Category: BUYSEMPERFI

“Law enforcement is moving a lot faster, but it is still not fast enough,” says Allan Liska, an analyst for the security firm Recorded Future who specializes in ransomware. “It takes awhile to build a case and in the meantime these groups wreak havoc.”

Part of law enforcement’s delay in actually attempting to take down Alphv’s infrastructure may have been ongoing investigation into the actors behind the group. Alphv/BlackCat seems to have evolved from a gang known as BlackMatter, which, in turn, seemed to emerge as a recombination of the notorious Darkside ransomware group that targeted Colonial Pipeline in the US.

“This isn’t their first shit show. Unfortunately, it probably won’t be their last either,” says Brett Callow, a threat analyst at antivirus company Emsisoft. “But Alphv’s partners in crime will be wondering what information law enforcement was able to collect and who does it implicate?”

The takedown effort involved collaboration and parallel investigations from multiple law enforcement agencies, including those in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Spain, and Denmark. And the US Justice Department said Tuesday that a decryptor tool for the Alphv ransomware that was developed by the FBI has already helped more than 500 victims recover from attacks and avoid paying roughly $68 million in ransoms.

As ransomware groups rely more on a hybrid model in which much of their leverage for extortion comes from the threat that they will leak data stolen from victims, decryptors are only one of many tools needed to help victims avoid paying ransoms. But if Alphv says it is opening the floodgates for customers to use its ransomware for attacks on vital services like hospitals and nuclear plants, the existence of the decryptor is significant in how dangerous and disruptive that activity might be.

“The statement about targeting critical infrastructure is pretty concerning. This will be an ongoing battle, for sure. Law enforcement will have to aggressively roll out the decryption keys and tools for victims,” says Alex Leslie, a threat intelligence analyst at Recorded Future. “And data extortion is still on the table. Generally speaking data extortion wouldn’t be as disruptive in terms of a national security crisis in the short term, but who knows.”

A search warrant released by the the FBI says that law enforcement got login credentials for the ransomware gang’s platforms from a “confidential human source” with access to the group. Though it was not immediately clear how Alphv had “un-seized” its site following the law enforcement action, researchers began to coalesce around some theories on Tuesday afternoon. Since both the cybercriminals and law enforcement had access to the login keys, it’s possible that multiple sites were registered to the same Tor address or Alphv was able to add another registration and then point the site to servers that law enforcement does not control. Emsisoft’s Callow also notes that while it seems unlikely, it is also possible that law enforcement posted the “un-seize” note as part of its operation.

The US Justice Department noted Tuesday morning that people with information about Alphv/Blackcat and its affiliates should come forward and may still be may be eligible for a reward through the US State Department.

Today, Meta’s Oversight Board released its first emergency decision about content moderation on Facebook, spurred by the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

The two cases center around two pieces of content posted on Facebook and Instagram: one depicting the aftermath of a strike on Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza and the other showing the kidnapping of an Israeli hostage, both of which the company had initially removed and then restored once the board took on the cases. The kidnapping video had been removed for violating Meta’s policy, created in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attacks, of not showing the faces of hostages, as well as the company’s long-standing policies around removing content related to “dangerous organizations and individuals.” The post from Al-Shifa Hospital was removed for violating the company’s policies around violent imagery.

In the rulings, the Oversight Board supported Meta’s decisions to reinstate both pieces of content, but took aim at some of the company’s other practices, particularly the automated systems it uses to find and remove content that violates its rules. To detect hateful content, or content that incites violence, social media platforms use “classifiers,” machine learning models that can flag or remove posts that violate their policies. These models make up a foundational component of many content moderation systems, particularly because there is too much content for a human being to make a decision about every single post.

“We as the board have recommended certain steps, including creating a crisis protocol center, in past decisions,” Michael McConnell, a cochair of the Oversight Board, told WIRED. “Automation is going to remain. But my hope would be to provide human intervention strategically at the points where mistakes are most often made by the automated systems, and [that] are of particular importance due to the heightened public interest and information surrounding the conflicts.”

