
The agricultural machinery company John Deere is paying $99m to settle a right-to-repair class action in the US. CC-licensed photo by Lutz Blohm on Flickr.
You can sign up to receive each day’s Start Up post by email. You’ll need to click a confirmation link, so no spam.
A selection of 9 links for you. Unearthed. I’m @charlesarthur on Twitter. On Threads: charles_arthur. On Mastodon: https://newsie.social/@charlesarthur. On Bluesky: @charlesarthur.bsky.social. Observations and links welcome.
OpenAI shelves Stargate UK in blow to Britain’s AI ambitions • The Guardian
Aisha Down and Alexandra Topping:
»
OpenAI has put on hold plans for a landmark UK investment citing high energy costs and regulation, in a blow to the government which has put AI at the centre of its growth strategy.
Stargate UK was a part of the UK-US AI deal announced last September, in which US companies appeared to commit £31bn to the UK’s tech sector, part of a larger series of investments intended to “mainline AI” into the British economy.
It came as the Labour government seeks to make AI and datacentres the engine of its growth plans, alongside closer ties with Europe and regional growth.
“This is a wake-up call for the government to manage energy costs in the UK and foundation infrastructure,” said Victoria Collins MP, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for science, innovation and technology. “We cannot be dependent on US tech companies to build our own sovereign capabilities – whether that’s energy cost, supply or even data and phone signal.”
The Labour MP Clive Lewis said: “When a government has no economic strategy worthy of the name and no real industrial vision, it becomes vulnerable. The Silicon Valley companies that flew into London knew exactly what they were dealing with: a prime minister and a technology secretary desperate to project momentum, willing to dress up press releases as policy.”
A Guardian investigation last month revealed many of the deals to “mainline AI into the veins” of the British economy were “phantom investments”, and a supercomputer scheduled to go live in 2026 was last month still a scaffolding yard in Essex. That supercomputer was to be built by Nscale, a UK firm that had never built a datacentre before but said it was aiming to deliver the project in 2027. Nscale was also to build key datacentres for Stargate UK.
The Stargate project was to support Britain in building out “sovereign compute” – infrastructure that would allow the government and other UK institutions to run AI models on datacentres in the country. That is, in theory, crucial to the security of British data.
Now, OpenAI has apparently put it on pause, saying it would wait for “the right conditions” to enable “long-term infrastructure investment”.
«
Not a real surprise; despite getting billions of dollars of investment, OpenAI’s profitability is about as accessible as the moon. So it’s going to cut back where it’s easiest to cut. Sora was just the first one; this is the next; there will be others over the next few months. The splurge on the podcast company was a few million, and that’s just everyday.
unique link to this extract
Oil industry pleads its Hormuz case with White House • POLITICO
Ben Lefebvre and Phelim Kine:
»
Oil company executives are reaching out to the White House, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance to protest allowing Iran to charge tolls through the strategic Strait of Hormuz as a condition of peace talks, said one industry consultant granted anonymity to discuss relations with the administration.
“Hell yes,” this person said when asked if executives were contacting the White House to protest a toll on Hormuz. ”We didn’t have to do that before — and I thought we won the war. Any place you have access to the administration, you ask, what are you guys thinking?”
The response administrative officials were giving industry representatives “is not a cold shoulder,” this person added. “It’s more like, ‘Yeah, OK, we’ll take note.’”
Oil industry representatives met with senior administration staff in the State Department on Wednesday morning to raise concerns, said one person who said they attended the meeting.
Among their points: conceding to Iran’s request would add $2.5m to each shipment in tolls and higher insurance rates, a cost that would be passed on to consumers. Giving Iran control of Hormuz could set precedent for countries like Singapore and Turkey to charge tolls on important trade routes on the straits of Malacca and Bosporus. And paying the toll could put companies in legal jeopardy for violating sanctions on Iranian officials.
Companies were also expressing their concerns directly with Trump, but more gently, added this person, who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.
“The president is extremely sensitive to the legacy and judgment on the success of this war so pushing the president right now is seen as a risky proposition,” this person said. “But the White House is hearing from the industry despite the gingerness of the conversations.”
