News
- The FDA has approved the Libre Duo 10 Day CGM wearable
- It can continuously measure both ketones and blood sugar levels
- It’s worn by diabetics as a continuous glucose monitor (CGM)
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first wearable device capable of simultaneously monitoring both ketone and bloody sugar levels, which the organization says is “a breakthrough for the safety of children and adults living with diabetes".
The device in question is the Libre Duo 10 Day monitor. Worn on your arm as a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), it provides minute-by-minute glucose updates that are sent to your smartphone. It also monitors ketone levels and sends you an alert if they rise above a certain threshold.
In terms of who can use it, the Libre Duo 10 Day wearable has been approved for use by people aged two or over who are living with diabetes. It takes the form of a small wearable sensor that measures glucose and ketone levels held within the fluids under your skin.
Made by Abbott Diabetes Care, there are few other specific details about the device for the time being, but the potential is huge.
Simplifying the process(Image credit: Abbott Diabetes Care)In approving the Libre Duo 10 Day, the FDA’s intention is to help prevent diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). This condition occurs when your body starts using fat instead of glucose for energy, which in turn leads to it producing too much ketone. DKA can become a life-threatening medical emergency if left untreated.
One of the benefits of the Libre Duo 10 Day is that it can track ketone levels in real time. Rather than using a standalone test kit that only provides a snapshot of your situation in that exact moment, the Libre wearable can display trends over time, notifying you if your ketone levels are rising or falling — which could help keep you better informed of whether your risk of DKA is changing.
The fact that it combines ketone monitoring with blood sugar analysis also means you don’t need two separate devices in order to stay on top of your diabetes. Having a single wearable helps keep things straightforward.
We don’t know when the Libre Duo 10 Day will become available, and its manufacturer’s website simply says it is “coming soon.” When it does arrive, it might help simplify the process of ketone and blood sugar monitoring for the 2.1 million Americans with type 1 diabetes for whom DKA is a real threat.
- ShinyHunters adds CyrusOne to its victim list, demanding $13m ransom
- Claimed theft includes 12.9 million Salesforce records, 600GB SharePoint data, PII, contracts, and facility diagrams
- Breach could enable physical intrusions and supply‑chain attacks; CyrusOne has not commented or paid
The infamous ShinyHunters ransomware crew has added CyrusOne, a major US data center operator, to its list of victims, claiming to have stolen a treasure trove of highly sensitive data which, if proven true, could turn this into a bonafide catastrophe for the company and its customers.
Overall, ShinyHunters claims to have exfiltrated 12.9 million Salesforce records, more than 182,000 rows from the Salesforce Contacts object, more than 600 GB of SharePoint data, more than 8,300 employee records containing personally identifiable information (PII), executed contracts, master service agreements, NDAs, and service agreements, data center floor plans, electrical diagrams, access-control records and badge audits, physical key inventories, security policies, critical Environment Reliability Management documentation, and various passwords and credential artifacts.
No samples have been posted just yet, but researchers don’t see it as suspicious, but rather as a pressure tactic.
What makes this attack differentIn exchange for deleting all of the stolen data, ShinyHunters is demanding $13 million from CyrusOne which, at this time, is not commenting on the claims, and is seemingly not interested in negotiations.
“They are refusing to pay a $13 million demand. They have 24 hours left to engage with us. We hold 12.9 million Salesforce records,” the attackers allegedly wrote.
Ransomware groups steal sensitive corporate data all the time, but this incident has the potential to be among the most devastating data breaches ever. Some of the secrets that were nabbed cannot simply be changed: data center floor plans, electrical diagrams, access-control records, badge audits, physical key inventories, this kind of intelligence can be used for physical breaches.
If criminals know how keys are assigned, how the data center is organized, where surveillance cameras are located, and how guards operate, it makes it easier to physically break it.
“You can’t patch a building,” the researchers warned, noting that some of the things that can be changed, such as physical keys and access zones, still take months and “real money”, they added, hinting at just how big the problem could be.
CyrusOne runs some 50 facilities all across the United States and serves hundreds of companies and corporations. Some of its clients include Fortune 1000 companies, as well as big tech names such as Microsoft, Meta, Verizon, AT&T, IBM, and CME Group.
