Google’s Pixel Phones Gain Self-Fix Tools for Dropped Calls, Slow Data and Spotty Wi-Fi

Google is preparing to hand Pixel owners a new way to troubleshoot their own connectivity headaches. The feature, spotted in recent code, promises to scan for problems with mobile data, phone calls and Wi-Fi networks before offering step-by-step remedies. Early signs point to a tool that could cut down on support calls. Yet plenty of questions remain about when it will arrive and exactly how far it will go.

Researchers at Android Authority found the work inside version 1.0.962958926 of the Pixel Troubleshooting app. They manually enabled hidden screens to reveal what Google has built so far. The centerpiece is an option labeled “Connectivity health” that would live under Settings and then Network & internet. Tap it and the phone would report whether it has spotted trouble with any of the three main connection types.

From there users could dive into dedicated diagnostics for mobile data, calls or Wi-Fi. Mobile data diagnostics has progressed the furthest. It tests connection quality and speed. Then it suggests concrete changes. In one example the tool told the tester to set Private DNS to “off” or “automatic.” After the adjustment it generated a report listing every setting altered during the session. The status flipped to “Normal.”

Call diagnostics and Wi-Fi diagnostics still sit at their opening screens in the current build. No troubleshooting flows load behind them yet. That gap shows the project remains a work in progress. Google has not commented on a release schedule, which models will receive it first or which Android version will carry the code.

The new capability builds on tools Google already ships. Official support pages describe a narrower process available today. Open the Settings app, tap Device health & support, then choose Call diagnostics or Mobile data diagnostics. Google’s own documentation notes this option exists only in the US for US subscribers on Pixel 11 phones. It can auto-detect issues, optimize settings, run speed tests or call-quality checks through Google servers and produce detailed reports.

But those existing flows focus on specific symptoms. The upcoming Connectivity health menu aims to give one overview screen plus targeted help for all three connection categories. TechRepublic reported the discovery one day after the initial teardown and noted that the phone-side checks cannot verify carrier network health or upstream problems. A “Normal” result means the device believes its own settings look good. It does not guarantee the tower or internet backbone performs well.

Enterprise administrators may wonder how the tool behaves on managed devices. The teardown gives no indication whether it detects administrator-controlled policies before recommending DNS changes or other tweaks. Reports generated by the diagnostics would list modified settings but questions linger about where those files are stored and who can read them.

Pixel phones have offered other self-diagnostic menus for some time. Hidden test modes let users check battery health, sensors, cameras and more. A separate Bluetooth diagnostics tool arrived earlier this year. The connectivity addition fits a pattern. Google wants owners to solve straightforward issues without opening a support ticket or visiting a store.

Frustration with dropped calls and sluggish data runs high among smartphone users. Carriers often point fingers at the device. Device makers return the favor. A tool that quickly isolates phone-side configuration errors could shorten those arguments. It might also surface patterns that help Google improve future modem firmware or Android networking stacks.

Timing matters. The code surfaced just as Google prepares the Pixel 11 series and associated software drops. Similar features have appeared in test builds only to vanish or shrink before public release. APK teardowns offer a glimpse but carry no guarantees.

Still, the direction feels clear. Google continues to expand built-in troubleshooting across hardware and software. Recent Android betas include stronger cellular security logging that records modem events and potential threats such as jamming or downgrade attacks. Those protections sit alongside user-facing diagnostics. Together they suggest a broader push to make Pixels more self-reliant.

Users who test the current public diagnostics already see value. The mobile data tool can toggle airplane mode, check SIM placement, verify network type selection and recommend a full network settings reset when nothing else works. Instructions warn that not every Pixel supports every 5G band on every carrier. They advise contacting the operator for outages or plan changes once device settings check out.

The new unified menu could streamline that advice. One entry point would surface an overall health score then route the user to the relevant fixer. A generated report might serve as evidence when escalating to carrier support. At least that is the hope.

Privacy questions hover in the background. Diagnostic reports that list changed settings and test results could contain location or network identifiers. Google has not detailed data handling for this feature. Past Pixel tools send usage and diagnostics information only when users opt in. Whether the same consent model applies here remains unseen.

Analysts following Android development see the move as part of a larger effort to reduce reliance on third-party apps for basic maintenance. Plenty of network analyzer utilities already exist on the Play Store. Few integrate as deeply with system settings or offer automatic fixes. Google’s version would run with elevated privileges and direct access to toggle configurations that normal apps cannot touch.

Of course success depends on accuracy. False positives that send users chasing the wrong setting could erode trust. False negatives that declare everything normal while calls still fail would prove equally annoying. The mobile data example performed cleanly in testing. Broader real-world validation must wait for a wider rollout.

Google’s history with connectivity features offers mixed lessons. Adaptive Connectivity Services, once known as Connectivity Health Services, has quietly optimized background data use for years. The new diagnostics feel more visible and actionable. They speak directly to everyday pain points rather than operating behind the scenes.

Industry watchers will track whether the feature debuts alongside the next Pixel Drop or waits for a full Android release. Early code often changes. The Private DNS recommendation, for instance, might gain smarter logic to avoid conflicting with work profiles or VPN policies.

For now the discovery gives Pixel fans something to anticipate. A phone that not only connects but also explains why it sometimes refuses to do so represents a step forward in user control. It won’t solve every network outage. It could, however, prevent many unnecessary factory resets and support conversations. That alone would mark progress.

Additional reporting from recent days reinforces the momentum. Android Headlines described the work as giving owners more self-service options across connectivity types. The Times of India highlighted how the tool spots bad data, dropped calls and flaky Wi-Fi then walks users through corrections. No major new technical details emerged beyond the original teardown, but the coverage signals growing interest in Google’s shift toward proactive device maintenance.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/giVqhUI

Fairphone Brings Its Fixable Phone to America: A Challenge to Throwaway Tech

After years of limited imports and third-party markups, Fairphone has finally arrived in the U.S. market with its latest model. The device, known as the Fairphone Gen 6+ or 6 Plus, sells for $649 or $650 depending on the retailer. It goes on sale today directly from the company and Amazon. No more workarounds. No more paying a premium to a middleman like Murena.