Both videos were removed due to changes to these automated systems to make them more sensitive to any content coming out of Israel and Gaza that might violate Meta’s policies. This means that the systems were more likely to mistakenly remove content that should otherwise have remained up. And these decisions can have real-world implications.

“The [Oversight Board] believes that safety concerns do not justify erring on the side of removing graphic content that has the purpose of raising awareness about or condemning potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, or grave violations of human rights,” the Al-Shifa ruling notes. “Such restrictions can even obstruct information necessary for the safety of people on the ground in those conflicts.” Meta’s current policy is to retain content that may show war crimes or crimes against humanity for one year, though the board says that Meta is in the process of updating its documentation systems.

“We welcome the Oversight Board’s decision today on this case,” Meta wrote in a company blog post. “Both expression and safety are important to us and the people who use our services.”

So far, only nine centers across the US are currently offering Casgevy, which may limit who gets access to it. Vertex says the number of participating sites will grow in the coming weeks and months.

And despite the promise of a pain-free future, the grueling process of getting Casgevy may be a deterrent for some.

Collecting stem cells from the blood can take hours, and multiple sessions may be needed to get enough cells to edit. After that is a harsh conditioning regimen. Patients must undergo chemotherapy to kill any lingering diseased cells and make room in the bone marrow for the newly edited ones. Chemotherapy can cause mouth sores, fatigue, hair loss, nausea, and other unpleasant side effects. It can also result in infertility. Vertex also plans to offer fertility support to commercially insured patients, but the benefit won’t extend to Medicaid recipients. In the US, freezing eggs and sperm can cost thousands of dollars, not to mention the cost of IVF.

Patients also need to be hospitalized for weeks while the edited cells make their way to the bone marrow and start making new blood cells. Olaghere spent a total of 17 weeks in the hospital to get Casgevy.

“I know there are going to be many patients who don’t go down this road because of fertility issues and the need to be in the hospital for a while,” says Sharl Azar, medical director of the Comprehensive Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, one of the initial centers to offer Casgevy. For those that do, he says resources such as housing, childcare, and food will be needed to help patients and their families. Nichols, the Vertex spokesperson, says the company will assist with travel and lodging and may help cover certain expenses such as hotels, transportation, and meals.

Sickle Cell and Beyond

Sickle cell may be the first disease to be treated with Crispr, but it won’t be the last. Researchers are setting the gene-editing tool against cancer, HIV, and other genetic diseases. But it can’t yet address every ailment.

For one, getting the Crispr system to the cells or organs you want to edit is still a challenge. By taking cells out of the body and editing them in the lab, Casgevy avoids this issue. But the approach is expensive, complex, and has limited uses. Another method uses an IV infusion to deliver Crispr in tiny bubbles called lipid nanoparticles that are taken up by the liver. But only some diseases can be treated this way. Ideally, Crispr would be given as an injection or even as a pill instead of a complicated cell transplant.

Look for laminated layers: Most technical waterproof jackets are referred to as two- or three-layer jackets. These layers usually consist of a face fabric that has been treated with a waterproofing agent like durable water repellent, which is a thin mesh for releasing water vapor, plus a protective interior lining underneath. In general, for greater durability you’ll want to look for layers that have been laminated together, rather than merely coated with a waterproofing agent. That’s the advice of Amber Williams, the consumer science educator and lecturer from Utah State University.

Waterproof and breathability ratings: Manufacturers usually rate each fabric based on its waterproofing and breathability. For example, a rain jacket with a waterproof rating of 20,000 means that if you had an endlessly long 1-inch square tube, you could pour 20,000 millimeters of water on top of the fabric before it would start seeping through (that’s over 65 feet!). A 20,000 breathability rating means that 20,000 grams of water vapor can pass through the fabric going the other direction. While the higher breathability rating might seem better, you might want to think twice if you’ll be out in the cold. Body heat can escape a breathable jacket almost as easily as water vapor.