«
The tolls/tariffs equate to a carbon tax of about $2.50 per ton – not very much in the grand scheme of things ($40 to $50 would be more useful). But it’s a start. The concern about other countries starting to charge similar tolls is very real, though. A few countries near narrow navigational spaces might find a sudden interest in exacting high charges for pilots of ships.
unique link to this extract
Banksy, Satoshi and the unmasking impulse • On my Om
Om Malik:
»
I am a big believer in accountability journalism. It unmasks wrongdoing. It exposes the powerful who hide behind institutions to avoid consequences. That’s a clear and defensible public interest. This is not accountability journalism, by any stretch of the imagination.
Banksy and Satoshi weren’t hiding wrongdoing. They were hiding themselves. In Banksy’s case, the anonymity IS the art. The whole point is that the work speaks without the person. The art appears without permission, without attribution, without a market position or a gallery or a brand to protect. That’s not incidental to its power. It is its power. The work on the wall speaks precisely because there is no face behind it available for interview.
With Satoshi, the anonymity IS the architecture. Bitcoin was designed to be leaderless. An identifiable founder is a vulnerability. Someone governments can pressure, someone courts can compel, someone bad actors can target. The anonymity wasn’t ego protection. It was architecture.
Unmasking either one isn’t just invasive. It is destructive to what they built.
«
And speaking of that “unmasking” of Satoshi…
unique link to this extract
Our quest not to solve bitcoin’s great mystery • FT Alphaville
Bryce Elder:
»
One morning in the spring of 2026, FT Alphaville was sitting in traffic on the A40 eastbound when, tired of starting posts in the normal way, we switched to a drop intro.
The post we needed to start was about the alleged unmasking of bitcoin’s pseudonymous inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto. Alphaville has long considered the question of Satoshi’s true identity to be one of the least important enigmas of our age, having poked at it before with some success.
Hearing once again that a media organisation was claiming to have doxxed the person who spawned a multi-hundred-dollar speculative reporting industry had aroused in us a mixture of weariness and weariness. Which fiftysomething male fringe academic would it be this time?
The Japanese one? The other Japanese one? The drug dealer? The dead one or the other dead one? The one with a beard, or the one without a beard, or the other one with a beard, or the other one without a beard? The liar? The other liar? Or maybe it was a hive mind of these and other fiftysomething male fringe academics, such as this one, or this one?
It was the one with the beard.
«
Stellar piece of fun by the Alphaville team, whose work is always free to read. It’s a very comprehensive debunking of the idea that Adam Back is Satoshi.
unique link to this extract
Scoop: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation • Axios
Dan Primack:
»
Meta on Thursday began removing advertisements from attorneys who were seeking clients that claim to have been harmed by social media while under the age of 18.
This comes just two weeks after Meta and YouTube were found negligent in a landmark California case about social media addiction. Lawyers across the country now are seeking new plaintiffs, in the hopes of bringing a class action lawsuit that could result in lucrative verdicts.
It’s unclear if any of them are being backed by private equity, as the California lawsuit appears to have been.
Axios has identified more than a dozen such ads that were deactivated today, some of which came from large national firms like Morgan & Morgan and Sokolove Law. Almost all of them ran on both Facebook and Instagram. Some also appeared on Threads and Messenger, plus Meta’s Audience Network — which distributes ads to thousands of third-party sites.
One such ad read: “Anxiety. Depression. Withdrawal. Self-harm. These aren’t just teenage phases — they’re symptoms linked to social media addiction in children. Platforms knew this and kept targeting kids anyway.” A few of the ads still remain active, including some that were posted earlier today.
Meta appears to be relying on part of its terms of service that say:
»
“We also can remove or restrict access to content, features, services, or information if we determine that doing so is reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate misuse of our services or adverse legal or regulatory impacts to Meta.”
«
«
That’s something of an admission after the lawsuits, though unfortunately – as the article points out – entirely within its ToS.
unique link to this extract
Do links hurt news publishers on Twitter? Our analysis suggests yes • Nieman Journalism Lab
Laura Hazard Owen:
»
Elon Musk has said as much: Links in tweets are bad for engagement. Over the last few days, sparked by a post from Nate Silver, people have started arguing again about the relationships between links and engagement. But our new analysis of thousands of tweets from 18 publishers makes it pretty clear: Links do seem to hurt news publishers on X/Twitter.
