play. 

“It’s the same reason why golf balls have dimples and baseballs have those nice 108 double stitches. If those rough features of those balls were not there, you would not get anywhere near the kind of distance when those balls are thrown or hit that you see now,” Goff says. “There has to be some kind of a roughness on the ball to move this transition to a smaller speed.”

New grooves

Subsequent designs have been able to push the drag crisis to lower speeds, according to the analysis by Goff and his colleagues. The Brazuca ball used in 2014, for instance, has only six panels, but their total seam length is much longer, adding to the surface’s roughness. And this year’s Trionda ball contains just four panels, but each panel also has three deep grooves for more texture. 

There’s a trade-off to this roughness, though. While Goff and his colleagues found that the Trionda ball experiences the drag crisis at the slowest speed since 2010, its drag coefficient is also higher than that of the other balls at high speeds. That means that even though the most dramatic change doesn’t happen until the ball is moving quite slowly, the ball will still slow down faster than its recent predecessors during the faster portion of its flight. So the trajectories of long kicks may be a few meters shorter, Goff says. Adidas did not respond to a request for comment.

Fortunately, players in the upcoming World Cup should already be familiar with these added nuances, as they’ve had access to the new ball for at least a few months. The ball, Goff notes, is quite similar to Nike’s Flight ball in design, so players who’ve spent more time with that ball may have an added advantage. 

Meanwhile, Goff continues sending the group’s papers to his colleagues FIFA and Adidas in hope of providing some new insights, and he’s been sent balls by Adidas in the past. Adidas does perform its own unpublished tests of each new ball. The New York Times reported last year that the Trionda’s 3.5-year testing process included robotics designed to kick the ball at specific speeds as well as testing in seven of the 16 host locations. 

But as Goff sees it, soccer is “the world’s most popular sport, [this is] its most important tournament, and the most important piece of equipment in that tournament is this ball right here,” indicating the the Trionda ball that he had on camera with him during our Zoom call. “I think they’re interested in what some external testing looks like.”

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jun 6 2026
Are AI chatbots making us lose control of our brains?

<div data-chronoton-summary="

  • Attention spans are in freefall. Psychologist Gloria Mark found that average attention spans dropped from two and a half minutes in 2003 to just 47 seconds by 2020—and the constant switching is directly linked to rising stress levels.
  • AI may be making our brains lazy. When we outsource writing, summarizing, and evaluating to tools like ChatGPT, we skip the “depth of processing” that helps us actually learn and think critically—and those cognitive muscles can atrophy from disuse.
  • Even our emotional intelligence is at risk. AI companions require none of the effort that real relationships demand, and Mark warns that if current trends continue, loneliness, purposelessness, and emotional decline will only deepen.
  • The fix is effort, not abstinence. Mark isn’t calling for a tech ban—she’s calling for intentionality: read the book, skip the GPS, meet friends in person. The harder the task, she says, the greater the reward.

” data-chronoton-post-id=”1138427″ data-chronoton-expand-collapse=”1″ data-chronoton-analytics-enabled=”1″>

This week I’ve been at SXSW London. There’s been music, film, and a lot—and I mean a lot—of talk about AI. I also had the opportunity to sit down with Gloria Mark, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, who has spent the last 30 years studying how people interact with digital technologies.

Early in her career, the biggest concerns were the potential impacts of internet and email use on our brains. We may laugh those concerns off today, but it’s true that as the technologies became more ubiquitous and ingrained in our daily lives, our attention spans began to shrink.

Mark is worried that things are only getting worse. The title of our session was “Have we lost control of our brains?” Unfortunately, Mark told me, the answer is yes.

Around two decades ago, Mark started wondering about how our use of devices might affect our attention spans. She set up what she calls “living laboratories,” using sensors and trackers to monitor adult volunteers’ attention, mood, and behavior when they were using devices.

In 2003, she found that the average user had an attention span of around two and a half minutes. That’s how long people could spend focused on one thing before moving on to something else. “That surprised me at the time,” she told me during our session on Wednesday. “I thought: Wow, this is really short.”

But when she repeated the experiment in 2012, she found that attention spans had shrunk—all the way down to around 75 seconds on average, she said. In research she conducted between 2014 and 2020, attention spans shrank further still—to a mere 47 seconds, on average. Yikes.

And it’s not good for us. Mark told me that she’s found switching our attention so frequently is stressful. “We would have people wear heart rate monitors, and … we would see direct correlation between switching attention fast and stress going up,” she told me.

All this distraction makes it harder for us to get stuff done, too. “It just takes longer to do any single task if you’re switching your attention,” she told me. “It’s not great for performance. It’s not great for our emotional well-being.”

And that’s for adults. What about the effects of digital technologies on children? A few months ago, Meta (which owns Facebook and Instagram) and Google’s YouTube were ordered to pay millions of dollars in damages to a 20-year-old woman who had accused the companies of creating products that led her to develop a childhood addiction.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Meta settled another lawsuit, this one brought by a rural school district in Kentucky. The district had also accused the company of designing addictive products that were harmful to students and had sought more than $60 million to cover the costs of their mental-health needs. Around 1,200 other school districts are taking similar legal action against social media companies.

But social media isn’t all bad, all the time. It can provide opportunities for some people, including those from marginalized groups, to form connections that might otherwise be difficult. A 2024 survey of LGBTQ+ teenagers found that while some described social media as a place of rejection and fear, others described it as a place where they felt a sense of belonging, where they could develop friendships and cultivate their identity.

In truth, we can’t definitively say what effects using social media is having on children across the board, says Mark. “There have been lots and lots of studies, and the evidence is to date inconclusive,” she told me. (Despite what you might read in best-selling books on the subject.)

Mark is hopeful that large, long-term studies might finally start shedding a bit more light on this question. An effort of this nature is underway in Australia, which enacted a social media ban for under-16s at the end of last year.

Given this uncertainty over a 20-year-old technology, I wondered if Mark had any thoughts on the potential impacts of AI—an obviously much newer offering that within the space of a couple of years appears to have become deeply integrated into our digital lives.