Fantastic fabrics: Gore-Tex remains the gold standard in terms of waterproofing performance. But every company is experimenting with new weaving techniques, PFC-free waterproofing technologies in particular. The North Face’s Futurelight is a spider-weight, waterproof, yet breathable fabric that allows designers to create garments with far fewer seams.

Check the seams and zippers: If you want your rain jacket to last longer than an amusement park poncho, look at the seams. Shoulders are particularly vulnerable points, as most outdoor sports require you to wear a backpack that can rub and damage them. “Design lines look really sexy, but over time, they’re not going to last as long,” Williams says. Other features to look for include plasticized, water-resistant zippers and protective zipper flaps. That’s why our rain jacket picks are so expensive—a lot of new fabric tech and a lot of design details!

Care for your jacket: You can vastly extend the life of your items by properly caring for them. Hang your jacket—don’t store it crammed in an abrasive, tiny stuff sack. If you see stains from grease, dirt, or sunscreen, or notice that water is no longer beading on the surface, you’ll need to wash it. Follow the manufacturer’s instructions. You may need a specialized detergent—many fabric detergents will leave residues that can interfere with DWR’s performance. Avoid fabric softener, bleaches, dry cleaning, and the dryer.

---

Special offer for Gear readers: Get a 1-year subscription to WIRED for $5 ($25 off). This includes unlimited access to WIRED.com and our print magazine (if you’d like). Subscriptions help fund the work we do every day.

Such is the fluidity of this interchange between electric and combustion that, after a time, you stop thinking of the car as being a hybrid at all, and settle to simply enjoy the visceral experience of the Revuelto—which, although hugely entertaining, is more refined than any previous Lamborghini. And not just in the powertrain. The suspension is also exceptionally judged, while the new eight-speed, twin-clutch gearbox is a huge step-up.

Under braking, the e-axle and rear e-motor contribute to the stopping power, so the friction brakes can recharge the battery more effectively. However, so good is the handover from regen to actual braking that I couldn’t tell where one ended and the other began. If anything, this is exemplary of the whole Revuelto—everything just works together so very well.

The interior is also a win, the best yet from the brand. The steering wheel layout is logical and ergonomic. The fit and finish have been thankfully taken up a notch or three. There are more storage spaces and phone holders. The three-screen dash allows you to swipe certain data over from the central display to the slender passenger one. And, the seats are comfortable enough for, whisper it, daily use. Overall, it’s very tidy.

Track-Bound Triumph

The Revuelto has changed my perception of Lamborghini. Behind the wheel, this car is not aggressive or brutish (despite its looks, which are typically macho), nor is it intimidating to drive. It inspires confidence—flatters you, even—and is outrageously entertaining.

While it’s clear that this super-hybrid will never be as emissions-friendly as the brand’s long-way-off all-electric model, it’s also obvious that the majority of Revueltos—which start at $608,358 in the US, where deliveries will take place beginning 2024—could find their natural home on the race track, waiting for wealthy owners to arrive for occasional days of spirited auto indulgence. This means a volume of lifetime miles equating to a tiny percentage of what the average family ICE or hybrid contributes to fossil fuel emissions each year.

But this conceit isn’t the point. For petrol heads, here is further proof of what electric innovation can do to improve ICE before the ban hits sales next decade. Maybe the Revuelto will convert a few more engine enthusiasts to full EV before then? It should.

Can a plug-in hybrid Lamborghini be a proper Lamborghini? Yes. Yes, it can. But it’s what the Revuelto promises for future Lamborghinis that’s far more electrifying.

You booked this doctor’s appointment weeks in advance. You took off work, endured the trip here, filled out paperwork while a cooking show blared from a TV on the wall, and now you’re finally in the inner sanctum, awkwardly perched on an exam table and staring at a jar of tongue depressors. Your doctor comes in, listens as you describe what’s been bothering you. She nods, a wrinkle of concern crossing her forehead. She asks a few follow-up questions. Then she says, “I’m going to prescribe you something that isn’t designed to treat these symptoms but may help you feel better. It’s a placebo.”