Back in 2016, the analytics company Parse.ly published a report: “Does Twitter matter for news sites?“
The report found that Twitter drove little traffic to most news sites, generating only around 1.5% of most publishers’ traffic. But, the authors wrote, “Twitter excels at both conversational and breaking news…Though Twitter may not be a huge overall source of traffic to news websites relative to Facebook and Google, it serves a unique place in the link economy. News really does ‘start’ on Twitter.”
…I used Claude to help me scrape the 200 most recent tweets from 18 large publishers’ X accounts and track the engagement (likes + comments + retweets) on each. Six of those publishers have paywalls: Bloomberg, CNN, Forbes, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. Nine don’t: Al Jazeera English, AP, BBC1, Breitbart News, CBS News, Daily Wire, Fox News, NBC News, and Reuters. The last three accounts I looked at — Leading Report, unusual_whales, and Globe Eye News — are not news publishers, but aggregate breaking news in tweets without links. (Here, for example, is an example of a Leading Report tweet: “BREAKING: Iran has halted direct talks with the US, per WSJ.” They’re sometimes referred to as engagement-maxing accounts.
These charts make it pretty clear that links in tweets hurt engagement. The connection was so apparent in my analysis that a graph including all 18 publishers is almost unreadable: The traditional, link-loving publishers are clustered in the bottom left corner (lots of links, little engagement) in a nearly indistinguishable mass of bubbles, no matter how large their followings are.
«
The ones who succeed in getting “engagement” – likes, reposts, comments and replies – are the ones which distil those news orgs’ content and put a slant on them, or “vaguepost” about them. That gets people worked up. The problem is that the algorithm thinks clicking on links isn’t engagement, and reduces the visibility of those accounts, even when they have millions of followers. The problem, therefore, is in how the algorithm measures “engagement”.
unique link to this extract
Movements need the critical thinking that AI destroys • Jacobin
Florian Maiwald:
»
The negative side effects accompanying the use of large language models (LLMs) are vividly illustrated by the phenomenon of “cognitive debt.” From an economic perspective, the short-term productivity gains achieved through the use of AI systems are difficult to dispute. By delegating numerous tasks previously performed by humans to AI, significant efficiency gains can be observed: workflows are accelerated, processes are rationalized, and organizational routines are overall made more efficient.
Yet the resilience and efficiency generated through delegation to AI systems could threaten a gradual loss of the cognitive capacities that are being outsourced to them. A recent MIT study that found significantly reduced brain activity among regular users of chatbots, for instance, provides some initial support for this worry.
While debates about the threat modern AI corporations pose to democracy tend to focus on the fact that data (and thus control over algorithms) are increasingly concentrated in the hands of major tech companies that largely avoid public oversight, another important question is surprisingly often pushed into the background. It is a question about the preconditions for people to be able to take part in democratic processes and emancipatory political projects.
The outsourcing of thinking is, of course, not a new phenomenon. It is the main theme, in fact, of Immanuel Kant’s classic 1784 essay, “What Is Enlightenment?” For Kant, the process of emancipation consists in freeing oneself from the “self-incurred immaturity” of letting others think for you and instead making use of one’s own powers of reasoning. He writes:
»
It is so convenient to be immature. If I have a book that has understanding for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who judges my diet for me, and so forth, then I need not trouble myself at all. I have no need to think if only I can pay; others will readily undertake the disagreeable business for me.
«
«
This makes me think that this complaint/debate has been going for a long time. The move from oral longform poetry such as The Iliad and Beowulf to writing it down, then printing it, then putting it on websites, then letting search engines find it for you, and now letting LLMs do some part of the work of analysing it – all of these seem to have been viewed as letting our brains slide back into the primordial ooze. If a problem is eternal, is it really because of the tools, or the toolmakers?
unique link to this extract
John Deere to pay $99m in monumental right-to-repair settlement • The Drive
Caleb Jacobs:
»
Farmers have been fighting John Deere for years over the right to repair their equipment, and this week, they finally reached a landmark settlement.