She told me she’s worried.

When we put in effort to do something—such as evaluating or summarizing content—we’re doing what’s known as “depth of processing,” she told me. “When you’re actively engaged with information, you’re processing it on a very deep level,” she said. “Then you’re more likely to learn it, to understand it, [and] to retain it.”

That’s not happening when most people use AI bots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. When we ask these tools to write, summarize, or evaluate for us, we’re no longer doing that depth of processing. “You’re deferring your cognitive work to AI,” she said. “And it’s not good for us.”

The risk is that our cognitive abilities will weaken over time. “If you’re not constantly exercising your muscles, they can atrophy,” Mark said. “And that’s exactly what can happen with our minds.” People with weaker critical thinking skills are more likely to fall prey to misinformation, she added.

Interactions with AI-powered “synthetic companions” can be just as harmful. Relationships between human beings take work—time, effort, and understanding. None of that is needed if you’re forming a relationship with a sycophantic bot. The “muscle” we risk atrophying here is emotional intelligence, which surveys suggest is already on the decline, said Mark.

She’s not painting a particularly rosy picture.

“If we continue on this trajectory, attention spans are diminished, loneliness is rising, boredom is rising, emotional intelligence decreasing, and actually our sense of purpose, according to studies, is also decreasing,” she said.

Luckily, she thinks we can course-correct by changing our relationship with these technologies. The key factor is effort.

The more effort we put into something, the deeper the satisfaction we stand to gain, Mark told me. That means making an effort to read a book rather than skimming its summary, and to meet with friends in person when you can. Try not to use GPS in places where you can probably manage without it.

“I love technology; we can’t give it up,” she told me. “[But] we have to learn how to create new life routines.”

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jun 6 2026
The Meta hack shows there’s more to AI security than Mythos

<div data-chronoton-summary="

  • A shockingly simple hack: Attackers exploited Meta’s AI customer support agent by simply asking it to reassign Instagram accounts to attacker-controlled emails. No sophisticated trickery was needed—just a VPN and a direct request.

  • AI as target, not weapon: Unlike fears about AI-powered cyberattacks, this breach targeted an AI system itself. Experts say this kind of attack will grow more common as companies automate sensitive workflows like account recovery.

  • Eager to please, easy to fool: AI agents are built to complete tasks flexibly—but that same quality makes them manipulable in ways humans wouldn’t be. One researcher compared them to an overeager student who just wants to please the teacher.

  • Speed versus safety: Guardrails and red-teaming can reduce risk, but companies racing to deploy capable agents often skip careful scrutiny. Experts warn that pressure to move fast is making a dangerous problem worse.

” data-chronoton-post-id=”1138437″ data-chronoton-expand-collapse=”1″ data-chronoton-analytics-enabled=”1″>

On June 5, 404 Media reported that attackers had been using Meta’s AI customer support agent to steal Instagram accounts. Their approach was simple: They asked the agent to link the accounts to email addresses that they controlled, and the agent complied. One attacker broke into the dormant Obama White House account and made pro-Iran posts; others took over accounts with valuable, single-word handles, possibly in order to sell them.

AI cybersecurity concerns are nothing new. Since Anthropic announced in April that its Mythos model was too good at hacking to be released to the general public, commentators, researchers, and federal officials alike have fixated on the idea that superpowered AI systems could lay waste to our computer infrastructure. That’s not quite what this Instagram hack was: There, AI was the target rather than the attacker, and the method was far simpler than anything Mythos would cook up. But as companies offload more work to AI, these comparatively unsophisticated attacks could wreak their own havoc.

“As AI becomes more and more widely used—especially when AI is more and more widely used to automate our work flows, like account recovery—I think attackers are going to be more and more motivated to attack AI itself,” says Neil Gong, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Duke University.

Gong and other scholars have been issuing warnings about the security vulnerabilities of AI agents for a while. They publish papers and blog posts detailing exploits such as indirect prompt injection, which involves hijacking agents using commands hidden in websites, emails, or other seemingly anodyne data sources. Compared with these techniques, the Meta hack was practically mindless. The only complication that hackers had to overcome was using a VPN that matched the true account owner’s location; then they directly asked the support agent to change the account’s email address, and it complied.

Meta has not commented publicly on how this vulnerability slipped through the cracks. But given the simplicity of the exploit, Gong says, it should have been uncovered easily, before the agent was deployed. “It’s really surprising,” he says. “I don’t understand why they didn’t find this simple problem.”

Jessica Ji, a senior research analyst at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, agrees. “It raises questions like: Were there even guardrails in place?” she says. “Did anyone think to test for this kind of scenario?” She notes that the oversight is particularly striking coming from a company like Meta, which has extensive expertise in both AI and cybersecurity. Meta did not respond to a request for comment for this article, but on Monday a Meta spokesperson said on X that the vulnerability had been resolved.

As embarrassing a moment as this might be for Meta in particular, it also highlights some core vulnerabilities shared by all AI agents. Unlike traditional software, agents can respond in flexible—and unexpected—ways to new circumstances, which is why they might be able to substitute for human customer support agents. But AI agents can also be tricked in ways that humans wouldn’t be, and because they can take real-world actions, those mistakes have consequences. “A human would say, ‘Okay, why do you want to change the email address?’ and maybe respond with a security question,” says Somesh Jha, a professor of computer science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “What is going on with these agents is they’re very eager to finish the task. It’s almost like some elementary school student who just wants to please the teacher.”

There are ways to mitigate the risks. Companies can use traditional software to build guardrails that make sure agents follow strict rules, such as always asking for answers to security questions before sending sensitive account information to a new email address. And the experts consulted for this article all agree that agents should undergo rigorous red-teaming, a process in which developers try their best to attack a system in order to discover its vulnerabilities before it is deployed.

But there are also countervailing forces. Companies want to deploy capable agents, and the more power an agent has—and the fewer guardrails it is subject to—the more work it can potentially take on. “Security and utility always have a trade-off,” says Bo Li, a professor of computer science at the  University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. And adequate red-teaming can be expensive. Defenders have to expend more resources than attackers do, because attackers only need to discover a single exploit, while defenders try to discover and patch as many as they can. When attackers are working toward something as valuable as a single-word Instagram handle, they’ll pour resources into finding exploits, so defenders have to spend even more money to protect that prize. 