No doubt you’re confused. Placebos famously rely on deception: You, the patient, receive an inert substance that you believe to be active and are fooled into feeling better. The word placebo comes from the Latin placere, “to please” (as in “more to please than benefit the patient,” according to one 19th-century medical dictionary). How does your doctor expect you to be pleased, much less relieved of your symptoms, by a prescription for sugar pills? Is she a quack?

Fortunately, the answer is probably not. Many doctors—perhaps as many as 97 percent, according to a 2018 survey—prescribe placebos at some point in their careers. The American Medical Association green-lights placebo use as long as the patient is informed and consents; they need not be aware of when they’re getting a placebo, only that it may be among the treatments. (The Hippocratic oath says, “Do no harm” not “Tell the whole truth.”) A typical doctor might prescribe antibiotics even though the patient has a viral infection, or vitamin supplements even though there’s no deficiency. What’s different about your doctor is that she’s letting you in on the secret. She’s prescribing a so-called open-label placebo.

OLPs have become a source of fascination, and some consternation, in the medical community in recent years. They seem to work in some cases, but no one can explain why. A 2021 paper in Scientific Reports found that “OLPs appear to be a promising treatment in different conditions,” including menopausal hot flashes, seasonal allergies, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and major depression. Then again, a 2023 paper in the same journal concluded that “the overall quality of the evidence was rated low to very low.” As researchers work out what exactly OLPs are—silver bullets, codswallop, or something in between—it’s worth examining what their increasing appearance in research labs says about contemporary life. In a deepfake world where AIs masquerade as people, where marketing calls itself wellness, where politicians tell lies so brazen as to be self-debunking, and where you can be red-pilled, blue-pilled, black-pilled, and clear-pilled without ever being sure you’re seeing reality, there’s perhaps nothing so refreshing as a tiny step in the opposite direction: prescribing a pill of nothing and calling it out as such.

While the idea of the placebo response goes back as far as the ancient Greeks, the open-label placebo has a more recent history. In the summer of 1963, in a psychiatric clinic in Baltimore, a group of researchers set out to test the assumption that placebos required deception to work. They explained to a group of 15 “admitted neurotics” that some patients with similar conditions had found relief from a sugar pill, a “pill with no medicine in it at all.” Then they prescribed it to the patients.

The resulting study, published in 1965 in The Archives of General Psychiatry, has its limitations: The sample size was woefully small, and the study had no control group. (Not to mention the term “neurotic” was dropped by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1994.) Yet it makes for fascinating reading. Most patients reported an improvement in their symptoms. At least five wanted the treatment to continue. Some were convinced the placebo did contain an active ingredient, and one man speculated that doctors had deceived him to make him “think that he was helping himself.” Many patients who believed the truth—that the pills were inert—still attributed their improvement to them. One described the sugar pill as “a symbol or something of someone caring about you, thinking about you three or four times a day.”

These patients were intuiting a field of research that essentially had yet to be invented. In more rigorous clinical trials over the past few decades, researchers have floated a number of hypotheses for why OLPs work. Maybe it’s because doing something rather than nothing can make us feel better. (Psychologists call this “action bias.”) Maybe it’s because people living in well-off countries with huge industrial-pharmaceutical complexes have been conditioned to expect the pills their doctors give them to work. Maybe the act of taking an OLP—twisting off the bottle cap, swallowing the pill—triggers some biomedically useful pathways, just as bloodcurdling movies can curdle (or coagulate) the blood even though the viewer knows everything in the film is fake. Or maybe the OLP begins to take effect before it’s even ingested, during the set of rituals, the enveloping theater, of the “therapeutic encounter.” Most clinical trials involving OLPs begin with a conversation between researcher and patient that lasts 15 to 20 minutes, about the length of a typical doctor’s visit in the US. The researcher’s bedside manner is crucial, one 2017 paper says; they are to be “warm, empathic, natural, and truthful about the design and methods of the study with all patients.” Maybe we start to feel better when someone listens to us, shows respect for our views, and makes common cause with us against our ailments.