While the agricultural manufacturing giant pointed out in a statement that this is no admission of wrongdoing, it agreed to pay $99m into a fund for farms and individuals who participated in a class action lawsuit. Specifically, that money is available to those involved who paid John Deere’s authorized dealers for large equipment repairs from January 2018. This means that plaintiffs will recover somewhere between 26% and 53% of overcharge damages, according to one of the court documents—far beyond the typical amount, which lands between 5% and 15%.
The settlement also includes an agreement by Deere to provide “the digital tools required for the maintenance, diagnosis, and repair” of tractors, combines, and other machinery for 10 years. That part is crucial, as farmers previously resorted to hacking their own equipment’s software just to get it up and running again. John Deere signed a memorandum of understanding in 2023 that partially addressed those concerns, providing third parties with the technology to diagnose and repair, as long as its intellectual property was safeguarded. Monday’s settlement seems to represent a much stronger (and legally binding) step forward.
Ripple effects of this battle have been felt far beyond the sales floors at John Deere dealers, as the price of used equipment skyrocketed in response to the infamous service difficulties. Even when the cost of older tractors doubled, farmers reasoned that they were still worth it because repairs were simpler and downtime was minimized: $60,000 for a 40-year-old machine became the norm.
«
This is epochal: John Deere was notorious for years for locking down machines to prevent user repair, and farmers detest not being able to do things for themselves. The only surprise is it took this long.
unique link to this extract
The CIA “Ghost Murmur” story is probably bullshit • The After-Action Report
Seth Hettena:
»
I’m no expert in this field, but Quantum Insider, which tracks these developments, pointed to several studies that show the limits of this technology.
One study published this year on diamond quantum magnetometry, the same technology Ghost Murmur supposedly uses, required sensors placed 1 centimeter from the chest inside a magnetically shielded room and an average of up to 12,000 heartbeats to detect a signal.
“Averaging was necessary since magnetic field recordings did not reveal the MCG signal in the NV trace in real-time,” the study reported.
In plain English: The quantum sensor could not detect a heartbeat in real time in a shielded room at one centimetre.
A 2024 study detected the heartbeat of an anesthetized rat, a weaker signal than a human heart, using a sensor placed 5 millimeters from the animal’s chest, inside a magnetic shielding cylinder, after an hour of continuous data accumulation.
Ghost Murmur supposedly detected a single beating heart, in real time, from 40 miles [65km] away, over open desert, from a moving aircraft, in an environment saturated with competing signals from the Earth’s magnetic field, electronic devices, and other living creatures. Not likely.
Even the military’s own research agency says the technology isn’t ready. In August 2025, DARPA launched Robust Quantum Sensors to address the fact that quantum sensors remain “notoriously fragile in real-world environments” where “even minor vibrations or electromagnetic interference can degrade performance.” The program’s Phase 1 goal is modest: just keep a quantum sensor functioning during a helicopter flight. “That’s it. That’s it,” the program manager told contractors at a briefing. Ghost Murmur supposedly cleared that bar and detected a heartbeat from 40 miles away, eight months later.
Interesting Engineering pointed out that similar magnetic-sensing techniques have been used for submarine detection. But that isn’t the same challenge as detecting a heartbeat. A submarine is a massive steel object, and magnetic submarine detection works by sensing how thousands of tons of steel distort the Earth’s existing magnetic field. That’s a completely different problem from trying to detect a 25 picotesla heartbeat across miles of open desert.
The problem is the laws of physics.
«
Oh, those damn laws. Don’t worry, Trump ignores them. I did think it sounded far-fetched but this is more solid.
unique link to this extract
| • Why do social networks drive us a little mad? • Why does angry content seem to dominate what we see? • How much of a role do algorithms play in affecting what we see and do online? • What can we do about it? • Did Facebook have any inkling of what was coming in Myanmar in 2016? Read Social Warming, my latest book, and find answers – and more. |
Errata, corrigenda and ai no corrida: none notified