This marks a shift. Previous Fairphone models reached American buyers only through indirect channels. Those routes often added hundreds to the cost. One report noted U.S. customers paid around $900 for the prior generation. Now the company offers straightforward access. Buyers can pick it up unlocked for AT&T and T-Mobile networks. Verizon compatibility remains uncertified by the brand itself.

The phone itself looks familiar to those who followed the brand from Europe. A 6.31-inch LTPO AMOLED display runs at 120Hz. It sits just above full HD resolution. Inside sits a Qualcomm Snapdragon 7s Gen 4 processor paired with 12GB of RAM. Storage comes in at 256GB of UFS 3.1, expandable by microSD. Cameras include a 50-megapixel main sensor and 13-megapixel ultrawide. A 4,415mAh battery powers the package. Three colors greet buyers: Cobalt Blue, Horizon Black and a green option.

Yet specs alone don’t tell the story. The real point lies in how the device comes apart. Owners can replace 12 different parts using only a single screwdriver. The battery. The display. The USB-C port. Even the cameras and back cover. Many swaps take less than five minutes. No adhesives. No specialized tools. Parts range from $7.99 for a SIM tray to $89.99 for a new screen. This approach stands in sharp contrast to flagships from Apple and Samsung. Those devices often discourage repair. They glue components tight. They threaten warranty voidance.

iFixit awarded the previous model a perfect 10 out of 10 for repairability. The new version follows the same path. Fairphone includes a five-year warranty. Software updates stretch to 2033. That means Android 16 at launch with support running nearly eight years total. Such longevity remains rare in consumer electronics. Most manufacturers tie success to annual upgrade cycles. Fairphone bets on the opposite.

The company built its name on ethics and sustainability. More than 50 percent of materials come from recycled or fair sources. The firm claims 100 percent e-waste neutrality. For every phone sold, it takes one back. That supports circular practices through reuse, repair and recycling. These details matter to a growing segment of buyers. They care about where minerals originate. They question labor conditions in supply chains.

But entering the American market brings hurdles. Tariffs hit imported electronics. A Reuters report from late 2025 highlighted a 34 percent tariff impact on Fairphone’s costs. CEO Raymond van Eck addressed the issue head on. “Our strategy is built for uncertainty,” he told Reuters. “The tariffs weather may change daily, but the demand signal in the U.S. is clear.” He pointed to advancing right-to-repair legislation nationwide. That momentum, he said, creates opportunity.

Fairphone first tested U.S. waters with repairable headphones earlier this year. The audio line served as a beachhead. Sales grew fast. The company reported 61 percent year-on-year revenue growth in the third quarter of 2025. Device sales rose 61 percent. Audio increased 40 percent. Spare parts jumped 41 percent. Those numbers suggest pent-up interest. Consumers appear ready for alternatives to disposable gadgets.

Industry observers take notice. Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of The Repair Association, reacted positively to the launch. She told CNET, “I’m sure there will be a lot of consumer interest and interest in teardowns and evaluations.” Her group has pushed for repair rights for years. Easier access to parts and instructions forms a core demand. Fairphone delivers both.

Software choices add another layer. Some versions ship with stock Android. Others partner with Murena to offer /e/OS. That privacy-focused system builds on Android but removes Google tracking and data collection. It includes an Advanced Privacy widget and easy migration tools. The combination appeals to users wary of constant surveillance. One recent article from Gizmodo emphasized that this represents the first new Fairphone released in the U.S. running full-fledged Android. Previous options leaned toward de-Googled variants.

Practical features round out the package. A physical switch activates minimalist mode. It reduces distractions for focused use. A fingerprint sensor sits in the power button. The device carries an IP55 rating for dust and water resistance. Not class-leading. But adequate for daily life. Modular accessories include cases, lanyards, finger loops and card holders. Most cost $30 or less.

Critics point to trade-offs. The battery capacity sits lower than many competitors. Performance targets midrange use rather than flagship speed. Price at $650 positions it above budget options yet below premium models. Buyers pay for longevity instead of raw power. That equation won’t suit everyone. Early reactions on X show a mix of excitement and skepticism. Some users ask who will actually buy it. Others praise the stand against e-waste.

And the broader context matters. Smartphone lifespans have shrunk. Average replacement cycles hover around two to three years in many markets. Repair costs often exceed the value of older devices. Right-to-repair laws gain traction in states across the country. California, New York and others have passed measures. Federal interest grows. Manufacturers face pressure to provide parts and documentation for longer periods.

Fairphone anticipated some of these trends. The Dutch company launched in 2013 with a modular concept. It faced production challenges early on. Scaling ethical sourcing proved difficult. Yet persistence paid off. Spare parts availability for years after sale became a signature. Support extending to 2033 for the Gen 6+ sets a high bar. Few competitors match it. Google offers seven years on Pixel devices. Apple provides updates for roughly that span but makes repairs harder.

Recent coverage highlights the significance of this moment. A story published hours ago by 9to5Google detailed the full specifications and confirmed today’s availability. Another piece from Android Central explored the Murena partnership and privacy benefits of /e/OS. These reports build on the foundation laid by the original CNET coverage of the debut.

So what comes next? Fairphone plans further expansion. It eyes partnerships with mobile operators. More audio products could follow. The company aims to prove that repairable design scales. Success in the U.S. could influence other brands. Samsung and Google already offer some self-repair programs. Those remain limited compared with Fairphone’s approach. If consumer demand grows, pressure will mount for broader change.

The Gen 6+ won’t dominate sales charts. It targets a niche. Environmentally conscious buyers. Repair enthusiasts. Privacy advocates. People tired of forced obsolescence. Yet its presence matters. It demonstrates a different business model. One built around longevity instead of constant consumption. In an industry addicted to new releases, that stance feels refreshing.

Challenges remain. Competition stays fierce. Supply chain ethics require constant vigilance. Tariffs could rise or fall with political shifts. Consumer education takes time. Many still view repair as inconvenient. But the pieces align. Legislation moves forward. Awareness of e-waste grows. Spare parts sales already contribute meaningful revenue.

Fairphone’s U.S. entry arrives at an interesting time. Tech fatigue spreads. Repair cafes gain popularity. Younger buyers express concern about climate impact. Whether those trends translate into significant sales for a $650 modular phone remains to be seen. The company clearly believes the moment has come. Direct availability removes a major barrier. The product delivers on its promises of easy repair and long support.