Compounding the problem even further is the fact that ShinyHunters stole information about CyrusOne’s customers, such as Meta, or Microsoft. Information about the locations of certain customers, the services they’re paying for, the NDAs, service-level agreements, and contact information, can all be used for highly tailored, sophisticated phishing attacks that could turn this incident into an unprecedented third-party supply-chain attack.
“Contracts, MSAs, and NDAs identify the tenants as a customer list overlaid on a building map, with pricing and SLAs attached,” the researchers added.
No reactionTo add insult to injury, ShinyHunters also seems to have stolen information about the company’s power, cooling, and critical-environment reliability processes, which they could leverage to physically attack the servers, causing disruptions, outages, and possibly fires.
The group first added CyrusOne to their site on August 20 2026, although at that moment, the name of the victim was redacted, the researchers said. Instead, ShinyHunters posted a warning, saying “Final warning - pay or leak”. The company was given until August 24 to reach out which, it would seem, did not happen.
Three days later, on August 23, ShinyHunters publicly named CyrusOne as their victim, and stated that they demanded $13 million for the files. We are now well past the deadline, and nothing’s changed - the victim hasn’t spoken out, and ShinyHunters did not leak the files.
Via Cybernews
- Researcher registers Linux machine as a trusted device on Apple's Find My network and pulled live people-tracking data that Apple normally reserves for its own hardware
- The work is not a mass-surveillance exploit: it is limited in scope and only reads a location share that a friend had already agreed to, and it cannot silently locate arbitrary Apple users
- The approach took less than a week of protocol reverse engineering, and Apple has maintained silence on queries about the technique employed
Apple keeps the full Find My experience locked to its own devices, but a recent attempt by security researchers suggests that wall may be a relatively weak barrier to entry.
A 22-year-old security researcher who goes by "Zerotistic" documented how they registered an ordinary Linux machine as a trusted node on Apple's network and used its new status to receive live people-location data that Apple otherwise shares only with its own devices, such as iPhones and iPads.
Find My, Apple's catch-all tool for locating hardware such as AirTags, iPhones, and iPads, also lets people share their whereabouts with family and friends, and while Apple has historically guarded this particular feature very closely, it is also the same one the security researcher targeted to introduce a device that Apple does not otherwise have complete control over as part of its ecosystem.
An interesting trick that still requires consent to get the job doneThe task is not an easy one to begin with: convincing Apple's back end that a Linux process was a legitimate Apple device that was part of its ecosystem and therefore could be trusted with information shared via the Find My platform required a lot of trial and error to get going.
It is important to clarify here that Apple's system is not exactly compromised here; the approach still requires a friend to share data that the Linux client that the security researcher built can then read.
Apple currently sends people-location data over its private Push Notification service only after it trusts that the receiving machine belongs to the account and can handle the data. This means the Linux machine would have to speak Apple's private language to query its servers and process the information it received.
It involved obtaining an Apple Identity Services (IDS) certificate, a specialized device and messaging credential Apple's internal framework uses to link an Apple Account to specific hardware, end-to-end encryption keys, and push notification tokens. This meant crafting a certificate signing request and sending it to a legacy Apple enrollment endpoint.
Once done, a Linux box with a signed certificate could sign its own requests and register as a Find My device, but it still had to subscribe to six different subservices to function. The registration request also had to be signed using an IDS certificate and an APNs certificate obtained during initial network setup.
The researcher then issued a SubscribeAndFetch request that provided an encrypted location key from his friend's Apple device to the Linux box, masquerading as one.
What might concern Apple is how fast things moved: the whole pipeline came together in a week. It also didn't require a jailbreak, a leaked key, or even a Mac to do the job. Instead, open-source clients and decompiled daemons were the norm, with a trial-and-error approach that eventually paid off.
The technique has its limitations: attacks can not target a stranger, and consent is required to track even one's friends. It shows that Apple's boundary around Find My stems from an obscure protocol it enforces rather than a cryptographic lock; once a device acts like it is from Apple, the ecosystem treats it as a family member rather than an untrusted node.
Apple has yet to respond to media queries about whether it plans to address the demonstrated trick or patch the loop in the near future.