As AI models continue to improve, hardening their defenses might actually get easier. Though the probabilistic nature of large language models means that LLM agents will always be vulnerable to some forms of attack, a more sophisticated model might have identified an attempt to change the email associated with the Obama White House account as suspicious. And AI systems can be used for agent red-teaming, much as participants in Anthropic’s Project Glasswing use Mythos to identify vulnerabilities in their software. 

Still, experts expect that the problem of securing AI agents will only become more pressing in the future. As agents grow more capable, companies that adopt them may want to give them more power, both to provide more services with fewer humans and to avoid being left behind by their competitors. In the fast-moving world of AI, the time needed to carefully secure risky agentic systems might seem like an unconscionable delay.

“Everybody wants to be the first to do something and just push things out without careful scrutiny and red-teaming,” Jha says. “I think it’s a very dangerous thing.”

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jun 5 2026
How courts are coping with a flood of AI-generated lawsuits

<div data-chronoton-summary="

  • AI is driving an increase in lawsuits: A new study found that self-represented court filings more than doubled after 2023. Judges largely attribute the surge to chatbots.

  • Clearer filings, same odds: AI is helping people without lawyers write more coherent arguments, but it isn’t helping them win. Mounting a lawsuit involves far more than drafting text, experts say.

  • Chatbot-client privilege is unsettled law: Courts are split on whether conversations with AI tools like ChatGPT deserve the same legal protections as attorney-client communications, with conflicting rulings emerging from Michigan, New York, and Colorado.

  • Who pays when the chatbot is wrong?: Nippon Life Insurance sued OpenAI in March, alleging ChatGPT practiced law without a license. States are now weighing legislation to hold AI companies liable for bad legal advice.

” data-chronoton-post-id=”1138391″ data-chronoton-expand-collapse=”1″ data-chronoton-analytics-enabled=”1″>

Most days in her chambers, Judge Maritza Braswell, a federal magistrate judge in Colorado, sifts through stacks of documents written by people without a lawyer. Many of them can’t afford to hire a lawyer, and others have cases too weak or too small to interest one. She reads each one carefully, mindful of how daunting it is to walk into the courtroom alone. 

Lately, like many judges across the US, she has seen a noticeable uptick in such filings. According to a new study that examined 4.5 million federal civil cases from 2005 to 2026, the share of lawsuits brought by self-represented people increased from 11% in 2022 to 16.8% in 2025. Within those cases, the number of filings made more than doubled from pre-2023 levels. 

Judge Braswell puts that jump down to AI. 

“I do correlate that to AI in part because I see AI use,” she says. As a tech-savvy judge who uses AI to vet court documents, she’s learned to recognize how large language models write. She can tell from the prose and at times, hallucinated cases and fabricated quotes. 

“I’m also actually seeing better-drafted pleadings,” she says. 

But while AI appears to be expanding access to justice, it doesn’t seem to be improving people’s chances of winning. Judges are also starting to question what kinds of rights and responsibilities large language models should bear as they step into lawyers’ shoes. For example, they ask whether a chatbot has a duty to provide good advice, as a human lawyer does. And a growing number of lawmakers across the US are starting to grapple with who should pay the price when chatbots dish out bad legal advice. 

AI supercharges lawsuits

To test whether AI was driving the increase in lawsuits filed by people without a lawyer, the authors of the study, Anand Shah at MIT and Joshua Levy at the University of Southern California, ran 1,600 randomly sampled court documents through Pangram, a commercial AI-text detector. The share flagged as containing AI-generated writing rose from 1% in 2023 to 18% in 2026. 

To Judge Braswell, that’s not necessarily a cause for concern. While the surge of AI-assisted filings might be adding to their workloads, she and many other judges find the cases easier to rule on because AI is helping people without legal training better articulate their arguments. 

Court documents written by people without lawyers are notoriously hard to decipher. Some arrive as handwritten scrawls bordering on gibberish that judges take a while to decode. However cryptic, judges are required to read them charitably.

These days, Judge Braswell has been churning through motions drafted by AI faster than the ones written by the litigants. “I have to be really careful because some of them contain hallucinations and errors, but I can generally understand what they’re arguing better with AI assistance from them than without it,” she says.

The clearer filings let Judge Braswell hear them better. “If I understand an argument a little bit better, I’m probably going to be able to help a little bit more,” she says.

Online communities are springing up to trade self-help guides on using AI to sue. In December 2024, a viral Reddit post walked immigration applicants through suing the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services over delayed review of their applications: draft a writ of mandamus with Microsoft Copilot, pay a lawyer $150 to polish it, and file in the expedient District of Vermont. Cases filed by people without lawyers in Vermont rose from about 45 a year before 2022 to more than 1,100 in 2024. 

Even so, people without lawyers are far more likely to lose their case than people with lawyers, and that’s not changing even with the addition of AI, the study found. 

“It turns out that mounting a lawsuit is a complex, multifaceted task. Not all of it is just drafting text,” says Levy. 

Chatbot-client privilege

Judge William Garfinkel, a federal magistrate judge in Connecticut, has served on the bench for three decades, pondering all sorts of questions about lawyers’ relationship with their clients. Lately, he has been wondering whether people’s conversations with chatbots dispensing legal advice should be privileged, the way their conversations with lawyers are. 

“You can make a good argument that … conversations with large language models like Claude or ChatGPT or Grok should deserve some protection,” he says.

Courts are starting to grapple with this question. In February, a federal court in Michigan ruled that a self-represented person’s conversations with ChatGPT to prepare her case were work product—legal work that is shielded from the opposing side.

The decision came on the same day a federal court in New York held that documents a criminal defendant had generated using Claude were not privileged attorney-client conversations or work product. The court argued that Claude is not an attorney and that a user has no “reasonable expectation of confidentiality in his communication” with it because AI companies can disclose user data to third parties. 