You might think that having a positive attitude about the nothing-pill is what transforms it into a something-pill. Perhaps OLPs are a sort of meta-placebo, a testament to how much we believe in our power of belief. But the real driving impulse for many patients who enroll in clinical trials isn’t positive expectation. It seems to be a more uncertain emotion: hope. As the 2017 study puts it, “Hope is a paradoxical combination of opposites, balancing despair and the counterfactual notion that things can improve—a kind of ‘tragic optimism.’” A patient who has suffered for years from some condition, taken drugs, undergone procedures, and gotten no relief may think: A sugar pill probably won’t help, but what the heck, let’s see what happens. As a 2016 paper in the journal Pain puts it, “Engendering hope when participants feel hopeless about their condition can be therapeutic.”

Geoff Keighley had a lot to talk about. Onstage at this year’s Game Awards, the host, who is also the event’s creator and producer, took an in-person and online audience through hours of trailers, announcements, celebrity appearances, and awards. His event has become, almost by default, the biggest show in gaming. By the time the lights went down and game-makers ambled their way to the bars of Los Angeles to celebrate, there was one thing many in the gaming community had wanted to hear Keighley say. On that point, though, he stayed silent.

Many knew he would. Still, beginning November 24, dozens of participants in The Game Awards’ emerging talent initiative, Future Class, had signed an open letter, addressed to Keighley, Future Class director Emily Bouchoc, and the event’s planning team, asking them to show support for Palestinian human rights and call for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war. The Future Class represents a group of young developers that Game Awards organizers believe will lead the industry forward.

To some Future Class members, the open letter meant calling out an industry that they believe “systematically produces works that dehumanize and vilify Muslims, Arabs, and the many brown and Black people living in the regions of South-West Asia and Northern Africa.” Signatories of the open letter also asked for a statement to be read at the awards on their behalf, and for the industry to invest resources into games that don’t further those discriminatory narratives. When Keighley didn’t make such a statement, it widened a rift in the industry, one that runs along the line of what the video game business is and what it could be.

To date, more than 3,000 people have signed the letter, though not everyone within Future Class has put their name on it. “I do not support this letter that perpetuates misinformation, one-sidedness, and an irresponsible conflation of the war in Israel/Gaza with xenophobia and misrepresentation of Muslims, Arabs, and brown people in video games,” tweeted developer Amiad Fredman. In an email to WIRED, Fredman said he “felt compelled to stand up for the victims of Israel.” Those who have signed say organizers from The Game Awards did not respond or acknowledge the letter in the weeks that followed its circulation, or in the days after the event.

That silence has some Future Class members questioning the program’s mission and its dedication to diverse creators. The initiative began in 2020 as a recognition of individuals across the industry “who represent the bright, bold, and inclusive future of video games,” but some members now say they believe the Future Class is something of an empty gesture, a way to draw in sponsorships. For example, one video shown at this year’s awards show highlighting a new Future Class member was presented by Old Spice.

“Do [The Game Awards organizers] actually care about the needs of marginalized game devs, or are they simply using us as diversity tokens for their promo shoot?” says game developer Younès Rabii, who organized the open letter. “To this day, it’s still very unclear for me.”

If you wanted to buy your loved ones the latest Apple Watch for the holidays, you should try to do it before December 21.

Apple has announced that it will pause sales of its two newest Apple Watch models, the Series 9 and Watch Ultra 2, pending an expected ban by the US International Trade Commission. The federal agency is considering a ban because of a dispute over a patent for the technology Apple uses in the blood-oxygen sensor used in the newest Watch models.

9to5Mac reports that sales will pause on Apple.com starting at 3 pm EST on December 21 and in-store inventory will no longer be available at retail locations starting on December 24. The ITC’s ban would only affect Apple, so the watches will continue to continue to sell on retailers like Amazon and Best Buy for the time being. The proposed ban also only concerns the import of watches into the United States, so both watches will continue to be available in other countries.