- A new leak sheds fresh light on the Samsung Galaxy Aero smartwatch
- The device might ditch Wear OS and use the RTOS operating system instead
- It could fix some of the mistakes of the Samsung Galaxy Watch FE
It’s safe to say that we weren’t huge fans of the Samsung Galaxy Watch FE, with our reviewer scoring it a measly two stars and branding it “one of the most confusing smartwatches I’ve ever tested.” Yet despite the disappointment, a new leak suggests that Samsung is going to take another stab at the entry-level smartwatch market — but the result might look very different.
The latest hints come from Gadgets & Wearables, which investigated the Samsung Health and Galaxy Wearable apps to uncover hints of what might be to come. And according to the news outlet, the forthcoming device could take the form of a new Samsung watch dubbed the Galaxy Aero.
What’s interesting about this product is that, unlike many of the best Samsung watches, it might not run on Google’s Wear OS. Previous reporting from SamMobile found hints pointing towards the use of RTOS, or ‘real-time operating system,’ as Samsung software contained references to ‘Galaxy Aero’ and ‘galaxy_rtos_watch.’ The implication here is that these devices were the same product.
RTOS is the platform that Samsung’s Galaxy Fit devices run on and is a far more lightweight system than Wear OS. If RTOS ends up powering the Galaxy Aero, it would suggest that the product will be at the lower end of Samsung’s wearable spectrum.
Further investigation from Gadgets & Wearables suggests that several Samsung apps and services have the capability of handling RTOS and devices that use it. And it’s that capability that supposedly opening the door for the Galaxy Aero.
Righting the wrongs of the past(Image credit: Future)One of our main criticisms of the Samsung Galaxy Watch FE was that it was strangely positioned — at the time, it offered worse performance than the Samsung Galaxy Watch 6, despite being available to buy for the same price or more. With the Galaxy Aero, that uncomfortable quirk might be remedied.
That’s because SamMobile suggests it could be priced below the Watch FE, making it a more sensible proposition for a low-cost smartwatch. If true, that could make it much less of a tough sell.
And there’s another consideration. By using RTOS instead of Wear OS, Samsung could conceivably cut down on battery usage, solving another major problem with the Watch FE. It would mean making some compromises, with limited support for the Google Play Store and third-party apps both possible. But if Samsung can keep the cost down, it’s likely that many users won’t mind.
If Samsung makes that move, it would join rivals like Amazfit and Huawei in launching an affordable fitness tracker that doesn’t rely on Wear OS. Whether it can right the wrongs of the Galaxy Watch FE, however, remains to be seen.
- OpenAI says it has disrupted a social media influence campaign that is believed to be of Russian origin
- What makes this campaign stand out is the underlying architecture, which features a "think tank" with highly questionable credibility
- The objective of the campaign was to influence Western audiences into believing Russia was superior, and that Western countries were sacrificing their sovereignty
AI tools have once again been used for bad, rather than for good, and this time it has been as part of a campaign attributed to Russia that tried to discredit Western countries supportive of Ukraine.
The threat actors used ChatGPT accounts to promote the work of an “expert community” of academics known as the International Burke Institute (IBI). The site used stolen academic works attributed to the wrong authors in an attempt to appear legitimate while also hiding the true source of its academic ‘contributions’.
The IBI was registered to an address in Israel - with some evidence suggesting real individuals in Israel represented and promoted the page - but the main purpose of the misinformation campaign was to paint Russia in a favourable light compared to its Western adversaries.
International Burke Institute, or an institute run by international berks?In its report on the campaign OpenAI points out that those behind the ChatGPT accounts used to promote the page took careful steps to hide their Russian origins. Many of the prompts included instructions to hide any linguistic clues that the operators used Russian language prompting.
One inclusion on the IBI website referred to Germany’s traffic light coalition as the “Svetofor coalition”. Svetofor is the word for ‘traffic light’ in numerous Slavic languages, including Russian, indicating that drafts were written in Slavic languages before being translated.
Some of the accounts were used to promote the IBI across X, LinkedIn, Facebook, Substack and Telegram with AI generated imagery and captions, with other accounts being used to automatically engage with comments by real users on Substack. The operators of the ChatGPT accounts regularly requested performance summaries of these pages in Russian, and used ChatGPT to generate matching profile pictures for some accounts.
Burke Sovereignty IndexOne of the features of the IBI website is to advertise the ‘Burke Sovereignty Index’ - designed to measure how well a country performs compared to others across political, economic, technological, informational, cultural, cognitive and military factors.