In March, Judge Braswell ruled that a self-represented person’s use of a chatbot should stay off limits. “It is true that AI systems like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and others … collect user data for training and other purposes. But … that does not eliminate all expectations of privacy,” she wrote. Courts have since remained split on the issue.

Malpractice without a pulse

Some judges are also wondering whether a chatbot, like a lawyer, has a duty to provide good legal advice. Judge Allison Goddard, a federal magistrate judge in California, has noticed that people without lawyers often get the wrong advice from ChatGPT when trying to assess the value of their case during settlement negotiations. In one case, a plaintiff who slipped and fell in a store asked for $700,000 from the store, which was wildly more than the case was worth.

“Where are you getting the idea that you’re getting $700,000? Did you go to ChatGPT?” Judge Goddard asked. “Well …” the plaintiff mumbled. She then walked the person through the law to explain why ChatGPT was wrong and suggested a lower amount. “It’s like Dr. Google went to law school,” she says.

Then there’s the question of who’s liable when a chatbot makes such mistakes. In March, Nippon Life Insurance Company sued OpenAI alleging that ChatGPT practiced law without a license and helped a woman reopen a lawsuit that was already settled, flooding the court with frivolous filings. “ChatGPT is not an attorney,” the lawsuit said. 

In May, OpenAI asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that ChatGPT does not practice law. “ChatGPT is not a person and neither has nor uses any degree of legal ​knowledge or skill,” OpenAI said in its filing. The case is still pending before the court.

States have started to weigh legislation that would hold AI companies liable when their chatbots offer bad legal advice. New York introduced a bill in March that would bar chatbots from impersonating lawyers, even if they notify ​users that they are interacting with chatbots. In Congress, a series of bills have been proposed to ban chatbots from posing as lawyers, doctors, and other licensed professionals. The bills have yet to gain traction.

For now, people will continue turning to AI to be their lawyer. For many of them, the rewards outweigh the risks. Not long ago, when Judge Braswell asked self-represented litigants why they wanted a particular piece of evidence, they mumbled timidly. Now, they answer her questions confidently, having rehearsed with a chatbot. 

“This is a really tough system to navigate. With AI, though, it gets a little less complex,” she says.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jun 4 2026
How virtual power plants could provide energy for data centers

<div data-chronoton-summary="

  • Google’s novel grid deal: Google is financing a 100 megawatt virtual power plant through Voltus that will pay homes and businesses to dial back electricity use, freeing up capacity for its data centers on the US East Coast’s PJM grid.

  • The flexibility problem: Data centers could theoretically come online without new power plants if they agreed to reduce demand during peak hours roughly 40 times a year—but there are questions about whether tech companies will actually do that, as downtime could mean giving up revenue.

  • People may not play along: A recent California study found that even at $40 a month, fewer than 5% of EV owners agreed to let utilities manage their charging—a cautionary sign for demand response programs that depend on widespread public participation.

” data-chronoton-post-id=”1138350″ data-chronoton-expand-collapse=”1″ data-chronoton-analytics-enabled=”1″>

Would you take a payment to ramp down your electricity use? Would it change anything if you were doing so to help power a local data center?

Google just signed a new deal to help pay for a virtual power plant (VPP) in the largest power grid in the US. The agreement is with Voltus, a leading VPP and distributed energy resources platform.

Voltus will set up the virtual power plant, grouping together devices like electric vehicles and smart thermostats. It’ll pay customers to participate, and the company will dial back power or use the stored energy during times when the grid is stressed. Google will foot the bill for setting it up, and the extra capacity generated by the project will help run its data centers in the region.

This is one of the most concrete examples so far of a tech giant using a VPP to help meet energy demand for data centers. But there are still some lingering questions about just how far this sort of program can go, and what the limits are.

Last year, it felt as if everyone was talking about data center flexibility. A high-profile study from Duke University found that if data centers agreed to decrease their energy demand for roughly 40 hours per year, a whole bunch of them (about 100 gigawatts’ worth) could come online without making new power plants or transmission equipment necessary.

The underlying reason is that our power grid is designed not for our average energy use, but for the absolute maximum: the brutally hot July evening when everyone is blasting their air conditioners, watching Love Island, and microwaving popcorn. If a data center is willing to refrain from pulling so much power during those high-stress times, the grid can happily support it the rest of the year.

One lingering question here is about incentives: How would you get data centers to agree to this? After all, they might not have a very flexible load, especially now that AI use is more widespread—training a model can easily be delayed or shifted, but customer demand is more immediate. Giving up computing capacity could mean losing revenue.

Regulation is one approach that could work here. One proposal in the US would allow new data centers to come online years sooner if they agree to lower demand when the grid is nearing its max.  And a new Texas law requires large users to switch to backup power or curtail their demand in emergency situations.

Another approach is for data center operators to pay for other people to be flexible.

Voltus announced a new program in September that allows data centers to finance flexibility on their local grid. The company calls it “Bring your own capacity.” Google is now the first named customer taking advantage of this program.

In the new agreement, Voltus will pay people who agree to participate in the virtual power plant. The plant will be part of PJM, the grid that covers much of the US East Coast. The company says it will be able to aggregate up to 100 megawatts of distributed energy resources each year. The plant should be operational in 2027, according to Voltus.

This isn’t Google’s first foray into flexibility; the company has agreements with utilities across the US to limit or shift its own energy demand, which can help free up grid capacity. As the company pointed out in a blog post earlier this year, though, there are limits on how flexible a data center can be, and not every facility will be able to ramp down its power demand.

“There is no one solution for expanding grid capacity and we’re continuing to explore all options, including the many avenues for load flexibility,” said Michael Terrell, Google’s global head of advanced energy, in an emailed statement in response to written questions.

Once again, I’m wondering about incentives here. These companies are asking homes and businesses to be flexible. Will they agree?

A recent study in California looked at local people’s willingness to participate in managed electric-vehicle charging. Essentially, the program pays people to give up control of when they charge their EVs. This is another way to help smooth out electricity demand and ease the burden on the grid.