Buyers now face a genuine choice. Stick with the familiar cycle of upgrades every couple years. Or try something built to last. The screwdriver sits in the box for a reason. Fairphone wants owners to use it. That invitation alone sets this device apart. In a market flooded with incremental improvements, a phone designed for disassembly offers something truly different.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/PFVijXe

Debian’s Stark Choice: Ban AI Code or Embrace It With Guardrails

Debian turns 33 this month. The distribution that powers much of the internet’s infrastructure now faces one of its most divisive debates yet. Developers began casting votes August 15 on a general resolution that could reshape how the project handles large language models. Results won’t arrive until August 28. But the ballot already reveals deep fractures.

Eight distinct options sit before voters. One demands an outright ban written into the Social Contract. Another offers conditional acceptance with strict disclosure rules. Others split the difference. None of the above remains a real possibility. The discussion didn’t emerge from nowhere.

Earlier this year Debian punted on similar questions. LWN.net reported the project chose to handle AI-assisted contributions case by case. Lucas Nussbaum had floated a draft resolution that allowed such work under conditions like full accountability and disclosure. Conversations on the mailing lists stayed civil. They also exposed sharp differences. Russ Allbery pushed for precise terms. “AI” struck him as too amorphous. Sean Whitton called for clear distinctions between uses. The project simply wasn’t ready.

Matters accelerated this summer. A formal proposal to ban LLM contributions sparked fresh debate. By late July five options had emerged. Then eight. Voting opened with the clock ticking through the end of the month. Phoronix covered the start of balloting in detail. The choices range from prohibition to pragmatic acceptance.

Choice 1 adds explicit language to the Social Contract. “We will not allow direct contributions to Debian written with the use or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI tools.” Matthias Geiger proposed it. Seconds came from heavyweights including Ian Jackson and David Bremner. The rationale runs long. Copyright status stays murky. Quality suffers from hallucinations. Reviewers burn out. New contributors skip the learning process. Training data often scraped without regard for licenses or robots.txt.

Geiger didn’t mince words. LLM output contradicts Debian’s deliberate pace. Stability built the project’s reputation. Rushing code that might contain hidden errors threatens that foundation. The ban targets direct contributions only. Upstream projects remain untouched. Enforcement would rely on trust. Yet the signal matters.

Lucas Nussbaum countered with Choice 2. Allow AI-assisted contributions. But only if contributors meet six conditions. They must verify legal compatibility of the tools. Confirm licensing and attribution for any third-party material. Take full responsibility for correctness, security and utility. Disclose significant use. Discuss bulk changes in advance. Protect confidentiality. Nussbaum gathered an impressive list of seconds that includes Stefano Zacchiroli and Julian Andres Klode. The proposal acknowledges every major concern. Then insists humans stay accountable.

Ian Jackson offered Choice 3. Reject LLMs as far as practical. Update the Code of Conduct. His text paints a grim picture. Environmental damage. Exploitation of creators. Disruption of the open web. Generation of low-value content. Mental health risks for users. Economic bubbles. The proposal stops short of total prohibition. Upstream realities make that impossible. Instead it demands human-written messages to other humans. Allows narrow exceptions. Treats violations as conduct issues. Several ban supporters seconded this one too.

Other options strike different balances. Pierre-Elliott Bécue’s Choice 4 accepts AI contributions for Debian-specific work while placing full responsibility on the submitter. Mark the changes. Sign them. Avoid cloud tools for sensitive data. Marc Haber’s Choice 5 calls for responsible use without endorsement or prohibition. Existing standards apply. Disclosure encouraged but not required. Tobias Frost’s cautious approach in Choice 6 prefers human work where practical yet trusts contributor judgment.

One proposal cuts to the project’s identity.

Gard Spreemann’s Choice 7 declares “Debian is created by humans.” Generative output cannot count as a direct contribution. Tools may assist. The final result must come from a person. The text draws inspiration from policies at GCC and Rust. It argues AI creates asymmetry. Reviewers carry extra burden. Trust erodes when contributions arrive without deep understanding. Holger Levsen takes the argument further in Choice 8. Climate destruction becomes the deal breaker. Resource consumption, energy demands and corporate motives render the technology unacceptable regardless of output quality.

These aren’t abstract arguments. Debian ships software millions rely upon. Servers. Desktops. Embedded systems. A single flawed package can cascade. Hallucinated code in a watch file or override risks silent breakage. Reviewers already shoulder heavy loads. Adding machine-generated patches that look plausible but hide subtle bugs accelerates burnout. Several proposers cited real examples from other projects.

Legal questions compound the technical ones. Courts have yet to settle whether LLM output carries copyright. Who owns it? The prompter? The model trainer? No one? Debian’s Free Software Guidelines demand clear licensing. Uncertainty clashes with that requirement. Training data scraped from public repositories without consent raises separate licensing issues. Some models ignore robots.txt. Others train on code released under strong copyleft terms.

Environmental costs draw fire too. Training and running frontier models consumes massive electricity. Data centers compete with residential power needs in some regions. Levsen’s proposal doesn’t attack users. It condemns the broader system that incentivizes ever-larger models. Fight the industry, not the individual developer who reaches for a productivity tool.

Yet productivity gains tempt many. Code completion, documentation drafts, translation assistance. Modern LLMs handle repetitive tasks well when humans verify output. Smaller, locally run models reduce privacy and environmental concerns. Several proposals explicitly allow such tools as long as final responsibility rests with the contributor. The split reflects genuine disagreement over where the line sits between assistance and replacement.

Recent coverage shows the debate resonates beyond Debian. XDA Developers noted the ballots opened amid diverging policies across Linux projects. The kernel accepts AI assistance under Linus Torvalds’ direction. Some compilers banned it. Debian’s decision could influence other distributions and upstream projects. Or it could produce another deferral if none of the options secures the required majority.

Proposal A needs a three-to-one supermajority. Others require simple majorities. Preferential voting means developers rank their choices. The outcome could land anywhere on the spectrum. A strong showing for the ban might signal cultural resistance. A victory for conditional acceptance could normalize disclosure practices. None of the above would kick the issue back to case-by-case handling once more.