The Index’s purpose is to make Western countries appear worse than Russia, OpenAI says. Having taken a look at the Index myself it's clear there is no consistency in measurement or comparison. For example, The Vatican City - which is less than half a square kilometer in size - sits above Spain in its average of scores. The Index also gave Russia the highest military score.
Questionable expert contributorsThe website also includes a list of experts, whose affiliation to the IBI is not referenced. Some among them are pioneers in their fields of study, such as Francis Fukuyama and Noam Chomsky.
Others are former high-ranking members of the US government, such as Mike Pompeo and Joseph Nye. There are even listings for experts who passed away before the IBI was founded, such as Shlomo Avineri and Jiang Ping.
Much of the academic work cited on the IBI website is legitimate, but more often than not has been stolen from its actual author and misattributed to a different author to hide the work’s actual source, OpenAI said. This has been done to give the IBI website credibility and to make it appear authentic.
Impact of the IBI influence campaignThe overall impact of the IBI and its promotion using social media and ChatGPT is fairly limited, OpenAI noted. Some of the Telegram channels garnered followings between ten to twenty thousand showing a limited breakout to authentic audiences.
But the main thing to take away from this is the level of dedication placed behind the underlying infrastructure of the IBI. The site is designed to look authentic, uses authentic research (even if it is wrongly attributed), and presents itself as a collection of experts. To the layman, a cursory glance at the IBI website would give any of their social media presence a level of authenticity not seen in other social influence campaigns.
A lot has already been said about the doom and gloom surrounding AI - some of it drawing on the warnings of classic dystopian novels, but much of it grounded in reality. There is a lot of optimism and promises from those in control of the technology, but not much has emerged in the form of actual benefit.
“I think by far the most accurate criticism of AI companies including Anthropic is that we haven’t yet delivered on our big promises to benefit the world,” Anthropic CEO and co-founder Dario Amodei has said in a post on X.
The technology is suffering from a “crisis of trust” that stems from people’s belief that companies and governments are “cooking up some new way to screw them over,” he argues. But given how much of the US military, law enforcement, and intelligence gathering infrastructure now relies on AI, are the people wrong?
AI can’t public relations its way out of this oneAs AI technology took off, much of the benefit of the technology was aimed at convincing executives and C-suites that the technology - while unproven - was a worthwhile investment. As a result, multiple AI leaders positioned the technology as a way to strip away the labor costs of companies by replacing workers with AI.
Some AI gurus are still arguing these points behind closed doors. I attended a private event this year where an AI "guru" predicted that AI superintelligence would erase as much as 50% of the global workforce within 10 years, and the companies best positioned to take advantage of this cataclysmic event would reap unimaginable control and riches. This was naturally met by applause from the upper echelons of management from companies in attendance.
Amodei himself famously said that AI could wipe out 50% of white collar jobs. But he has since restructured this message, saying instead that AI is a ‘multiplier of output’ - or corporate word salad for ‘increasing productivity without having to increase compensation’.
As I have said numerous times, the proof of AI really is in the pudding. We’ve heard everything that it could do, but seen little benefit in what it can do. To his point, Amodei acknowledges that.
He notes that if an advert went up saying that AI could cure cancer, it would be perceived as entirely misleading. “The thing that will work is actually curing cancer,” he says.
Amodei has teased Anthropic’s morality on these issues, saying that the company is “ramping up its efforts” to focus on using AI for biology and medicine. But again, we’re yet to see the results.
Amodei’s post also touched on where AI is centralizing power, echoing some of Mark Zuckerberg’s recent rant on how best to use AI for everyone’s benefit. Amodei’s argument differed slightly from Zuckerberg’s, arguing that there is a balance to be struck between regulation, oversight, testing, and open-weight models.
He notes that in some aspects he agrees with the “Pacing the Frontier” movement, stating that implementing controls on the frontier labs would “modulate” the pace of the technology while simultaneously allowing the rest of the industry to catch up.
The obvious flaw in this plan is that no other nation would be subject to this regulation which could deliberately hamstring US hegemony in the AI industry - something the Trump administration has frequently said it will not allow to happen.