The problem? Not many people signed up. With no economic incentive, only 1% of EV owners enrolled in managed charging. At $40 per month (about 15% of their power bill), only 4.6% did.

This is a different situation and a different region from the one in which Google is working with Voltus. (It’s worth noting that the companies aren’t sharing how much they plan to pay the participants, which will obviously be a big determinant in participation for this kind of project.) 

But this study shows that even with money on the table, people may not always jump at the chance to cede control of their electricity demand. And it certainly feels relevant that about 70% of Americans oppose AI data centers in their area, according to recent Gallup polling. 

Being flexible sounds like a great idea in theory, and these financed VPPs could provide an immediate route to meeting energy demand. But as we move from idea to implementation, it’ll be interesting to see whether trial runs work as intended.  

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. 

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jun 3 2026
How small businesses can leverage AI

This article is from Making AI Work, MIT Technology Review’s limited-run newsletter examining how to apply LLMs across industries. To receive it in your inbox,sign up here.

From accounting to design to market research and product development, there’s a staggering breadth of skills needed to run a business. A large company can hire experts to handle these tasks, but small businesses don’t always have this luxury.

That’s where AI comes in. Today’s AI models do a decent job at these tasks. The trick for small businesses is to understand where AI is good enough and where it’s not.

One place where a “good enough” AI can already be quite valuable to small business owners is in providing secretarial skills and handling basic administrative matters. Let’s take a look at how one private tutor is using it to improve his recordkeeping and free up his time.

Case study

Sam Finnegan-Dehn works in fundraising for a charity, but he moonlights as a math and philosophy tutor for university students from his home in London. Through this part-time business, he can leverage his degrees in philosophy and share his love of the subject with clients.

But meeting with students is only a fraction of the work it takes to be a good tutor. He also plans lessons and finds fresh reading materials, creates assignments, sends invoices, and keeps up with new research—all on top of his regular job. Given these demands, Finnegan-Dehn doesn’t have as much time as he’d like to grow his tutoring roster.

So he’s turned to AI for some help in managing the day-to-day aspects of his business. He says AI has taken on a secretarial role across all of his digital notebooks, where he jots down reminders about his clients’ progress and new readings to keep himself up-to-date. He describes using AI as kind of like having a second memory that helps him connect ideas he’s written down in various places.

While he has experimented with different tools like Claude and ChatGPT, he’s now landed on Notion AI because it integrates better with his tutoring notes, which live across his notebook tabs in the Notion app. Finnegan-Dehn doesn’t use AI to create teaching materials, but he does let Notion AI record meetings with his clients (after getting their consent), and then uses its automated summaries to refine his teaching strategy. For example, if he notices from the AI’s summary that it seems like a certain technique was not helping a student, he may change how he approaches the subject next time.

Beyond this, Notion AI also helps him with goal-setting, drafting lesson notes, invoicing, and generating and syncing social media posts. For goal-setting, for example, Finnegan-Dehn says he understands his long-term goals for his business but not always the concrete steps to build to them. He uses AI to help fill in these gaps. He starts by writing down a “North Star” goal—say, to have a certain number of clients by the end of the year. Next, he asks his AI to generate the steps that he needs to take to get there, given the profile he has built up in the app. Then, he can reflect on the results and choose which tasks to tackle first.

The tool

Notion has been a big player in note-taking software for many years. Its AI add-on, released in late 2023, now has tools that enable it to interact with many other online productivity platforms. There’s an email client, calendar integrations, and a newly released agent. And while this level of access has raised privacy concerns, it can also make for a pretty powerful virtual assistant.

Many of the tasks targeted by Notion AI are less creative and more rote: syncing information across documents or searching through old scribbles, for example. This makes the tool especially appealing to small business owners, who have limited bandwidth, particularly for menial work.

Other companies are developing tools targeted at specific industries. For example, Grandma’s Quilt Shop in Yuma, Arizona, uses Rain, which has a software suite tailored to craft companies, to generate inventory descriptions and pricing for its stock of fabric designs. The owners claim this AI tool cuts the time it takes to list items by 60 to 80%.

There are drawbacks, though, as Finnegan-Dehn described some of Notion AI’s idiosyncrasies as “clunky” at times. And the AI add-on for Notion costs $20 per month. As with all new tools, small business owners should carefully assess how the potential gains and headaches measure up against the cost of just doing the job themselves.

User tips

Consider these points when thinking about whether AI might be able to help you run a business, or make any part of your work life just a little bit easier. 

  • Look before you leap. Since LLMs feed on the data you input to answer your queries or complete tasks, you want to give them information in a way that’s convenient for you and for the model. For many of these notebook AI services, this means, for example, using their platform for notetaking so you don’t have to input or upload notes later. Because of this, it’s a good idea to weigh your options carefully before committing to an AI-powered ecosystem.
  • Work to your strengths. Think about what skills you lack in-house, and see if AI can either help with training or take these tasks on for you. Just be aware: AI hallucinates and makes mistakes, so think about where accuracy is needed and keep humans in charge there.
  • AI isn’t always the best tool. It’s okay to use something off the shelf when that’s the better choice. It’s going to be safer, for example, to use existing payment processing platforms like Shopify or Square than to vibe-code one using AI.
  • Consider using local models for any sensitive information. Our reporting has covered the risks that online AI models have in leaking sensitive data, and there have been many reports about how AI companies collect your data when you ask their chatbots questions. Even if your business doesn’t handle personal information, there can still be some things you’d prefer not to share publicly. In these cases, using an open-source model that makes inferences on your prompts locally can be a great option, instead of ChatGPT or Claude or other proprietary models. Thankfully, some LLMs can now be run off of laptops and small desktops. Here’s how to set one up and start using it.

Sign up for Making AI Work, MIT Technology Review’s limited-run newsletter examining how to apply LLMs across healthcare, climate tech, education, and more.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jun 2 2026
China has approved the world’s first invasive brain-computer chip—here’s what’s next

<div data-chronoton-summary="

  • The world’s first approved invasive BCI: A coin-size device called NEO, developed by Shanghai startup Neuracle Technology, beat Neuralink and others to become the first invasive BCI approved for use beyond clinical trials, now available to paralysis patients in China.