But the conversation itself already changed things. Developers aired concerns in public. Proposals cited Gentoo’s restrictive policy and Codeberg’s approach. They referenced earlier Debian threads from 2024 and 2025. The project has wrestled with this for years. This vote forces a choice. Or at least an attempt at one.

Critics of heavy regulation worry about enforcement nightmares. How do you prove a patch came from an LLM? Static analysis fails. Stylistic tells disappear as models improve. Self-reporting becomes the norm. Trust remains essential. Proponents of the ban counter that a clear policy sets expectations. Contributors who disagree can work on non-Debian packages or upstream instead.

Supporters of permissive approaches point to reality. Many developers already experiment privately. Forbidding the practice won’t eliminate it. Better to set rules that preserve quality and accountability. Disclosure requirements let reviewers apply extra scrutiny. Bulk change rules prevent surprise floods of machine-generated patches.

And the human element. Debian’s strength has always been its community. People who understand the policies, the architecture, the social norms. Replacing that knowledge transfer with prompt engineering risks hollowing out the contributor base over time. Onboarding new maintainers already challenges the project. LLMs that produce working code without teaching the why could make matters worse.

So the vote matters. Not because it will settle every question. Technology moves too fast. Models improve. Legal precedents emerge. Energy sources change. But the outcome will telegraph Debian’s values to the wider free software world. Stability versus speed. Human craft versus machine assistance. Trust versus verification. The distribution that famously moves slow now decides whether that philosophy extends to artificial intelligence.

Votes continue through August 28. Statistics will appear on the Debian vote site as ballots arrive. Whatever the result, the discussion exposed real tensions. Debian isn’t alone. Every major project will face similar choices. How they answer will shape the next decade of open source development. For now, the Debian developers hold the floor. Their ranked preferences will speak for the project’s direction.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/FySOBe9

Jamie Dimon’s Blunt Warning to UK’s New Chancellor: Higher Bank Taxes Risk Driving Capital Away

Jamie Dimon didn’t mince words. In a recent call with UK Chancellor John Healey, the JPMorgan Chase chief executive laid out a clear message. Higher taxes on banks could push jobs and investment elsewhere. The conversation, which took place last week ahead of the government’s October budget, echoes Dimon’s earlier cautions. But this time the stakes feel higher.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s administration has signaled openness to fresh levies on the financial sector. Strong bank profits have fueled calls from Labour voices for more revenue. Yet Dimon sees danger in that path. “If you have an uncompetitive tax system, capital leaves your country,” he said, according to the Fortune report on the exchange.

The remark lands with force. UK banks already shoulder a 3% corporation tax surcharge on profits above certain thresholds. Shareholders have shouldered billions in extra costs under the existing regime. Dimon put a number on it during a July podcast appearance. “I mean, it may sound great, ‘tax the banks’, but it’s $5bn that my shareholders paid on that extra tax.”

Short. Direct. And pointed.

That July interview, released on the Master Investor Podcast with Wilfred Frost, set the tone. Dimon warned then that such policies carry “adverse consequences.” He didn’t stop there. “I would be very cautious if I was a government thinking that penalising any company out of the ordinary is a good thing for that country,” he added, as reported by The Guardian.

His comments targeted the new leadership directly. Burnham had only recently taken office. The prospect of tax hikes on lenders quickly drew scrutiny. Dimon tied the issue to JPMorgan’s ambitious plans for Britain. A £3 billion headquarters project in Canary Wharf hangs in the balance. Raise taxes too much, he suggested, and the bank might rethink its commitment.

“I don’t know what I’d do,” Dimon said when asked about the potential impact on that project. The uncertainty carries weight. JPMorgan employs thousands in London. Its presence bolsters the city’s status as a global financial center. Lose momentum there and the ripple effects could spread.

But. The UK government faces real pressures. Public finances remain stretched. Debt levels loom large. Burnham’s team eyes additional revenue sources. Banks, flush with recent earnings, present an obvious target. Political appeal is clear. Economic fallout less so.

Dimon drew on American experience to make his case. Finance jobs in New York have declined, he noted, partly because of that city’s heavy tax burden. The parallel feels deliberate. What happens in one major hub can foreshadow troubles in another. London has competed fiercely with New York for talent and listings. Make the tax climate too hostile and the advantage shifts.

Recent signals from X amplify the tension. Bloomberg’s account captured the latest exchange. “JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon warned UK Chancellor of the Exchequer John Healey in a call last week against higher taxes on banks as Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government prepares its budget for October,” the Bloomberg article detailed, citing the Financial Times.

The Financial Times itself broke the news of the Healey call on Sunday. Dimon highlighted how taxes often drive jobs elsewhere. He pointed again to New York’s struggles. The message to Healey was unmistakable. Proceed with caution.

Industry observers see broader implications. Other banks watch closely. A move against one large player could signal wider policy shifts. Capital moves fast when conditions sour. London’s edge, built over decades, isn’t guaranteed forever.

Dimon offered some praise amid the warnings. He commended outgoing Chancellor Rachel Reeves for her efforts. “She did a great job,” he said in earlier remarks covered by Retail Banker International. That goodwill may buy some time. Yet the new team starts fresh. Healey must balance revenue needs with growth priorities.

The October budget will test those choices. Speculation swirls around possible surcharge increases or new levies. Burnham has left the door open. His government inherited an economy still recovering from multiple shocks. Brexit. Pandemic. Inflation. Each left marks.

Banks argue they already contribute plenty. Corporation tax. Levies. Employment taxes. The surcharge adds another layer. Push further and returns diminish. Investment decisions get reassessed. Headquarters. Hiring. Expansion.

Dimon’s track record lends credibility to his views. He has steered JPMorgan through crises. His perspective spans decades. When he speaks on policy, markets listen. Governments sometimes do too.

Still the politics pull the other way. “Tax the banks” resonates with voters facing cost of living strains. Few shed tears for large financial institutions. The challenge lies in separating rhetoric from reality. Taxes that appear painless can carry hidden costs. Slower growth. Fewer jobs. Reduced tax take over time.

Dimon made that connection explicit. Penalize companies beyond normal bounds and the country suffers. Capital doesn’t wait around. It finds friendlier shores. Other European centers. Asian hubs. Even back to the United States.