Is AI delivering more benefits to authoritarian infrastructure than to people?Where AI systems have been deployed extensively is in surveillance infrastructure. Until the collapse of its relationship with the Pentagon, Anthropic was working with the Department of Defense to procure AI systems. Anthropic refused to cooperate in allowing its technology to be used for mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons, and lost the contract.
Luckily for the DoD, OpenAI shook hands on a new deal with the Pentagon and immediately filled the shoes left by Anthropic with a prohibition on its technology being used to spy on Americans.
That doesn’t mean other companies are abiding by the same level of ethics. Flock has faced a widespread guerrilla movement targeting its AI-powered cameras designed to track vehicle number plates across the US.
The system is intended to flag suspect’s cars as they travel across boundaries and lines of authority, but has instead seen success as a way for members of law enforcement to stalk exes, monitor colleagues, and track their love interests.
AI systems are also being deployed in traffic monitoring and speeding cameras. This in particular has received a lot of attention as a grey area of policing, especially for systems that misidentify numberplates or are wrongly configured.
For criminal cases in the US, the burden of proof rests with the government to prove someone committed a crime. However, some autonomous ticketing systems that have issued citations to the wrong vehicles have been criticized for requiring those accused to prove their innocence in court, flipping the burden of proof for criminal cases on its head.
And then there is the elephant in the room.
Palantir’s AI technology is deployed across the US military and law enforcement. Most notably, it has been used by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to track those suspected of illegal immigration - but Palantir’s technology is also used in drone imagery analysis, long-range precision strikes, and military data analysis and planning.
No doubt it has been instrumental in delivering the World Record for the most times a single war has been won.
AI is great news if you have nothing to hide and love being on the side of the Good Guys™, but that's a constantly shifting definition.
Last week the massive lawsuit against Meta, alleging that its products were designed to addict teens and may have caused them mental harm, went to court. Backed by dozens of US States, the potential $1.4 trillion price tag — if Meta lost — would have been enough to bankrupt the company.
That case is now, suddenly, over. Settled for the princely sum of $18 billion and promised fundamental changes in how Meta's major products, namely Instagram and Facebook, operate when used by anyone under 18. I'll get to the proposed changes below (which Meta would like to see YouTube and TikTok adopt, too), but first let's talk about the stunning turn of events.
We were in week two of the big trial, and honestly, we were just getting to the good part. After the states initially presented their case and made it clear they believed Meta knew its products might be harming teens and wasn't doing anything about it, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri took the stand and was peppered with questions about the platform's current controls, like its prompts imploring teens to "take a break." The focus was so intense that the normally polished Mosseri appeared "annoyed." He also admitted that there are "no silver bullets" for safety.
On Wednesday (August 26), we were, it appeared, only hours away from the big show: Meta Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg taking the stand. I expected the prosecution to press him hard to see if they could trigger a slip-up or some reaction from the normally unflappable Zuckerberg.
Now, that moment will never come. Without admitting any wrongdoing or fault, Meta has closed the potentially business-killing or at least hobbling case.
Here's a look, though, at what Meta has agreed to in the settlement[PDF]. On the surface, it will sound like a lot. In fact, the changes are so sweeping that some on social media wondered if they could or should be applied to everyone on the platform.
- Time limits (2 hours)
- Mandatory pauses after 15 minutes of scrolling
- Overnight usage blocks
- No nighttime notifications
- No use during school hours
- No visible likes
- No cosmetic filters
- No algorithmically organized feed (if they choose)
- Age verification
- Better harmful content reporting
- Better parental controls
There are caveats: the two-hour time limit applies across Instagram and Facebook, though how much time does a kid under 18 spend on Facebook?
Likes removal includes any information that could lead to social comparison — essentially a FOMO filter.
Some of the changes, like age verification, parental controls, and content safeguards, represent strengthening and broadening of existing controls.
Meta has rolled out a whole suite of parental controls, especially on Instagram, in the last two years, but as Mosseri noted, not everything is working.
When I posted the above list on social media, one savvy reader made a salient point.
On Bluesky, Paul Dempsey posted:
Sadly, that needs at least these assumptions to hold:
1. Meta will apply tough-enough processes to stop kids hacking these restrictions.
2. Parents will be able to tell when their children have hacked the barriers.
3. States will have enough resources to police the new format.
I'm thinking 0/3.
A steep climb and long oddsHe's right, of course. Meta's tools for blocking wily teens have not necessarily borne fruit. If anything, teens are turning away from social media of their own accord, but that doesn't mean millions aren't still on it and are often subjected to unhealthy content and social feedback.
Meta's decision to use AI to detect teen-like behavior and then automatically shift these accounts into the current teen account restrictions has worked for some, but how well does the AI really understand today's teens, and all the ways they can model adult behavior to get around the restrictions?
With this settlement, Meta will be cooking up stricter rules that may include some form of ID not just for the addition of teen accounts but some proof that people are who they say they are and that they're the parents of these newly onboarded teens.
Platform anonymity could take a hit or die altogether.
But as Dempsey noted, it's unclear if Meta can come up with enough ways to block resourceful teens.
His second question is also valid. So many parents are out of the loop when it comes to their children's and teens' online activities. Parents may be on Facebook but are less likely to casually swim in Reels and TikTok waters. Teens' comfort level with these systems far outstrips their parents'. I often wonder who will be leading whom as young people and their parents try to navigate these new restrictions.
Dempsey's last point is probably the ringer. I applaud all the states for joining together to pursue this one case. It's an amazing level of cooperation. Still, when it comes to laws and penalties, I'd be shocked if we saw even a whiff of consistency. That means the rules for policing, detecting, enforcing, and prosecuting those who skirt them will differ in every state. Worse yet, none will have the infrastructure or resources to keep track.
Sure, the rules across Instagram, Facebook, and other social media platforms that join will be consistent, but the tactics for circumventing them will be varied and no one — not the parents nor the states that originally brought the case — will know, that is until a teen reports harm or parents notice that their children are somehow engaging on social media with adults (or worse).
For Meta, these changes will alter their products, but I don't think that'll materially harm it or its business. It's a lot of money, but a manageable sum (the cost of one acquisition). For parents and teens, they will all struggle with the platform changes until their teens figure out workarounds, and parents again wonder why it's gotten so quiet in their kids' bedrooms.
- Ukraine claims Russia's newest drones can carry a full metric ton offshore
- Some unmanned vessels reach speeds of fifty-five knots at sea
- The BEK-1000 travels over five hundred kilometers before refuelling again
Ukraine's military intelligence agency has claimed Russia may now operate a wide range of unmanned vessels patrolling open waters undetected for extended periods.
A newly released catalog outlines multiple drone boat models capable of carrying explosives, torpedoes, or aerial reconnaissance equipment across long maritime distances.
Some of these platforms reportedly travel hundreds of kilometers and reach speeds nearing 55 knots without human monitoring or intervention.
A fleet built for range and payloadAmong the systems described, the Zefir and Orkan models reportedly travel up to 400 kilometers, hit speeds of 35 knots, and can carry roughly 400 kilograms of cargo.
A heavier design known as the BEK-1000 reportedly hauls one ton of cargo over distances beyond 500 kilometers at 40 knots.
Another vessel called Katran appears built specifically to launch first-person-view drones across distances ranging from 100 to 200 kilometers offshore.
The Murena-300s variant reportedly extends its range to 500 kilometers, carries an attached airborne drone rising 100 meters above the water, and can be fitted with torpedoes or first-person-view drones
The inventory also includes basic scouting and mapping boats alongside advanced combat platforms built specifically for coastal strikes and shipping attacks near contested waters.
Older designs and political pressureEarlier prototypes of these drone vessels trace back to 2014, when Russia trialed the Skanda across Lake Ladoga before tests near Sevastopol in 2019.
That early design offered a range of 150 kilometers and reached velocities no slower than 20 knots.
Subsequent versions such as the Iskatel can carry 600 kilograms at 25 knots while remaining at sea for seven days.
The Farvater catamaran covers roughly 250 kilometers at 32 knots, while the shorter Trezubets model reaches 30 knots powered by dual 320-horsepower motors.
The combat-focused Vizir-700 can carry 600 kilograms at speeds near 80 kilometers per hour, fitted with a forward mount for automatic weapons and rockets.
Collectively, these platforms indicate a rapidly diversifying fleet designed for both reconnaissance and offensive naval operations across contested maritime zones near Ukraine.
Against this backdrop, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has emphasized the need to intensify pressure inside Russian territory.
"We need to bring the war back to the territory of Russia," said Zelenskyy, speaking at a youth forum held on August 12 2026.
He also urged allied nations to reinforce air defense systems ahead of an anticipated autumn mobilization drive inside Russia following recent elections.
Ukrainian officials maintain that factories producing these vessels remain legitimate military objectives throughout the ongoing conflict, given their direct role in weapons production.
Independent verification of these claims remains limited, and analysts caution that some figures may reflect aspirational rather than operational capability.
Analysts also note that unmanned systems remain vulnerable to jamming and detection despite their expanding capabilities under increasingly sophisticated electronic warfare conditions.
Ukraine's disclosure appears designed to draw global attention toward Russia's expanding naval drone program before further escalation occurs at sea.
Via United24media
- Shanling Q2 unveiled as an iPod nano-alike upgrade for high-res music
- Fiio recently launched the Echo Nano, an original iPod shuffle-like player with a screen
- iPods are so nostalgic, they're still being actively advertised by resellers
Remember the iPod? Of course you do: nostalgia is so high that you still have tech journalists dusting off their iPod Classics, they're so popular on resellers that refurb site BackMarket is actively advertising them as though they're new, and popular audio brands are releasing doppelgangers that have even more features than the originals.
In recent weeks, both Shanling and Fiio have released products that look like iPods going through their goth stage, but they're not just cash-ins. These are devices that could end up on our best hi-res audio players list, with features and tools Apple never gave us.
These new releases aren't quite a surprise — and not just because Fiio released another iPod nano lookalike at the end of 2025. No, the non-smart low-tech revival is in full swing, and the proof is in the pudding.
We're seeing transportable SACD players, retro cassette players and blingy throwback turntables, and other such products launching with regularity. Buyers want distraction-free devices, especially ones which let them avoid streaming music, and manufacturers have delivered.
Let's get to know the Fiio and Shanling(Image credit: FiiO)The Fiio Echo Nano was unveiled early in August 2026. It costs $49.99 / £54.99 (about AU$110), a fair amount cheaper than the launch price of its Apple doppelganger: the stick-thin first-gen iPod Shuffle (which is admittedly now available through resale sites for a fraction of the price).
This mechanical-looking MP3 player has a physical scroll wheel for navigation, and an 0.91-inch display to see what you're selecting. And in true Fiio style, the real magic is on the inside — aside from a great DAC, there's space for a 256GB microSD card. The battery life reaches seven hours, and you can even use the device as a USB DAC, if you plug it into your PC or smartphone.
The Echo Nano weighs 33.5g, and as you can see from the picture, there are loads of color options available.
(Image credit: Shanling)If you've got more money burning a hole in your pocket, there's the Shanling Q2, which bears more than a passing resemblance to the third-gen iPod nano (albeit thicker, so there's a bit of iPod mini in there, too). It was unveiled in late August, for the sum of $269 (about £200, AU$400).
This adorable model supports in-demand file formats such as FLAC, WAV, ALAC and DSF, and has four built-in DAC chips for clarity and detail, handling music up to 768kHz/32-bit and DSD512. The device also supports Bluetooth output, via LDAC or aptX HD.
Unlike in iPods, there are two headphone jacks: a 4.4mm balanced one and a 3.5mm one. There's capacity for up to 2TB of music via microSD card, but you'll need to buy one separately, and there's no storage space in the device itself.
According to Shanling, the device lasts for 13.5 hours of listening, and weighs 82g. There's even a smartphone app which lets you control your music player from your mobile, although that's perhaps getting away from the spirit of having a dedicated player…
I know what you're asking: yes, the scroll wheel is a physical one that you can swipe around and around in circles, but the display is also a touchscreen if you'd rather just press on the options you'd like.
That's a lot of specs and features, but which is best? Well, the giant price difference probably gives away which has the thicker feature list. But if you want a personal recommendation, form factor is paramount for me: if you want a gadget that's lightweight and svelte, perhaps for low-tech days or for workouts, smaller is better than feature-rich, I think.
One of the most exciting areas in technology is quantum computing, but it's also one of the areas that's been among the least accessible, difficult to relate to the real world, and still largely buried away in the lab. To reach the point at which quantum computers become useful, there's still plenty of work to be done.
The race to a million qubitsThere are, and continue to be, different approaches to building quantum computers as well as all the components that power them. But the goal among all companies and institutions is the same: to build a machine that can outpace the fastest classical computer.
Quote of the dayThis article is part of TechRadar Pro's QOTD project to provide an insight into the minds of the brightest and most recognized figures in the technology industry today and in years gone by. Read the full series here.
The cofounder and CEO of quantum computing company PsiQuantum, Jeremy O'Brien, was sharing his vision behind his organization, essentially saying that his team had attempted to work against a forged consensus.
Rather than scaling up qubits from a handful to 100 or 1,000, he said at the time that he was "fanatical" about getting to a million-plus qubits – the point at which experts expect there to be a meaningful performance leap.
New architectures and approachesIntriguingly, O'Brien's comments came at a time when sheer scale and qubit count were the most sought-after elements in a quantum computer.
Since that point, so much research in the space has shifted not to the sheer size of the chips and how many qubits they can hold, but to building better qubits. Because quantum processors are so prone to failure, researchers have instead been trying to build processors with a few error-resistant qubits over millions of basic error-prone qubits.
The goal is still to achieve a quantum computer that can outpace classical machines, but experts expect that due to new breakthroughs, these quantum computers may need far fewer qubits than the millions we thought just a few years ago.
- Iveda’s GX10-F100 claims more than 150 minutes of airborne endurance
- The gasoline-powered aircraft carries up to 19 pounds of cargo during missions
- Semi-symmetrical carbon-fiber frame targets coastal and remote operating environments
Iveda has introduced a rotary-wing unmanned aircraft aimed at military logistics, reconnaissance, communications support, and other operations requiring longer airborne endurance.
The Arizona-based company says its GX10-F100 can remain airborne for more than 150 minutes, which it claims is five times the endurance of comparable electric quadcopters.
The aircraft uses gasoline propulsion, carries up to 19 pounds (9 kilograms) of cargo, and features a semi-symmetrical carbon-fiber airframe for operations along coastlines, in remote terrain, and in high winds.
A longer-endurance aircraftThe GX10-F100 measures 72 inches in length and has a rotor span of 72 inches, giving it dimensions comparable to compact helicopters.
A 1.43-gallon fuel tank supplies the engine, while the aircraft reaches speeds of 68 mph and has an advertised operational range of 19 miles.
Those figures give the aircraft a different operating profile from smaller electric systems, although actual endurance can vary with payload and conditions.
Iveda says its onboard autonomy software supports live video, route guidance, and object tracking without requiring continuous manual flight control.
The company also lists coastal patrols, emergency services, infrastructure inspection, public safety, and architectural work among possible applications for the platform.
“Mission-critical operators have been forced to work within the limitations of drone systems that were never designed for the environments they operate in. This new helicopter line was built to solve that problem,” said David Ly, CEO and founder of Iveda.
Procurement and future plansBeyond the military and security operations, this aircraft is also designed for emergency response and infrastructure work.
Therefore, approved emergency response agencies, infrastructure companies, and military pilots can purchase the aircraft for disaster management, inspection, and other operations.
The company says governments can obtain the aircraft through GlobalMed under a federal logistics arrangement, while qualified pilots may purchase units directly.
The GX10-F100 complies with federal procurement requirements for defense acquisitions and with agreements governing eligible commercial suppliers.
This means that not all governments will be eligible to purchase this device, as some are blacklisted for national security.
The GX10-F100 therefore enters a market where endurance, payload capacity, and procurement eligibility can matter alongside autonomy and sensor capabilities.
On the flip side, the gasoline engine introduces logistical considerations which are absent in many battery systems.
Iveda has not provided independent endurance testing showing whether the stated 150-minute figure remains achievable under maximum payload conditions.
This distinction matters because aircraft performance can change substantially when carrying heavier equipment, operating against strong winds, or conducting repeated autonomous missions.
Iveda also disclosed plans to convert retired full-size helicopters into autonomous aircraft, though such a project would represent a larger class of unmanned aviation than the GX10-F100.
For now, the GX10-F100 provides Iveda with an entry into military and government drone operations centered on longer flight duration.
Whether that endurance translates into a major battlefield advantage will depend on reliability, payload performance, autonomy, and actual operating conditions encountered.
Via The DroneFront