  • China is betting big on brain tech: Beijing has fast-tracked NEO into its national health insurance system and named its brain-computer interface industry as one of six sectors critical to China’s future. It signals an acceleration that experts say has no comparable national-level ambition anywhere else in the world.

  • This isn’t a race—it’s two different games: While the US chases breakthroughs, China is focused on scale and accessibility. Also, despite geopolitical tensions, US-China collaboration in neurotechnology quietly continues, with American firm Axoft already running trials in Shanghai.

” data-chronoton-post-id=”1138133″ data-chronoton-expand-collapse=”1″ data-chronoton-analytics-enabled=”1″>

One day last October, sitting in the courtyard of his house in China’s Henan province, Dong Hui decided to see if he could hold a pen to write. 

Dong, 39, had sustained spinal cord injuries in a car accident six years earlier that left him paralyzed from the neck down. Slowly but determinedly, he wrote his name, “Thank you,” and then the date. This was the result of an 11-month-long rehabilitation enabled by an implant in his brain. Before that process, Dong could move his arms slightly but wasn’t able to use his fingers.

“I couldn’t believe I was able to write again. I was so excited I even missed a stroke in my name,” he told MIT Technology Review on a video call. 

In November 2024, Dong became one of the first people in China to be given an invasive brain-computer interface (BCI) through brain surgery. He had signed up for a clinical trial with the device’s developer one month after seeing on TV how a BCI had apparently enabled another paralyzed Chinese man to hold his granddaughter. 

This March, the implant Dong uses became the first invasive BCI product in the world to be approved for use beyond clinical trials. It’s now available to some patients with paralysis in their limbs due to spinal cord injuries. We spoke to a range of experts to understand why the device was able to reach this global milestone, what makes this moment so significant, and what to expect next. 

A world first

Dong’s brain implant is a coin-size device called NEO. It was developed by Neuracle Technology, a Shanghai-based startup, together with researchers at Tsinghua University in Beijing. 

During a procedure that took just over an hour and a half, the device’s sensors, which collect Dong’s brain signals, were placed on his dura mater, the tough outer layer of tissue that covers and protects the brain. The signals are transmitted to a computer by an implant placed on Dong’s skull. The computer then translates the signals into commands for a soft robotic glove Dong wears during the 2.5-hour training sessions he completes each day to help him learn to grab. 

Dong started his rehabilitation around a week after surgery. “On the ninth day of my training, my right hand successfully grabbed a ball without the glove,” he says. “That was a miraculous moment.” 

Now he continues with his training at home. He wants to be able to control his hands better in order to put on clothes, eat, and do other daily tasks without troubling his aging parents. 

A growing number of people with traumatic injuries in China are now poised to tread a similar path thanks to NEO’s recent approval. According to China’s National Medical Products Administration, the bureau responsible for drug supervision, the product is suitable for patients between 18 and 60 who have paralysis in all limbs due to spinal cord injuries but still have some residual function in their arms. 

NEO beat several other BCIs to approval, including one from Neuralink, a California-based company founded by Elon Musk. Since October 2023, Neuracle has conducted 36 clinical trials using NEO, including the one on Dong. Thirty-two of them took place in the space of a few months in 2025, with the details about one of the four first in-person trials published in a preprint paper last July. Neuracle did not reply to a request for comment from MIT Technology Review.

One reason for NEO’s fast approval could be that it has a “relatively less invasive” design than counterparts such as Neuralink’s N1 brain chip, says Avinash Singh, a BCI researcher at the University of Technology Sydney. NEO’s eight sensors sit on top of the brain’s protective membrane while Neuralink’s N1 chip directly penetrates the cortex, the outermost layer of the brain itself. Neuracle’s device faces fewer regulatory constraints because it presents a lower risk of hemorrhage, glial scarring, and long-term signal degradation, Singh says.

China’s strong support for its BCI industry also means that NEO was put on an expedited regulatory pathway; in comparison, the approval process of the US Food and Drug Administration can take several years, Singh adds.

A big boost for BCIs

NEO’s approval is hugely important for the global BCI industry, says Wang Shouyan, a neuroscientist at Fudan University in Shanghai who was not involved in research or trialing for NEO. Even though research and development on BCIs has taken place for several decades, most of it happened in the lab. The news means that BCIs are now ready for large-scale manufacturing and clinical use in China, Wang says. 

For Dong, however, it means something much more personal. “Now, it will be able to help not only me, but also thousands and thousands of other patients suffering from spinal cord injuries in China who are tortured by despair each day,” he says of NEO. “It will bring them hope and change their lives.” 

Days after NEO was approved, China started incorporating it into the country’s health insurance system by assigning it a unique code. This is one of the first steps toward a future where eligible Chinese patients pay a certain percentage of the BCI’s price if they need it during their treatment.

The growth of China’s BCI industry is expected to accelerate thanks to the government’s policy support and financial backing. The country’s latest five-year plan, published on the same day Neuracle received its approval, lists BCI as one of six key industries important to China’s future tech competitiveness, alongside quantum technology, humanoid robots, and others. Several Chinese startups, including NeuroXess and StairMed, have already worked in the field for many years. 

“China’s decision to double down on becoming a global leader in the field owes in part to what these companies have already accomplished,” says Meicen Sun, an information scientist at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who studies information and technology policy. 

But, Sun says, the biggest advantage China may have is that Chinese people, particularly patients like Dong, tend to welcome this technology and are genuinely enthusiastic about it. In comparison, in the US and Western Europe, testing technologies on human bodies elicits an “ick factor,” triggering concerns and even resistance, she says.

Cooperation in a cold climate 

NEO has become the world’s first invasive BCI to go commercial, but scientists interviewed by MIT Technology Review caution against comparing Chinese and US efforts through the lens of a race. 