The suspension follows a long-running dispute with the medical tech company Masimo. As Engadget reports, Masimo sued Apple in 2021. The company alleged that Apple had infringed on one of its patents, related to light-based blood oxygen monitoring. A judge ruled that Apple had infringed on the patents, and the ITC upheld that ruling in October. The decision then went to a 60-day Presidential Review Period, which expires on December 25. Apple is taking steps preemptively to comply.

Apple has several options for getting its wearables back on the market. The company will lodge an appeal in Federal court. It can also reach a settlement with Masimo by deactivating the blood oxygen sensing features. More information about future plans for the Watch 9 and Ultra 2 should be available after the review period expires on December 25.

Many smartwatches look alike and have similar features, so it’s rare for a company to successfully block the sales of a competitor by claiming patent infringement. In 2016, Fitbit attempted to block the import of Jawbone products in a patent case, but dropped its suit after realizing that … well, Jawbone doesn’t sell that many fitness trackers anyway. To see this happen to a Goliath company like Apple—the maker of the best-selling watches in the world seeing its two latest products pulled in the week before Christmas—is truly a feat.

The ruling does not affect the Watch SE, as that watch has no blood-tracking sensors. Apple’s affordable entry level option is our best overall pick in our guide to the Best Apple Watches. The ban also does not affect any watch before the Series 9. Apple introduced the blood-monitoring features in the Watch Series 6 in 2020, and the Series 7 and Series 8 will still be available.

Coincidentally, Masimo also announced that its own health-tracking smartwatch, the Masimo W1, has just received FDA clearance.

When Spike Jonze’s Her came out in 2013, the film about a lonely man falling for an artificially intelligent operating system won widespread praise. Watching today, the qualities critics celebrated at the time are still there—it’s a gentle, enjoyably melancholy story, twee but not damnably so—but something else stands out. Though set in the near-future, Her captures Obama-era techno-optimism better than any other movie. It’s a time capsule, preserving dreams about the future that appear more naive the further we get from the 2010s.

Her takes place in a highly-stylized version of Los Angeles from a future near enough that its protagonist is a former LA Weekly journalist but distant enough that the skyline rivals Shanghai. In the film’s universe, the creation of the world’s first artificially intelligent operating system—a consumer software capable of learning and thinking like a human—is a recent, exciting development. Shortly after Her begins, the painfully lonesome and powerfully mustachioed writer Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) buys one of these new operating systems. Voiced by Scarlett Johannson, the OS names itself “Samantha,” and quickly becomes the most important companion in Theodore’s life. He soon starts calling her his girlfriend.

Although the phrase “artificial general intelligence” isn’t used in the movie, Samantha’s description of her capabilities sounds like AGI. “I have intuition,” she explains. “What makes me me is my ability to grow through my experiences.”

Watching Her today, as AI advances dominate conversations in tech, it’s interesting to see the warm-and-fuzzy approach to the rise of AGI companions. There’s no hint of a heel turn from Samantha. Near the end of the film, Theodore is distraught when she reveals that he’s not her only boyfriend—she has over 600 other romantic partners—but her polyamory is portrayed as evidence that she and Theodore are not compatible rather than something sinister on her part. She’s portrayed as inherently good, a sensitive and kind being with no ill will toward the humans who created her.

While Theodore’s ex-wife Catherine (Rooney Mara) dismisses his relationship with an OS as a sign of emotional immaturity, most of the people in Theodore’s life accept it fairly easily. He goes on a double-date with his co-worker and his co-worker’s human girlfriend without any fuss or embarrassment, and he hears stories about other people dating operating systems as well. The dynamic is quickly normalized, which seems even more plausible now, as people across the world are starting to “socialize” with character AIs with increasing frequency. The AI girlfriend experience isn’t sci-fi anymore. It’s just something lonely people do.

The sweetness of the human-robot relationship portrayed by Her comes across as quaint right now. But really, the most remarkable, startling aspect of rewatching Her a decade after its release has nothing to do with the AI romance. The thing that makes it really look like a fairy tale when viewed in 2023 isn’t that Samantha is benign. It’s that Samantha exists in a world where a non-famous working writer has a luxurious lifestyle. The quality of life in this future world is the most preposterous thing about it.