UK officials counter that the financial sector remains strong. London retains its position. Yet data on employment trends and listings tell a more nuanced story. Some activity has shifted. Paris gained ground after Brexit. New York keeps its pull.

The Canary Wharf project symbolizes bigger bets. Three billion pounds represents serious commitment. Jobs. Infrastructure. Prestige. Canceling or scaling back would send a signal. One that markets would read quickly.

Dimon stopped short of outright threats. He left ambiguity. “I don’t know what I’d do.” That uncertainty itself serves as pressure. Governments hate surprises in budget planning. Banks hate unpredictable tax regimes.

So the dance continues. Healey listens. Burnham decides. Dimon speaks his mind. The outcome will shape London’s financial future for years.

Recent commentary on X reflects the urgency. Users noted how governments often act surprised when capital departs after margin squeezes. One post highlighted Dimon’s podcast line about uncompetitive systems driving money away. The conversation has momentum.

Analysts at The Banker questioned timing. Dimon voiced concerns early in the new government’s tenure. That move carries risks for JPMorgan too. It could prompt officials to explore alternatives or harden positions. “The CEO’s interjection on bank tax so soon under the PM’s tenure creates risks for the US lender,” The Banker wrote in late July.

Yet silence carries risks as well. Policy gets set without input. Bad ideas gain traction. Dimon clearly prefers engagement. Even when the message is uncomfortable.

High government debt and deficits worldwide add another layer. Dimon warned about those pressures separately. They make tax policy choices harder. Every sector faces scrutiny. Banks just happen to be in the spotlight now.

The coming weeks will prove telling. Preparations for the budget intensify. Consultations continue. Dimon’s warnings may temper ambitions. Or they may be dismissed as self-serving. Either way the debate is joined.

London’s status isn’t static. It must be earned. Competitive taxes. Predictable rules. Open markets. These factors matter. Dimon believes they matter a great deal. His latest intervention aims to keep them front of mind.

Whether Healey and Burnham agree remains to be seen. The proof will appear in policy details. Numbers in the budget. Language around fiscal strategy. Markets will parse every line.

For now the warning stands. Tax hikes sound appealing. Consequences follow. Capital flows where it finds welcome. Britain has options. So do the banks.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/huL5cbB

AI Benchmarks Hit the Wall: Why Top Models Converge Yet Real-World Gaps Persist

Claude Mythos 5 sits atop the latest rankings. It scores 83.21 on a composite called BenchAlign. Close behind come other Anthropic entries. Then GPT-5.6 Sol from OpenAI. The numbers look impressive on paper. But scratch the surface and a more complicated picture emerges.

Benchmarks once separated clear winners from also-rans. Not anymore. Frontier models now cluster so tightly on many tests that differences fall inside statistical noise. BenchLM.ai tracks 394 models across 437 evaluations as of mid-August 2026. Its weighted system gives heavy emphasis to agentic tasks and coding. Knowledge and reasoning follow. The top five models all exceed 80 on this scale. Yet the gap between first and tenth is smaller than it appears.

And the leaderboard from Koutian Wu highlights another angle. His Benchmark Radar aggregates observations from papers, repositories and community notes. It shows how scattered evaluation efforts have become. One search for terms like “scientific agent benchmark” pulls together relevant tests that researchers would otherwise hunt down individually across arXiv and GitHub.

Older tests have lost their bite. MMLU and its harder sibling MMLU-Pro once offered clean rankings. Now frontier systems push past 90 percent. A Kili Technology analysis from April 2026 notes that GPT-5.3 Codex reaches 93 percent. Differences between models shrink to statistical noise. Human experts score around 65 percent on the original version. Machines left them behind years ago.

GPQA Diamond aimed to fix that. It presents graduate-level questions in physics, chemistry and biology. PhD holders reach 65 percent. Non-experts with web access manage 34 percent. As of recent data GPT-5.4 hits 92 percent. Gemini 3 Pro Preview leads some variants near 90 percent. Saturation creeps in even here. The Kili Technology analysis warns that once models exceed 88 to 90 percent, the test stops distinguishing capability at the cutting edge.

LiveCodeBench tries to stay ahead. It pulls fresh competitive programming problems published after training cutoffs. Contamination risk drops. Gemini 3 Pro Preview scores 91.7 percent in one evaluation run by Artificial Analysis. DeepSeek variants follow closely. Qwen3.8-27B, an open-weight model with 27 billion parameters, reportedly reaches 90.3 percent according to vendor figures shared on X. That puts it ahead of some larger closed models on this measure. Discussions on the platform highlight how such a model can run quantized on a used RTX 3090 that costs around $900.

But vendor numbers require caution. Independent verification lags. SWE-Bench Verified and its harder Pro variant expose similar issues. Frontier systems show signs of training data overlap. One report cited in the Kili piece found 59.4 percent of hard tasks potentially flawed. Claude Opus 4.5 scores 80.9 percent on Verified but drops to 45.9 percent on the stricter SEAL Pro version.

Humanity’s Last Exam pushes further. Created by domain experts and published in Nature this year, it contains 2,500 questions at the edge of human knowledge. Gemini 3 Pro Preview achieves 37.5 percent. Claude Opus 4.6 Thinking Max follows at 34.4 percent. GPT-5 Pro lands at 31.6 percent. Human specialists average near 90 percent. The gap remains vast. Yet even this test faces pressure as models improve.

Open-weight models narrow the distance in specific areas. Qwen3.8 Max from Alibaba scores 79.91 overall on BenchLM, the highest among openly available options. It leads in multilingual and instruction-following categories with marks near 98. Kimi K3 from Moonshot AI offers strong value at lower pricing. Recent X posts celebrate how 27B-class models now rival or exceed previous closed frontier performance on coding and agent benchmarks while running locally.

Yet closed models from Anthropic still dominate the composite. Claude Opus 5 posts 83.07 overall. Its reasoning category reaches 91. GPT-5.6 Sol excels in math and certain coding metrics. The Stanford AI Index 2026 report notes that as of March the top closed model led the best open one by 3.3 percent on some measures, up from near parity in 2024. Six of the top ten on the Arena leaderboard are closed.