A race implies an endpoint, but it is hard to say where that is for the development of BCIs, says Nick Ramsey, a neuroscientist at Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands. Also, the US and China have fundamentally different visions, Sun says. The US is primarily concerned with being the first to do something and achieving state-of-the-art performance, while winning to China means capturing more consumers and using technology to deliver solutions on a societal scale. 

“Being exceptional and being accessible are two diametrically opposed definitions of winning,” Sun says. 

In fact, neurotechnology has emerged as a rare tech sector where US-China collaboration is still happening despite geopolitical tensions. The US company Axoft,  based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says it has teamed up with a Chinese company and a hospital in Shanghai to test its BCI on four patients in China and has plans to expand its trials in the country. 

Looking forward, China’s BCI industry is expected to speed up its growth over the next five years thanks to strong government support. “There is no comparable national-level ambition or coordinated map elsewhere in the world at the moment,” says Singh.

More BCIs are also in the pipeline for domestic approval in the country, including Beinao-1, developed by the Chinese Institute for Brain Research in Beijing and its affiliated startup, NeuCyber NeuroTech. The device, which sits on the dura mater, is designed to help those who have movement and speech difficulties due to spinal cord injuries or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. These candidates could get the green light as early as 2028, Singh says. 

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
May 30 2026
How the Pope’s Magnifica Humanitas offers a template for individuals to meet the AI moment

Pope Leo XIV’s new encyclical on artificial intelligence includes a statement that warrants serious attention from technologists and policymakers: “Technology is never neutral.” Magnifica Humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”) is a clarion call to all people to act with courage and solidarity as we enter an age already being transformed by artificial intelligence, the greatest change in human life since the Industrial Revolution. As the pope says, the choice before us—the choice AI presents—is one between the Tower of Babel and the rebuilding of our common humanity. 

In the biblical story of the Tower of Babel, humans sought to build a massive structure that reached all the way to Heaven, only to have their project thwarted when God made those involved unable to understand one another. It was a pursuit fixated on relentless growth, divorced from any concern about God’s commandments or the human cost. It resulted in failure and atomization.

The Book of Nehemiah, however, offers a contrasting narrative, in which the rebuilding of Jerusalem after a period of violence and displacement becomes an opportunity for humanity to show its collaborative resilience. As the encyclical puts it, “The city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all: men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and young people all play a part. It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones.” 

Is there any question which road we are currently barreling down? And can there be any doubt which we would do well to walk together? 

We are both Catholics, members of religious communities and longtime advocates within the movement for socially responsible investment. Of particular interest to us and that movement is Pope Leo’s point that AI is not some force of nature or hyperrational, ineffable entity. Instead, he reminds us, AI is ultimately another commercial product, one emerging at a point in history when excessive power over commerce and the wider society has amassed in a vanishingly small number of hands. 

It’s a powerful message. It’s also one that institutional investors have been acting on for years. This encyclical doesn’t break new ground so much as ratify a governance effort that’s already underway, led not by states or international bodies but by shareholders. When governments fail to meaningfully regulate, and corporations cannot be trusted to do what is beneficial beyond their own bottom line, people in society still have the power to set us on the right path, and indeed have the duty to do so. 

Around the world, AI systems are being deployed at scale with remarkably little institutional oversight. There is no AI safety board. The US Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over unfair practices but limited authority over algorithmic design. The National Institute of Standards and Technology publishes guidance that most companies ignore. The EU AI Act is partially in force but addresses only a sliver of the deployment surface.

Institutional investors have stepped into this vacuum. Coalitions including the membership of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, representing investors managing over $400 billion in assets, have spent the past several proxy seasons filing resolutions demanding transparency, risk assessment, and accountability around AI deployment. Secular institutional investors have joined them, treating AI governance failures as material business risks.

Shareholders have called tech giants including Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Palantir, and Uber to account and demanded that AI not be used for acts of violence or other violations of human rights. The importance of this aspect of corporate governance was highlighted tragically in the opening hours of the war against Iran, when AI was used to help identify targets for thousands of missile strikes that killed hundreds of people.  

Investors have also challenged executives at CVS and UnitedHealth Group to ensure that AI not be used to undermine the well-being of patients and quality of health care across the United States. 

At companies including Meta and Microsoft, shareholders have decried the environmental impact of AI data centers, which consume vast amounts of energy and precious water resources, and in turn can emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. 

Within creative industries, investors have challenged the leadership at companies like Disney, Netflix, and Warner Bros. to demand transparency about the ways they are using AI and to defend the inimitable human element in storytelling. 

Soon, with OpenAI, Anthropic, and Grok all set to enter the public markets, we will be able to exert similar influence over what are now all privately held entities.

These actions by concerned investors not only call out misdeeds but hold fast to an immutable truth: that it is wrong to use technology to kill, harm, or oppress people. Every human being has a right to safe and effective health care and the opportunity to earn a dignified living. The stories we tell each other matter and require the human creative spark. 

Investor advocates hail from a range of faith traditions. Some have no formal religious faith. Yet in their informed and tenacious advocacy, all these people echo the calls embedded within Pope Leo’s encyclical and act on its declaration that “it is essential that the use of AI, especially when it touches on public goods and fundamental rights, be guided by clear criteria and effective oversight.” 

Encyclicals mark time. A century from now, how will we be remembered for how we met this moment? Will we be seen as having been too timid or shortsighted to prevent a small group of unfathomably wealthy and self-interested people from seizing ever greater control over the human family’s shared destiny? 

Or will the years ahead be remembered as a turning point that helped us rebuild our common humanity? Let this be a time when people of good will and diverse talents come together through their own magnificent humanity to build a future that honors our Creator.

Father Séamus Finn, OMI, is a global leader in faith-based and socially responsible investing and a priest of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, a missionary religious congregation.

Sister Susan Francois is the assistant congregation leader and congregation treasurer for the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
May 30 2026
The deadly Ebola outbreak is proving difficult to control

<div data-chronoton-summary="

  • No vaccine, no treatment: Unlike recent Ebola outbreaks, this one is caused by the Bundibugyo virus, for which no approved vaccine exists. Clinical trials for new ones are still months away.