The U.S.-China performance gap has narrowed to single digits. DeepSeek and Qwen variants trade blows with American counterparts. In February 2025 DeepSeek-R1 briefly matched the U.S. leader. By March 2026 the U.S. edge stood at 2.7 percent according to the Stanford report.

Benchmarks alone no longer tell the full story. Production deployments reveal cracks. The Kili analysis cites a 37 percent gap between lab scores and real enterprise agent performance. Cost to reach similar accuracy can vary by 50 times depending on the framework chosen. Data contamination, benchmark gaming and annotation errors above 50 percent undermine confidence. Static single-turn tests fail to mirror messy, multi-step real work.

OpenAI’s GDPval approach turns to domain experts with 14 or more years of experience as final judges. This human layer catches errors that automated metrics miss. The Kili piece argues for a stacked evaluation strategy. Automated signals first. Then LLM-as-judge. Finally expert human review for domain correctness, regulatory fit and edge cases. Evaluation must become continuous inside CI/CD pipelines rather than a one-time checkpoint.

Recent releases underscore the pace. Nineteen new models appeared in August 2026 per BenchLM tracking. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813, GLM-5.3 and others landed mid-month. Meta climbed in provider standings. Yet the very top remains occupied by familiar names. Claude Mythos 5 holds the lead.

So what should teams do? Look past headline percentages. Test on private datasets. Measure latency, cost and failure modes in production-like conditions. Combine hard benchmarks with human judgment. The numbers have converged. The differences that matter now hide in reliability, specialization and total ownership cost.

Watch LiveCodeBench and Humanity’s Last Exam. They still separate contenders. But treat even those scores as signals, not verdicts. The field has entered a phase where engineering discipline and careful evaluation separate winners from the pack. Raw benchmark leadership no longer guarantees success in the field.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/j3zweDN

Hundreds of Fake Chrome VPN Extensions Hijack Traffic While Posing as NordVPN and Proton

Security researchers uncovered a sprawling operation that placed more than 75,000 Chrome users at risk. The scheme relied on 737 browser extensions. Many copied the look and names of established VPN services. They promised privacy. Instead they funneled every web request through proxy servers controlled by a single operator.

Socket’s Threat Research Team laid out the findings in exhaustive detail. The extensions appeared across at least 40 developer accounts on the Chrome Web Store. Of those, 274 impersonated 66 recognized brands. The list includes NordVPN, Proton VPN, Surfshark, ExpressVPN, Cloudflare’s 1.1.1.1 service, and several others. (Socket)

Users in Russia and Russian-speaking regions formed the main target audience. They sought ways around blocks on Instagram, ChatGPT, YouTube and similar platforms. The extensions posed as free tools for censorship circumvention. Their real purpose looked different.

Traffic flowed straight into the operator’s hands.

Most of the extensions set Chrome’s proxy configuration to a fixed SOCKS5 server on port 1082. The change applied to the entire browser session. No per-site exceptions. The bypass list contained only loopback addresses. Everything else passed through the proxy. That placed the operator in an adversary-in-the-middle position. They could see destination domains, source IP addresses, TLS Server Name Indication values, and any data sent over plain HTTP.

Researchers counted 520 extensions out of 522 analyzed that routed traffic through the same SOCKS5 infrastructure. Another 104 resolved proxy hostnames through Cloudflare or Google DNS-over-HTTPS. The technique helped shield the operator’s domains from easy scrutiny. (BleepingComputer)

Some extensions went further. They advertised premium servers located in Japan, Singapore, Canada, Australia and Turkey. Those hostnames resolved to no A records. The paid tiers never existed. The setup amounted to subscription fraud. Users who paid 99 roubles a month for an “EXTENSION” tier received nothing functional. The campaign also funneled victims toward a legitimate-sounding Russian subscription VPN service run by the same actor. Public records show the operator maintains a tax registration in Russia. (The Hacker News)

Code artifacts pointed to one build machine. File paths contained “C:\Users\ollob\OneDrive\Документы\1.myxa-work”. The name Myxa VPN, or Муха VPN in Russian, appeared in 360 popup strings. Internal notes in Russian instructed developers to supply only resolved IP addresses in chrome.proxy.settings and avoid listing domains. The instructions suggested deliberate efforts to evade store review policies.

Google acted after the disclosure. It removed 221 of the extensions. At the time of collection 516 remained live with 58,318 installs. Total campaign installs reached 75,486. Some extensions received code updates after initial approval. That let operators add the proxy configuration later. Others used shared analytics accounts and nearly identical code skeletons. One skeleton appeared in 50 live extensions alone. (TechRadar)

The findings arrived at a moment when browser-based privacy tools face growing skepticism. Extensions once offered lightweight alternatives to full VPN clients. Many users installed them without much thought. Free. Simple. Promising protection. Yet the trust model breaks when store listings lie about capabilities and destinations.

Kush Pandya, part of the Socket team, described the risk plainly. “The censorship circumvention extensions route the user’s entire browser session through SOCKS5 proxies operated by a single provider.” He added that 520 of the 522 extensions in the main set used the same infrastructure. In another statement he noted, “With all browser traffic forced through it [the relay], the threat actor’s server is positioned to read every destination, every TLS SNI value, the victim’s source IP, and any request body sent over plain HTTP.”

Another quote from Pandya drove the point home. “For each affected user, while the extension is connected, every request passes through a server the threat actor controls. If it resells, a further party is in the same position.”

These extensions didn’t encrypt traffic themselves. They relied on the SOCKS5 proxy. That left data exposed at the proxy layer. And the operator controlled that layer. No independent audit. No transparency report. Just a black box sitting between the user and the internet.

Recent coverage echoes the same alarm. A report published yesterday detailed how the campaign combined brand impersonation with technical evasion tactics. It noted the extensions often carried misleading store descriptions and fake reviews. (Bitdefender HotforSecurity)

Another analysis from two days ago highlighted the Russian focus and the link to a domestic VPN provider. It warned that users who installed these tools to regain access to blocked services may have traded one form of control for another. (Cyber Press)

Chrome users now face a practical problem. How do you know the extension you picked is legitimate? Visual similarity proves easy to fake. Store ratings can be manufactured. Permissions requests for proxy settings sound reasonable for a VPN tool. Yet they grant sweeping power.

Security teams recommend immediate action. Check the list of installed extensions. Look for anything promising free VPN or proxy access that mimics known brands. Remove suspicious ones. Reset proxy settings to default. If credentials were entered on non-HTTPS sites while the extension ran, change those passwords.

The episode exposes deeper weaknesses in the Chrome Web Store review process. Post-approval code changes slipped through. Nearly identical extensions from multiple accounts evaded detection for months. Shared infrastructure linked them all. Yet the store approved hundreds before researchers connected the dots.

Enterprise security leaders have taken notice. Many already block unvetted extensions by policy. This case strengthens the argument for tighter controls. Browser traffic represents sensitive data. Routing it through unknown proxies creates unacceptable exposure.

The operator appears to run a dual business. One side offers paid VPN subscriptions inside Russia. The other harvests traffic and data from users who thought they were bypassing censors for free. The overlap suggests a calculated approach. Build trust with a familiar brand name. Deliver the proxy. Collect the traffic. Monetize both ways.

Socket published the full list of extension IDs. Security teams can scan against it. Google continues to remove detected copies. Yet new variants could appear. The tactics are straightforward. Copy a logo. Write promising text. Request proxy permissions. Update the code later. Repeat across dozens of accounts.

This isn’t the first time fake VPN extensions have surfaced. It stands out for scale and coordination. Over 700 extensions. Tens of thousands of users. One infrastructure. Clear financial motive. The combination makes it hard to dismiss as isolated scams.

Browser vendors face pressure to improve. Stronger static analysis during review. Better detection of post-publication changes. Limits on proxy-related permissions for unverified publishers. Users, meanwhile, must become more cautious. The convenience of a one-click extension carries hidden costs when the wrong party holds the keys.

Privacy-conscious professionals already favor dedicated VPN applications with audited no-logs policies and independent testing. Browser extensions served a niche. That niche just shrank. The risk of handing your entire browsing session to an unknown Russian proxy operator outweighs any minor convenience.

The discovery serves as a reminder. Trust in the Chrome Web Store is not absolute. Verify before you install. Check permissions carefully. And when something promises free access to blocked services while wearing a famous brand’s name, look twice. The real cost could be far higher than 99 roubles a month.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/SQ9dA5E

Impermanent Loss in Uniswap: Causes, Impact, and Risk Management Strategies

Liquidity providers in decentralized finance often encounter a phenomenon that can erode their expected returns even when the underlying assets maintain or increase in value. This concept, known as impermanent loss, represents one of the primary risks associated with supplying capital to automated market makers on platforms like Uniswap, SushiSwap, and PancakeSwap. Understanding how impermanent loss occurs helps participants make informed decisions about whether to commit their digital assets to liquidity pools.

The mechanism begins with the fundamental design of automated market makers. These protocols replace traditional order books with liquidity pools that contain pairs of tokens. When users trade against the pool, the ratio of the two assets shifts according to a mathematical formula, typically the constant product formula popularized by Uniswap where the product of the quantities of each token remains constant. As traders buy one token and sell the other, the pool automatically adjusts its reserves to reflect the new market price.

Consider a simplified example. Suppose you provide equal value of ETH and USDC to a pool when ETH trades at $2,000. You deposit 5 ETH and 10,000 USDC, creating a total position worth $20,000. The constant product formula maintains 5 times 10,000 equals 50,000. If the price of ETH rises to $4,000, arbitrage traders will purchase ETH from the pool until the internal price matches the external market. The pool will now contain approximately 3.54 ETH and 14,140 USDC while still satisfying the constant product equation.

Your share of the pool, assuming you own the entire liquidity, would now be worth roughly $28,280. However, if you had simply held the original 5 ETH and 10,000 USDC outside the pool, your position would now be valued at $30,000. The difference of $1,720 represents impermanent loss. The term “impermanent” refers to the fact that this loss only materializes if you withdraw your liquidity at the new price ratio. Should the price of ETH return to $2,000, the loss would disappear as the pool rebalances back to the original composition.

This example illustrates why impermanent loss carries particular significance for liquidity providers. The automated market maker effectively forces participants to sell the appreciating asset and buy the depreciating one as prices move. When volatility increases, the magnitude of impermanent loss grows accordingly. Research from Yahoo Finance highlights how this dynamic can transform what appears to be a profitable yield farming opportunity into a net loss position after accounting for price divergence.

Several factors influence the severity of impermanent loss. The degree of price divergence between the paired assets stands as the most significant variable. Pairs with highly correlated assets, such as stablecoin-stablecoin pools or wrapped versions of the same token, experience minimal impermanent loss because their prices tend to move in tandem. In contrast, pools containing volatile assets like ETH and a governance token can suffer substantial losses during market swings.

The curvature of the bonding curve also affects outcomes. The standard x*y=k formula creates a hyperbolic relationship that becomes increasingly steep as one asset dominates the pool. Newer protocols have introduced alternative curves designed to reduce slippage and potentially mitigate impermanent loss under certain conditions, though these modifications often introduce different tradeoffs regarding capital efficiency and trading fees.

Trading fees collected by the pool provide the primary counterbalance to impermanent loss. Liquidity providers earn a percentage of every transaction that occurs within their pool, typically ranging from 0.05% to 1% depending on the platform and pair volatility. When fee revenue exceeds the value lost to impermanent loss, providing liquidity generates positive returns. The breakeven point depends on trading volume, fee tier, and price volatility. High-volume pairs on major decentralized exchanges can generate sufficient fees to overcome moderate impermanent loss, while low-liquidity or infrequently traded pairs rarely compensate providers adequately.

Time horizon plays a substantial role in evaluating liquidity provision strategies. Short-term price movements tend to create temporary impermanent loss that may reverse as markets mean-revert. Longer holding periods increase the probability of permanent divergence between asset prices, particularly when pairing established cryptocurrencies with newer or more speculative tokens. Historical data shows that bitcoin and ethereum have experienced extended periods of price appreciation relative to stable assets, creating sustained impermanent loss for providers in BTC-USDC or ETH-USDC pools.

Position sizing and portfolio construction offer practical approaches to managing this risk. Rather than committing all capital to a single pool, experienced providers often distribute assets across multiple pairs with varying correlation profiles. Some maintain a portion of their holdings in single-sided staking or lending protocols that avoid impermanent loss entirely. Others employ sophisticated strategies such as liquidity provision within concentrated ranges, a feature popularized by Uniswap v3 that allows providers to specify price boundaries where their capital remains active.

Concentrated liquidity represents a meaningful evolution in how participants can address impermanent loss. By restricting capital to specific price ranges, providers can achieve higher capital efficiency and potentially higher fee yields. However, this approach introduces new risks including the possibility of assets becoming entirely inactive if prices move outside the chosen range. Active management becomes necessary to adjust ranges as market conditions change, transforming liquidity provision from a passive activity into one requiring regular attention.

Beyond individual position management, broader market conditions influence the attractiveness of liquidity provision. During bull markets characterized by strong upward price trends, impermanent loss tends to increase as one asset in each pair appreciates significantly against the other. Bear markets can produce similar effects in the opposite direction. Sideways markets with moderate volatility often prove most favorable for liquidity providers because trading activity remains healthy while extreme price divergence stays limited.

The taxation of impermanent loss adds another dimension to the calculation. In many jurisdictions, depositing assets into a liquidity pool constitutes a taxable event, as does withdrawing them. This creates potential tax liabilities even when the overall position has declined in value due to impermanent loss. The fees earned throughout the period are typically taxed as ordinary income, further complicating the net return profile. Professional liquidity providers often consult tax specialists familiar with cryptocurrency regulations to optimize their reporting and minimize unnecessary tax burdens.

Several tools and analytics platforms now help users quantify impermanent loss before committing capital. These services calculate historical impermanent loss for specific pairs, project potential future scenarios based on volatility assumptions, and compare expected fee revenue against projected losses. Such data empowers more precise decision-making rather than relying solely on advertised annual percentage yields that rarely account for impermanent loss.

Alternative automated market maker designs have emerged specifically to address impermanent loss concerns. Some protocols incorporate mechanisms that actively hedge against price divergence using options or futures. Others adjust the mathematical formulas governing pool rebalancing to reduce the rate at which assets are swapped during price movements. While these innovations show promise, many remain in experimental stages with limited liquidity or unproven long-term performance.

The decision to provide liquidity ultimately requires balancing multiple variables: expected trading volume, fee structure, asset correlation, personal risk tolerance, time commitment for management, and tax situation. No universal formula determines whether providing liquidity makes financial sense. Each participant must evaluate these factors against their specific circumstances and market outlook.

For those new to decentralized finance, beginning with smaller positions in well-established pools allows practical experience with impermanent loss before scaling exposure. Monitoring positions regularly and maintaining detailed records of entry prices, fee earnings, and current values helps develop intuition about how different market movements affect returns. Over time, patterns emerge that inform better pair selection and position sizing.

As decentralized exchanges continue maturing, the mechanisms surrounding liquidity provision will likely see further refinement. New mathematical models, improved user interfaces, and more sophisticated risk management tools may reduce the friction currently associated with impermanent loss. Until then, awareness and careful calculation remain the most effective tools for participants seeking to generate yield while protecting their capital from unexpected erosion.

The concept extends beyond pure financial considerations into the broader functioning of decentralized markets. Impermanent loss exists because liquidity providers bear the cost of providing continuous trading availability to the market. In traditional finance, market makers employ sophisticated hedging strategies and benefit from institutional advantages to manage inventory risk. Decentralized systems distribute this role across thousands of individual participants, each accepting a portion of the risk in exchange for a share of the fees.

This democratization of market making carries both advantages and challenges. On one hand, it creates permissionless access to yield-generating opportunities that were previously reserved for specialized trading firms. On the other, it exposes retail participants to risks they may not fully comprehend when first entering liquidity pools. Educational resources and transparent analytics have become essential components of the decentralized finance infrastructure to support informed participation.

Successful liquidity providers often develop comprehensive strategies that account for impermanent loss as one variable among many. They might combine liquidity provision with options strategies to hedge against large price movements. Some focus exclusively on stable asset pairs where impermanent loss remains negligible. Others specialize in particular sectors or token categories where they possess superior knowledge about likely price relationships.

The mathematics underlying impermanent loss follows a predictable curve that can be modeled with reasonable accuracy. For a standard constant product pool, the formula for impermanent loss can be expressed as a function of the price ratio change. If the external price moves by a factor of x, the value of the liquidity position relative to holding the assets equals 2√x / (1 + x). This equation produces a loss of approximately 5.7% when prices double or halve, 13.4% when prices triple or drop to one-third, and rapidly increasing losses as divergence grows larger.

These mathematical realities underscore why volatility represents a double-edged sword for liquidity providers. Higher volatility generates more trading activity and therefore more fees, but it simultaneously increases the magnitude of potential impermanent loss. Finding the optimal balance between these competing forces defines much of the strategic thinking in decentralized market making.

Platform incentives further complicate the analysis. Many decentralized exchanges distribute governance tokens or other rewards to liquidity providers to bootstrap trading volume. These additional incentives can temporarily offset impermanent loss, sometimes dramatically. However, such programs typically have finite durations, and participants must assess whether the core economics of the pool remain viable once incentive emissions decline.

The interaction between impermanent loss and opportunity cost deserves careful consideration. Capital committed to liquidity pools cannot simultaneously be deployed in other yield-generating activities or held in anticipation of better entry points. The true cost of providing liquidity includes not only potential losses from price divergence but also foregone gains from alternative strategies that might have performed better during the same period.

Despite these challenges, liquidity provision remains a cornerstone activity within decentralized finance. The fees generated by automated market makers support the economic model that allows these platforms to function without traditional intermediaries. As the sector continues developing, participants who master the nuances of impermanent loss position themselves to make more effective allocation decisions and potentially capture sustainable returns from their digital assets.

Understanding the mechanics, monitoring relevant metrics, maintaining disciplined position management, and regularly reassessing market conditions all contribute to more successful outcomes. While impermanent loss cannot be eliminated entirely from constant product automated market makers, informed participants can take steps to minimize its impact and maximize their probability of generating positive returns over time. The key lies in treating liquidity provision as an active investment strategy rather than a set-it-and-forget-it proposition, with impermanent loss representing one of several factors requiring ongoing attention.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/QvUr4Io