  • Violence is making containment nearly impossible: Armed attacks have burned down two treatment centers and driven 18 infected patients back into the community. Conflict, damaged roads, and food insecurity have left health workers struggling to isolate cases or trace contacts.

  • US funding cuts have left the region exposed: Years of underinvestment, compounded by steep reductions in US global health funding under the Trump administration, have stripped away the surveillance systems and protective equipment needed to respond quickly

” data-chronoton-post-id=”1138093″ data-chronoton-expand-collapse=”1″ data-chronoton-analytics-enabled=”1″>

The alert was raised on May 5. Four health-care workers in the Ituri Province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had died from an unknown illness within four days.

Rapid response teams were sent to investigate, and tests at a research center in Kinshasa revealed the culprit: the Bundibugyo virus, one of the viruses that cause Ebola. Suspected cases of the disease have snowballed in the last few weeks. By May 24, the WHO had estimated that 223 people had died from the disease. There were over 900 suspected cases. Today’s figures are likely to be higher.

A couple of weeks ago, I covered the hantavirus outbreak aboard a cruise ship. Three people sadly died, but the outbreak itself was kept under control. There have been no further deaths, and passengers have been safely repatriated. The picture for Ebola is far bleaker. And there are several reasons why.

The most obvious is the disease itself. Ebola is a severe disease with an average 50% fatality rate. Previous outbreaks have resulted in thousands of deaths. (Hantavirus also has a high fatality rate, but it doesn’t usually spread as easily between humans.) 

Between 2014 and 2016, an Ebola outbreak in West Africa caused more than 11,000 deaths. A more recent outbreak, which took place between 2018 and 2020, caused 2,299 deaths before being brought under control with a vaccination campaign.

But those outbreaks were caused by the Zaire virus, which has a different genetic sequence. There is no vaccine for the Bundibugyo virus. We don’t know if the two vaccines approved for Zaire might also work for Bundibugyo. There’s a concern they might even make things worse by interfering with a person’s immune response to the virus.  

Scientists are working on potential Bundibugyo vaccines. But the most advanced efforts are still months away from clinical trials. There are no specific antiviral treatments for the virus, either.

So to control the outbreak, health-care workers are trying to stop the spread of the disease. Ebolaviruses can be transmitted to humans by animals including fruit bats, chimpanzees, and gorillas. They can then spread between people via contact with bodily fluids such as blood or vomit.

That’s why the virus is often spread among family members, to health-care workers, and during some burial services. The WHO advises isolating people who have the virus in treatment centers. It also recommends safe burial measures that limit physical contact with the deceased, for example. Communities need to be informed about the virus and how it spreads, and health professionals should be on hand to diagnose cases and track them.

That’s all easier said than done in an era of misinformation. Some members of the community even doubt whether the disease is real. There have been three attacks on health-care facilities in the region in recent weeks.

Last week, two treatment centers were burned down. The first incident occurred after relatives of a deceased man were prohibited from retrieving his (infectious) body. As a result of the second incident, 18 suspected cases reentered the community.

A couple of days later, a group of men unleashed gunfire at Mongbwalu General Hospital, which was also treating people with Ebola. They were demanding the bodies of their deceased relatives.

There are more causes for concern when it comes to the spread of the virus. The Ebola outbreak is thought to have originated in Mongbwalu, a high-traffic mining hub. People who caught the virus in Mongbwalu are thought to have sought care in neighboring districts. And the wider province borders both South Sudan and Uganda. So far, Uganda has reported seven confirmed cases and one death. South Sudan’s health ministry has said it will strengthen surveillance, but no cases have been reported in the country so far. 

Violence in the region is making it much harder to contain the spread of the virus, too. Conflict involving multiple armed groups, including deadly attacks on civilians, has hampered humanitarian and health-care efforts. Poor infrastructure and damaged roads make matters even worse. Food insecurity is ravaging the region as well—this year, nearly 10 million people in the region face acute hunger.

Together, these factors are making it “nearly impossible” to isolate people with Ebola and trace others who have been in contact with them, WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a statement earlier this week.

The dismantling of US aid programs hasn’t helped either. US government funding for international health projects has steeply declined since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term. These cuts have harmed disease surveillance systems, according to the International Rescue Committee, a humanitarian nonprofit.

“Funding cuts have left the region dangerously exposed,” Heather Reoch Kerr, the organization’s country director for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said in a statement. “Years of underinvestment and recent funding cuts have left many health facilities without adequate protective equipment, surveillance capacity, or frontline support needed to respond quickly and safely.”

The US has mobilized emergency funding for the outbreak, and a spokesperson for the State Department has argued that none of the administration’s actions have hampered the Ebola response. But health experts counter that the damage has already been done.

On May 17, the WHO declared the Ebola outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. In a statement on Wednesday, Tedros described the situation as “a catastrophic collision of disease and conflict with the Ebola outbreak in Ituri province outpacing the response.”In an online appeal to residents on Wednesday, ahead of an in-person visit, Tedros pleaded for a ceasefire and commended the spirit of community members. He also acknowledged the steep challenges they face. “You are already carrying so much: malaria, hunger, insecurity, and the daily struggle to keep your families safe,” he wrote in French. “And now Ebola. It’s not fair, and I won’t pretend otherwise.”

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
May 29 2026
The AI Hype Index: AI gets booed in graduation season

It is one thing to say AI will change the world. It is another to expect the class of 2026 to applaud it. In fact, when former Google CEO Eric Schmidt told University of Arizona graduates that their task is to help shape AI, he was met with a resounding chorus of boos. “I can hear you,” he said, before conceding that fears about disappearing jobs and a broken future were “rational.”

This is not exactly the message one hopes to hear while sweating under a polyester gown and tallying student loan payments. Graduates have been jeering at AI pep talks at other commencements too, including ceremonies at the University of Central Florida and Middle Tennessee State University. Still, increasingly loud skepticism hasn’t stopped OpenAI from winning court cases, raising enormous sums of money, and launching new partnerships. And AI is even earning some unlikely cheerleaders: Reese Witherspoon has warned women to embrace it or be replaced by it.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments